Oxford University Press Launches New Online Law Products

Oxford University Press (OUP) has launched a number of new online products.

Please see:

Oxford University Press Announces a New Age in Law Publishing Online: Oxford University Press is launching three brand new products and re-launching 3 existing products on Oxford Law Online

Hat tip to ResourceShelf.com.

Cross-posted at Law Library Blog.

United Nationas Human Rights Council (UNHRC): Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression

The subject report of the UNHRC is here.
From the report’s introduction:

1. The present report analyses the implications of States’ surveillance of communications for the exercise of the human rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression. While considering the impact of significant technological advances in communications, the report underlines the urgent need to further study new modalities of surveillance and to revise national laws regulating these practices in line with human rights standards.

Hat tip to DocuTicker.com.

Cross-posted at Law Library Blog.

ProPublica Launches Online, Free Service for Searching U.S. Tax Returns of Non-Profits

According to The Chronicle of Philanthropy, ProPublica“an independent, non-profit newsroom that produces investigative journalism in the public interest” — has begun an online, free service for searching the U.S. tax returns of over 600,000 non-profit organizations:

ProPublica Launches Online Tool to Search Nonprofit Tax Forms

Please see:
ProPublica’s Nonprofit Explorer

Hat tip to ResourceShelf.

Cross-posted at Law Library Blog.

New Article: “Are Elite Journals Declining?”

This interesting piece by Canadian and Estonian scholars is here.

The abstract reads:

Previous work indicates that over the past 20 years, the highest quality work have been published in an increasingly diverse and larger group of journals. In this paper we examine whether this diversification has also affected the handful of elite journals that are traditionally considered to be the best. We examine citation patterns over the past 40 years of 7 long-standing traditionally elite journals and 6 journals that have been increasing in importance over the past 20 years. To be among the top 5% or 1% cited papers, papers now need about twice as many citations as they did 40 years ago. Since the late 1980s and early 1990s elite journals have been publishing a decreasing proportion of these top cited papers. This also applies to the two journals that are typically considered as the top venues and often used as bibliometric indicators of “excellence”, Science and Nature. On the other hand, several new and established journals are publishing an increasing proportion of most cited papers. These changes bring new challenges and opportunities for all parties. Journals can enact policies to increase or maintain their relative position in the journal hierarchy. Researchers now have the option to publish in more diverse venues knowing that their work can still reach the same audiences. Finally, evaluators and administrators need to know that although there will always be a certain prestige associated with publishing in “elite” journals, journal hierarchies are in constant flux so inclusion of journals into this group is not permanent.

Hat tip to DocuTicker.com.

Cross-posted at Law Library Blog.

“Judges and Their Papers” by Kathryn A. Watts, Univ. of Washington School of Law — Who should own a federal judge’s papers?

University of Washington (UW) School of Law Associate Professor Kathryn A. Watt’s subject, thought-provoking paper is here.

Hat tip to Law Librarian Blog.

Cross-posted at Law Library Blog.

A Helpful Resource (that’s been around a while): AALL’s Legislative Action Center

A helpful resource on current U.S. federal and state legislative activity — which has been around a while (since October 2011, actually, per this posting) — is the American Association of Law Libraries’ (AALL’s):

Legislative Action Center (LAC)

Content at the LAC frequently includes convenient “Advocacy One-Pagers” — see, for example:

  • here ["Urge your Representative to Support the Access to Congressionally Mandated Reports Act (H.R. 1380)], &
  • here [PDF of Advocacy One-Pager "Access to Congressionally Mandated Reports Act"]

The LAC is helpfully searchable too, per the following layout:

Search within Government Relations

[Advanced Search]

Cross-posted on Legal Research Plus.

Cross-posted on Law Library Blog.

New Congressional Research Service (CRS) Report on the Recess Appointment Power

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) recently released a new report
The Recess Appointment Power After Noel Canning v. NLRB: Constitutional Implications
By Todd Garvey, Legislative Attorney
&
David H. Carpenter, Legislative Attorney
March 27, 2013 (R43030)

The summary reads as follows:

Under the Appointments Clause, the President is empowered to nominate and appoint principal officers of the United States, but only with the advice and consent of the Senate. In addition to this general appointment authority, the Recess Appointments Clause permits the President to make temporary appointments, without Senate approval, during periods in which the Senate is not in session. On January 4, 2012, while the Senate was holding periodic “pro forma” sessions, President Obama invoked his recess appointment power and unilaterally appointed Richard Cordray as Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and Terrence F. Flynn, Sharon Block, and Richard F. Griffin Jr. as Members of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

The President’s recess appointments were ultimately challenged by parties affected by actions taken by the appointed officials, and on January 25, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) became the first court to evaluate the merits of the President’s appointments. In a broad decision entitled Noel Canning v. National Labor Relations Board, the court invalidated the appointment of all three NLRB Board Members. In reaching its decision, the D.C. Circuit concluded that under the Recess Appointments Clause, the President may only make recess appointments during a formal intersession recess (a recess between the end of one session of Congress and the start of another), and only to fill those vacancies that arose during the intersession recess in which the appointment was made.

Although the D.C. Circuit’s actual order in Noel Canning directly applies only to the NLRB’s authority to undertake the single action at issue in the case, the court’s interpretation of the President’s recess appointment authority could have a substantial impact on the future division of power between the President and Congress in the filling of vacancies. If affirmed by the Supreme Court, the likely effect of the reasoning adopted in Noel Canning would be a shift toward increased Senate control over the appointment of government officials and a decrease in the frequency of presidential recess appointments.

This report begins with a general legal overview of the Recess Appointments Clause and a discussion of applicable case law that existed prior to the D.C. Circuit’s decision in Noel Canning. The report then analyzes the Noel Canning opinion and evaluates the impact the case could have on the roles of the President and Congress in the appointments context. A companion CRS report, Practical Implications of Noel Canning on the NLRB and CFPB, provides a detailed discussion of the impact the Noel Canning decision may have on the functioning of the NLRB and the CFPB.

For some earlier posts on the recess appointment power, please see here and here.

Cross-posted in Law Library Blog.

Legislative Research & Intent LLC (LRI) Launches “Online Store” Research

Legislative Research & Intent LLC (LRI) has launched an

“Online Store”

and California legislative history and legislative intent research is reportedly available to academic patrons (law school faculty and students) at no charge.

Content is described as follows:

  • 1943-2006
    Every regular session California bill that became law from 1943 through 2006 is covered in this part of our unique, groundbreaking database. No other service offers this comprehensive coverage. While the number of available files varies per bill, we provide one or more sources of legislative history for every bill that passed.
  • 2007-Current
    Selected, regular session California bills that became law from 2007 to current are covered in this part of our database. Because it consists of files from our precompiled legislative histories, multiple files are provided for each bill. If your bill is not found, consider our Custom or Core reports, or contact us.

Carolina Rose

Carolina C. Rose, J.D., President
Legislative Research & Intent LLC
1107 9th Street, Suite 220
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 442-7660 Phone
(800) 530-7613 Toll Free
(916) 442-1529 Fax
Carolina.Rose@lrihistory.com
www.lrihistory.com

has very kindly provided the following updated information about LRI’s offer here.

Cross-posted on Law Library Blog.

LLRX.com Posts “Statistics Resources and Big Data on the Internet 2013″

LLRX.com has posted

Statistics Resources and Big Data on the Internet 2013

Hat tip to ResourceShelf.com.

Cross-posted on Law Library Blog.

New Congressional Research Service (CRS) Report: “The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA): Background and Policy Options for the 113th Congress”

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) earlier this month released and posted a valuable new Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)-related report:

The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA): Background and Policy Options for the 113th Congress
By Wendy Ginsberg, Analyst in American National Government
March 8, 2013
R41933

Hat tip to Law Librarian Blog.

Cross-posted on Law Library Blog.