Law According To A King

The commerce clause of the United States Constitution is one of its most powerful and least understood. As the third clause of Art.1 s.8 of the Constitution, it provides Congress with the power "to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes," and for the purposes of this discussion, we will be looking mainly at interstate commerce, as this is the part that impacts most on the domestic agendas of (primarily Democratic) presidents throughout the centuries. Before we dive into the case law on this clause, it is essential first to understand the three distinct eras of jurisprudence, where we see the commerce clause interpreted restrictively, then expand rapidly after the New Deal, before regressing to its position a century earlier as the 1990s draw to a close. Before the New Deal During this era, several tests were developed to determine when the Court would intervene in the commerce clause.  The 'substantial ec...

Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1988] 1 AC 53 was a landmark case in establishing limits on third party liability for tortious negligence. The estate of Hill, the final victim of Peter Sutcliffe (better known as the Yorkshire Ripper), sued the Chief Constable of West Yorkshire police, claiming that their failure to apprehend the killer sooner negligently caused her death. Anyone with some knowledge of the Yorkshire Ripper case is aware of the disastrous investigation led by the police, which failed time-and-time-again to catch Sutcliffe, who they had interviewed nine times in connection with the murders. The 1982 Byford report heavily criticised the police for what was, at the time, the largest manhunt in British history – they had focussed too heavily on hoax confessional tapes and letters (against the advice of experts and victims alike) and their poor filing system meant that officers were left underprepared and key connections were not made linking evidence to Sutcl...

The US Supreme Court is likely better known to readers than any other court on the planet. Its hyper-politicised confirmation hearings, nation-changing judgments, and larger-than-life characters have thrown the Court to the forefront of national and international news and consciousness. Whereas in the UK, gay marriage could be attributed to the support of the Prime Minister David Cameron and his coalition partners in the Liberal Democrats, in the US, it is attributed to the Court's 'liberal' wing and the swing-Justice Kennedy - just one example of the difference between the two systems. Nevertheless, whilst Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Brett Kavanaugh may have captured your attention, there are still seven more judges on the Court that you need to know. To illustrate their approach to constitutional interpretation, I have included a very brief analysis of their positions on four key issues: abortion rights, LGBTQ+ rights, executive power, and campaign finance reform. ...

The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom is far less known than the US Supreme Court, and is far less politicised in its appointment mechanisms, and so the Justices who make the most important judicial decisions in the country are often forgotten, even by law students. As such, I have written brief biographies of the twelve Justices who make up the Supreme Court, and listed some of their more famous judgments, which I urge you to read to gain an understanding of how they think and their judicial philosophies. So, here goes...  Lady Brenda Hale  Hale became President of the Supreme Court in September 2017, succeeding Lord Neuberger, after a distinguished career as a judge and an academic. She sat on the High Court for five years, the Court of Appeal for a further five, and then joined the House of Lords Judicial Committee (the precursor to the Supreme Court) in 2004.  A Cambridge graduate, Hale mostly practised in family and social welfare law, teaching these su...

Yesterday, the UK Supreme Court ruled on what is possibly the most important constitutional law case in a generation. In the case of R (Miller) v Prime Minister [2019] UKSC 41, the court handed down a judgment that we will be seeing the reverberations of for decades to come. It is an intensely political case, but the court were keen to set aside partisanship and rule simply on the law as they saw it. You may recall, a few weeks ago when Johnson announced the prorogation of Parliament, I wrote a post saying that it was a legal exercise of the prerogative powers, but evidently I was too hasty in making this judgment. Lady Hale, the President of the court, handed down a unanimous judgment that declared the prorogation was illegal, and thus, in effect, didn't happen at all. But let's look at how they came to this decision, and the key parts of their judgment... For some background: The UK decided in a referendum in 2016 to leave the EU. Whilst the result was not legally bind...

Before Parliament was prorogued, MPs from across the House passed the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019, which requires the Prime Minister to request an extension to the art.50 deadline in order to prevent a 'no deal' Brexit. Interestingly, there have been rumours that the government is seeking to challenge this law in court, interpret it as broadly as possible, or ignore it entirely. Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab has been reported as saying he will "test to the limit" this new legislation in order to ensure that the UK leaves the EU by the October 31st deadline, as reported by the Daily Mail .  But how can you test legislation? Dicey wrote that an Act of Parliament, validly passed, cannot be brought into question in any court, but that still allows our judges to interpret legislation, even perhaps to the extent of ignoring its main purpose.  There are three main different types of statutory interpretation: Literal, 'The Golden Rule', a...

First of all, I have never studied intellectual property law, particularly US intellectual property law, and so I have dealt with this from a broad perspective as if it was set in the UK. Anyway, here goes... If you haven't heard of the Taylor Swift drama with Scooter Braun - get up to date on pop culture. Swift signed a contract with Big Machine Records in 2004 at the age of 15 for, presumably, 6 records before the contract could be renewed. She left BMR after her sixth album, reputation, and signed with a new record company to release her seventh album, Lover. BMR retain ownership of her masters, and the company has since been sold to Scooter Braun, who isn't exactly Swift's friend, and Swift has publicly denounced Braun and his business ethics and behaviour, and tried to get her masters back. This issue has a few legal implications in contract and intellectual property, and these will be dealt with in turn. What are Taylor Swift's options? Contract Swift sign...