The Experts below are selected from a list of 30741 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Susan Boland - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

David K Suska - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • the Federal state standing gap how to enforce Federal Law in Federal court without article iii standing
    Social Science Research Network, 2017
    Co-Authors: Peter N Salib, David K Suska
    Abstract:

    You, too, can sue Donald Trump under the Emoluments Clause! Since Inauguration Day several Lawsuits have been filed against President Trump because of his refusal to divest certain assets. They assert that Trump’s business interests conflict with the Emoluments Clause of Article I. That arcane provision forbids certain Federal officials from accepting any perquisite or gain from a foreign monarch or state. The suits contend, for example, that a foreign dignitary’s booking of a room at the Trump International Hotel in Manhattan would constitute an unLawful emolument. Most commentators have thrown cold water on the prospect of any plaintiff prevailing. The trouble, most argue, is that plaintiffs cannot demonstrate a concrete and particularized injury from any putative violation of the Emoluments Clause. In legalese, they lack Article III standing. What no one has suggested is that plaintiffs do not need Article III standing to enforce the Emoluments Clause against Trump. Everyone assumes that these suits must live or die under Federal standing doctrine. But, as we argue, Article III standing is essentially never a barrier to enforcing Federal Law. Indeed, plaintiffs may even win a merits ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court without ever possessing the elements of Article III standing. If we are right, it is a big deal. Federal standing doctrine is understood to restrain Federal courts’ from performing an advisory function. It also checks congressional power, preserving the Executive’s constitutional prerogative to enforce Federal Law. We challenge this received wisdom and argue that the Supreme Court has — perhaps unwittingly — created a route by which litigants may circumvent Article III’s standing requirements, diminishing the doctrine’s force. This has implications far beyond the Emoluments Clause; many constitutional and statutory provisions have long been thought effectively unenforceable because of the strictures of Article III standing. This Article charts the course that no-standing plaintiffs may follow to enforce Federal Law and land in the U.S. Supreme Court. It also introduces a new term to the legal lexicon: the Federal–State Standing Gap. This term describes the space between Article III standing doctrine and the comparatively lax doctrine of many states. We did not discover this space; everyone who has taken or taught a course on Federal jurisdiction knows about it. But we do think it has gone underappreciated. And that is the gap in the literature that this Article begins to fill.

Vladimir Yuzhakov - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

Igor Francetic - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • e health in switzerland the laborious adoption of the Federal Law on electronic health records ehr and health information exchange hie networks
    Health Policy, 2017
    Co-Authors: Carlo De Pietro, Igor Francetic
    Abstract:

    Within the framework of a broader e-health strategy launched a decade ago, in 2015 Switzerland passed a new Federal Law on patients’ electronic health records (EHR). The reform requires hospitals to adopt interoperable EHRs to facilitate data sharing and cooperation among healthcare providers, ultimately contributing to improvements in quality of care and efficiency in the health system. Adoption is voluntary for ambulatories and private practices, that may however be pushed towards EHRs by patients. The latter have complete discretion in the choice of the health information to share. Moreover, careful attention is given to data security issues. Despite good intentions, the high institutional and organisational fragmentation of the Swiss healthcare system, as well as the lack of full agreement with stakeholders on some critical points of the reform, slowed the process of adoption of the Law. In particular, pilot projects made clear that the participation of ambulatories is doomed to be low unless appropriate incentives are put in place. Moreover, most stakeholders point at the strategy proposed to finance technical implementation and management of EHRs as a major drawback. After two years of intense preparatory work, the Law entered into force in April 2017.

Arie Freiberg - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Sentencing: State and Federal Law in Victoria
    1999
    Co-Authors: Richard G Fox, Arie Freiberg
    Abstract:

    Fox and Freiberg have written a comprehensive book on Federal and state Law relating to the sentencing of offenders in the state of Victoria, Australia. In providing such a guide, the authors have meticulously brought together a wealth of statutory and case Law material including the extensive recent amendments to the statutes regulating the sentencing powers of the criminal courts. Sentencing in Victoria: State and Federal Law is a significant advance in the jurisprudence of sentencing in Australia and will be an essential reference for those in the field.