Blog

Today we will discuss how you can own property in yourself.

The lecture notes are here.

Here is a recent article about the rights of publicity of college football players.

First, we’ll do the case of Vanna White v. Samsung Electronic America.

The dissental was authored by Judge Kozinski, a colorable character on the 9th Circuit.

Here is the image of robot Vanna White. Alas neither of these predictions of the year 2012 came true (well played, Mayans).

Samsung had a series of ads displaying their products in the 21s century.

To learn more about property rights in cell lines, I highly commend you read The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks. This article in Salon discusses it.

In 2013, the National Institute of Health reached an agreement to honor Lacks’s memory:

On Tuesday, the National Institute of Health announced it was, at long last, making good with Lacks’ family. Under a new agreement, Lack’s genome data will be accessible only to those who apply for and are granted permission. And two representatives of the Lacks family will serve on the NIH group responsible for reviewing biomedical researchers’ applications for controlled access to HeLa cells. Additionally, any researcher who uses that data will be asked to include an acknowledgement to the Lacks family in their publications.

The new understanding between the NIH and the Lacks family does not include any financial compensation for the family. The Lacks family hasn’t, and won’t, see a dime of the profits that came from the findings generated by HeLa cells. But this is a moral and ethical victory for a family long excluded from any acknowledgment and involvement in genetic research their matriarch made possible.

The lecture notes are here.

The Executive Power I – The Appointment and Removal Power

• The Executive Power – Article II (296-297).
• Notes (306-308).
• The “Removal” Power (348-351).
• Myers v. United States (351-366).
• Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (366-370).
• The Appointment Power (334-335).
• National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning

This video from the HBO Miniseries John Adams aptly summarizes the debate in the first Senate about whether Congress could place limitations on the removal power. Note the Senators explain that Adams’s vote only matters in case of a tie. Indeed the vote tied 10-10, and Adams cast the tie breaking vote as President of the Senate.

The majority opinion Myers v. United States was authored by Chief Justice William Howard Taft, who had previously served as President of the United States (the only person to serve in both offices). Taft is in the first row in the middle. One dissent was authored by Justice Brandeis (first row, first on the right), who was the first Jewish Justice appointed to the bench. The other dissent was penned by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes (first row, second from left). The other dissent was by Justice James McReynolds (first row, first from the left).

This is Justice Taft, who had the second-nicest mustache on the Court.

This is Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, who had the nicest mustache on the Court.

This is Justice Louis Brandeis.

Justice Joseph Story, who served on the Supreme Court from 1811-1845, published in 1833 his commentaries on the Constitution, that offered explanations for many constitutional questions.

This is Justice George Sutherland, one of the “Four Horsemen” who opposed President Roosevelt’s agenda, who authored Humphrey’s Executor v. United States.

This is William E.Humphrey, who served as the commissioner of the FTC, and who was removed by President Roosevelt.

This is the video of the Senate’s pro forma session on January 4, 2012. It begins at 1:30, and lasts roughly 30 seconds.