Prof. Chemerinsky is out with a new book that (per John McGinnis's review in today's WSJ) proposes letting plaintiffs pick either a federal or a state forum, whichever they think will prove most favorable, to enforce their rights under federal law. He's not crazy about knocking out state law through pre-emption, either. More: Althouse.
- Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett
- Full Federal Pre-emption of State Consumer Protection Food Suits
- Standard Fire v. Knowles
- Copland on magnet courts
- Cert grant in The Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Knowles
- More on Bartlett v. Mutual Pharm.
- Around the web, May 11
- First Circuit: juries can second-guess FDA "safe and effective" finding
- Around the web, May 1
- Speaking of upside-down premption: Arizona v. United States
- EEOC "guidance" on use of conviction records
- Update on California foreign policy efforts
- Greg Conko: Can brand makers be sued for generic drug injuries?
- Romney and self-deporting
- Madison County's controversial asbestos litigation system under fire yet again