ACS Issue Briefs
See below all issue briefs since January 2017. Click here for past issue briefs.
The Doomed Constitutional Case Against Exclusive Representation
Since the Supreme Court’s 2018 decision in Janus v. AFSCME, anti-union forces have launched repeated constitutional attacks against labor law’s oldest and most foundational principle: exclusive representation, which holds that a union chosen by a majority of employees represents all of them during collective bargaining whether they are members of the union or not. But as Michael Oswalt, Associate Professor of Law at Northern Illinois University College of Law, explains in a new ACS Issue Brief, “the constitutional case against exclusive representation is flatly foreclosed by Supreme Court precedent and otherwise logically and doctrinally unpersuasive.”
Read MoreDemocratizing the Filibuster
The Senate filibuster’s effective requirement of 60 votes to pass legislation has posed a barrier to the enactment of laws protecting civil rights and workers’ rights and today, threatens to stall progress on the major challenges facing our nation. As a result, many have called for its elimination. In a new ACS Issue Brief, Jonathan Gould, Assistant Professor at Berkeley Law School, Kenneth Shepsle, George D. Markham Professor of Government at Harvard University, and Matthew Stephenson, Eli Goldston Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, propose an alternative approach to filibuster reform that would allow Senate majorities representing population majorities to effectively govern, while still serving as a check on minority rule.
Read MoreTo Decide or Not to Decide, That is the Question: The Supreme Court’s Amicus Appointment Practice When the Parties Agree
Almost every term in the last dozen, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case, usually involving the federal government, in which the Court has appointed a lawyer to argue the case as an amicus curiae because the parties agree that the lower court erred.” This lack of adversity presents the problem that there may not be the requisite “case or controversy” for judicial review.
Read MoreThe Rise of Second Amendment Sanctuaries
In the past year, more than 400 local governments—mostly counties—have adopted resolutions declaring themselves “Second Amendment sanctuaries.” These counties are co-opting immigration advocates’ use of sanctuary language to express support for gun rights, attack gun control legislation, and, in some cases, declare that no governmental resources or personnel will be used to enforce laws that “unconstitutionally” or “unnecessarily” infringe upon the Second Amendment rights of individuals to keep and bear arms.
Read More