The Pacific Legal Foundation, a major libertarian-leaning public interest firm, is sponsoring two upcoming symposia and soliciting contributions from legal scholars and other experts. The first concerns regulatory revenues. Here is the announcement and information on how to submit a proposal:
Pacific Legal Foundation and George Mason University Journal of law, economics and politics seek papers for a symposium titled “Too Far: Imagining the Future of Regulatory Takings,” to be held at George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School in October 2024.
A century ago, Oliver Wendell Holmes, speaking on behalf of the Supreme Court, assured us that “[t]The general rule, at least, is that, although property may be regulated up to a certain point, if the regulation goes too far it will be recognized as an appropriation.” Over the next hundred years, courts have struggled to draw the line by defining “too far.” Some still question whether such a line should exist. As Justice Clarence Thomas recently said: “If there is no normative take, we should say so. And if there is, we should clarify when it will occur.”
Applicable research topics
The Pacific Legal Foundation is looking for papers that offer new ideas on how to make “too far” fairer, more concrete, and more principled. We welcome proposals that look at this issue from legal, economic, political, historical and related angles, including empirical and non-empirical approaches.
Fee, deadlines and submission details
Please submit a short proposal describing your thesis and how your article will contribute to the legal issues described above. Proposals must be submitted by April 15, 2024, to Ethan Blevins at eblevins@pacificlegal.org.
Authors of accepted papers will receive an honorarium of $2,500. Additionally, the papers will be presented at a symposium in October 2024 and published in a special edition of the Journal of law, economics and politics.
Contact details
For questions regarding the call for papers, contact Ethan Blevins at eblevins@pacificlegal.org.
The second concerns the Antiquities Act:
The Pacific Legal Foundation is seeking documents for a research roundtable on “Response to the Chief Justice’s Inquiry on the Antiquities Act” to be held this July at our offices in Arlington, Virginia.
Here is a summary of the underlying law, and the following is an excerpt from the call for documents on the PLF website:
In a 2021 statement accompanying the Supreme Court’s order denying certiorari in Massachusetts Lobstermen’s Association v. Raimondo, Chief Justice John Roberts made an open call for “other and better opportunities” to consider “what standard could guide our review of the President’s actions” under the Antiquities Act. The Chief Justice’s call to the stand has now expired.
We seek documents that respond to Chief Justice Roberts’ call.
- We seek ideas that directly answer the question posed by Chief Justice Roberts: “What standard might guide [the Court’s] review of the President’s actions” under the Antiquities Law?
- Between hard review and no review, there must be an alternative. We are seeking proposed frameworks to fill this crucial gap in the law.
- Is it possible to make sense of the law’s “minimum compatible area” requirement without upsetting the stare decisis (i.e., overturning Franklin v. Massachusetts and/or Dalton v. Spectre)?
- Is it possible to derive a new standard of review of presidential authority from early 20th century jurisprudence (pre-Administrative Procedure Law)?
- Do petition requirements play a role in judicial review of the president’s statutory powers, as supported by at least one circuit court?
- Is it possible to distil some of the “hard-look” factors into an appropriate framework for judicial review of the president’s statutory powers?
- In setting a standard of review for the president’s statutory authority, it is important that the Antiquities Act is a national statute and that the president cannot rely on any independent authority under Article II (as the president can do for delegations involving foreign policy) ?
- Could major questions of the Court or nondelegation doctrines provide a framework for judicial review of the president’s statutory powers under the Antiquities Act?
Fee, deadlines and submission details
Please submit a short research proposal describing your thesis or research questions and your intended methodology. Proposals are due by March 25 to Will Yeatman at wyeatman@pacificlegal.org.
Authors of accepted papers will receive a $2,500 honorarium and will further benefit from feedback on their research during the workshop. The documents will be published on the PLF website.
I attended a previous PLF symposium and gained many useful insights and feedback for my article “The Constitutional Case Against Exclusionary Zoning” (co-authored with Joshua Braver), which has since been accepted by the Texas law review.
NOTE: My wife, Alison Somin, is an attorney at PLF, but is not involved in evaluating proposals for any of these symposiums. Nor am I doing it myself. Please send proposals to the people above, not to me.