[{"titre":"Canadian Association of Law Libraries Intervention in Upcoming Supreme Court of Canada Copyright Case","url":"https://www.callacbd.ca/CALL-Blog/12242053","pubDate":"Mon, 26 Oct 2026 07:55:47 +0100","source":"Canadian Association of Law Libraries / L'Association canadienne des bibliothèques de droit CALL/ACBD Blog","description":"By: Susannah Tredwell , Manager of Library Services at DLA Piper (Canada) LLP and James Bachmann , Instructional Librarian, Law Library, University of British Columbia Since 1988, when CALL/ACBD’s Copyright Committee was first set up, CALL/ACBD has advocated for its members' interests in the area of copyright. While the primary focus of CALL/ACBD’s copyright advocacy over the last few years has been on Crown copyright and primary law, CALL/ACBD has also made submissions about such areas as fair dealing and licencing. CALL/ACBD sees this work as not only supporting the needs of its members but also as serving the interests of access to justice as a whole. Continuing this work, on January 18, 2022 CALL/ACBD, along with Library Futures Institute, will act as an intervener in the Supreme Court of Canada case Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada, et al. v. Entertainment Software Association, et al.   Kim Nayyer, CALL/ACBD’s President, and Robert Janes of JFK Law   will be representing CALL/ACBD and Library Futures. This case addresses the question of how the concepts of “communication to the public by telecommunication” and “making available on demand” as used in the Copyright Act should be understood. The outcome of this case has the potential to significantly impact various library activities, including controlled digital lending and possibly even the simple use of hyperlinks, particularly in light of the limited scope of current library and education exceptions in the Copyright Act . CALL/ACBD's submitted that the court refrain from broadly construing the terms “making available” and “Communication to the Public by Telecommunication” and that s. 2.4(1.1) of the act (\"Communication to the public by telecommunication\")   does not need to be understood as creating a new right.   You can find CALL/ACBD’s intervener's factum at https://www.scc-csc.ca/WebDocuments-DocumentsWeb/39418/FM050_Intervener_Canadian-Association-Law-Libraries-et-al.pdf . The other factums in this case are available at https://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/af-ma-eng.aspx?cas=39418 .  CALL/ACBD has acted as an intervener at the Supreme Court of Canada on two other occasions. In Keatley Surveying Ltd. v. Teranet Inc. , which looked at Crown copyright, CALL/ACBD submitted   that “s. 12 Crown copyright does not extend to primary sources of law”. In York University v. Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency  (\"Access Copyright\"), CALL/ACBD submitted   that the SCC “should resist the temptation to modify or clarify the existing fair dealing test” stating that the existing test “is a flexible multifactorial test that allows libraries (and other institutions) to tailor access and appropriate copying policies that consider all relevant circumstances.” CALL/ACBD also made submissions to the 2018 review of the Copyright Act , R.S.C. 1985, c. C-42: one general submission   and <a","id":3241460},{"source":"Harvard Law Review","description":"Introduction The Supreme Court has wavered between two approaches to questions of executive power, which are often labeled institutional formalism and realism. Formalism treats... The post Some Realism About Constitutional Remedies appeared first on Harvard Law Review","id":2947231,"titre":"Some Realism About Constitutional Remedies","url":"https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-139/some-realism-about-constitutional-remedies/","pubDate":"Thu, 11 Jun 2026 08:30:31 +0200"},{"pubDate":"Mon, 11 May 2026 14:25:59 +0200","titre":"Habeas Class Actions","url":"https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-139/habeas-class-actions/","source":"Harvard Law Review","id":2877110,"description":"Can habeas corpus cases proceed as class actions? The Supreme Court has never squarely answered that question, even in cases where lower courts certified habeas classes. But the Trump Administration’s wholesale push to expel noncitizens has forced the question to the center of modern civil rights litigation. The post Habeas Class Actions appeared first on Harvard Law Review"},{"source":"Harvard Law Review","id":2750228,"description":"Religious freedom claimants have achieved tremendous success before the Supreme Court in recent years. Yet free exercise jurisprudence has bounced between skepticism and embrace... The post Liberty of Conscience, Political Process Theory, and Founding-Era Free Exercise appeared first on Harvard Law Review","pubDate":"Wed, 11 Mar 2026 08:26:08 +0100","url":"https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-139/liberty-of-conscience-political-process-theory-and-founding-era-free-exercise/","titre":"Liberty of Conscience, Political Process Theory, and Founding-Era Free Exercise"},{"id":2690610,"description":"The Supreme Court has long declared itself “supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution.” But that does not leave the state... The post People v. Thompson appeared first on Harvard Law Review","source":"Harvard Law Review","pubDate":"Thu, 12 Feb 2026 09:37:56 +0100","titre":"People v. Thompson","url":"https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-139/people-v-thompson/"},{"pubDate":"Tue, 13 Jan 2026 16:49:11 +0100","titre":"Dormancy and Delaware: An Emerging Threat to the Internal Affairs Doctrine","url":"https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-139/dormancy-and-delaware-an-emerging-threat-to-the-internal-affairs-doctrine/","source":"Harvard Law Review","id":2629444,"description":"A longstanding choice-of-law rule known as the internal affairs doctrine has predominated over corporate law matters in the United States since at least the 1860s. Acknowledged by the Supreme Court and generally followed by the states, the doctrine holds that the internal affairs of a corporation are governed by the law of the state where it is incorporated, notwithstanding where it may be headquartered. The post Dormancy and Delaware: An Emerging Threat to the Internal Affairs Doctrine appeared first on Harvard Law Review"},{"pubDate":"Fri, 12 Dec 2025 10:05:22 +0100","url":"https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-139/the-compatibility-of-substantive-canons-and-originalism/","titre":"The Compatibility of Substantive Canons and Originalism","id":2567812,"description":"In recent years, the Supreme Court has developed the “major questions doctrine,” an interpretive presumption that Congress must speak clearly before delegating to an... The post The Compatibility of Substantive Canons and Originalism appeared first on Harvard Law Review","source":"Harvard Law Review"},{"titre":"Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton","url":"https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-139/free-speech-coalition-inc-v-paxton/","pubDate":"Tue, 11 Nov 2025 16:06:46 +0100","source":"Harvard Law Review","description":"The Supreme Court has consistently confirmed that nonobscene sexually explicit content is First Amendment–protected expression. It has treated this sexually explicit content the same... The post Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton appeared first on Harvard Law Review","id":2497791},{"source":"Harvard Law Review","description":"A revolution has occurred in the law of religious freedom. At this point, the picture is reasonably clear. The Supreme Court has greatly expanded the scope of the Free Exercise Clause. The post The Structure of Religious Preference appeared first on Harvard Law Review","id":2497793,"url":"https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-139/the-structure-of-religious-preference/","titre":"The Structure of Religious Preference","pubDate":"Tue, 11 Nov 2025 16:06:46 +0100"},{"id":2175056,"description":"The Gardner presumption, also known as the pro-veteran canon, is a substantive canon of interpretation named after the Supreme Court case Brown v. Gardner. The canon instructs courts to construe ambiguous statutes concerning veterans’ benefits in favor of the veteran. While the canon today rarely acts as a tiebreaker, it has historically represented a strong congressional intent to care for veterans. The post Codify Gardner appeared first on Harvard Law Review","source":"Harvard Law Review","pubDate":"Thu, 12 Jun 2025 10:06:44 +0200","url":"https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-138/codify-gardner/","titre":"Codify Gardner"},{"id":2013068,"description":"Federal Trade Commission Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson today announced he has appointed Taylor C. Hoogendoorn as Deputy Director of the Bureau of Competition and Katherine White as Deputy Director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection.  Hoogendoorn is a talented litigator with expertise in a wide range of litigation, including antitrust, tort, contractual, energy, and intellectual property matters. Hoogendoorn joins the FTC after spending time in private practice at a law firm in Houston. He clerked for the Hon. Samuel A. Alito Jr. on the Supreme Court of the United States; the Hon. Gregory G. Katsas on the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit; and the Hon. J. Harvie Wilkinson III on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Hoogendoorn holds a J.D. from Yale Law School, where he won the Morris Tyler Moot Court of Appeals and served on the Yale Law Journal, and a B.B.A. with majors in Economics, Finance, Mathematics, and Business Fellows from Baylor University. While at Baylor, he served on the university’s Board of Regents and graduated as the top-ranked student in the Hankamer School of Business. White is an experienced privacy and consumer protection attorney, with a career in both government service and private practice. White has deep experience in all aspects of consumer protection law and has led complex investigations relating to privacy, data security, and credit reporting. Most recently, White was a partner at a law firm. Prior to joining the firm, White spent nearly 15 years at the FTC and served in a variety of roles, including as an Attorney Advisor to former Commissioner Noah Phillips during the first Trump administration, Counsel to the Director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection, and as a senior attorney in the Division of Privacy and Identity Protection. In addition, White worked on detail for the Senate Commerce Committee where she provided advice on a range of consumer protection issues. She is a graduate of the George Washington University Law School and the University of","source":"Federal Trade Commission Concurrence communiqués","pubDate":"Thu, 27 Mar 2025 09:50:56 +0100","titre":"FTC Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson Appoints Deputy Directors of the Bureaus of Competition and Consumer Protection","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2025/03/ftc-chairman-andrew-n-ferguson-appoints-deputy-directors-bureaus-competition-consumer-protection"},{"id":1995001,"description":"How to regulate speech on social media platforms has been the subject of vigorous debate and recent Supreme Court opinions. In particular, government agencies... The post People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Tabak appeared first on Harvard Law Review","source":"Harvard Law Review","pubDate":"Thu, 20 Mar 2025 10:53:26 +0100","url":"https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-138/people-for-the-ethical-treatment-of-animals-v-tabak-109-f-4th-627-d-c-cir-2024/","titre":"People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Tabak"},{"description":"Federal Trade Commission Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson has appointed Daniel Guarnera as Director of the Bureau of Competition. “I am thrilled Dan is joining the FTC as Director of the Bureau of Competition,” said Chairman Ferguson. “He has tremendous experience litigating antitrust cases in critical markets, including agriculture and Big Tech. Few lawyers in America have as much experience taking on Big Tech as Dan. He also has experience using the antitrust laws to promote competition in labor and healthcare markets—two of my top priorities. Under Dan’s leadership, the Bureau of Competition will do its part to fulfill President Trump’s promise to lower the cost of living for all Americans, to promote innovation, and to protect the interests of American workers.” Guarnera joins the Commission from the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division, where he served as chief of the Civil Conduct Task Force. During his tenure, the task force filed monopolization suits against Google and Apple, as well as multiple cases involving agriculture and labor markets. Prior to his role as chief, Guarnera participated in conduct and merger matters in industries such as transportation, healthcare, and technology, including as a trial attorney and counsel to the Assistant Attorney General of the Antitrust Division during the first Trump Administration. He previously served as special counsel to U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley during the confirmation of President Trump’s Supreme Court appointee, Justice Neil Gorsuch. He also worked in private practice and clerked for the Honorable Diane S. Sykes of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Guarnera earned bachelor’s degrees in political science and French-European studies from American University and earned law and business administration degrees from the University of Virginia. The Commission vote approving Guarnera’s appointment as Director of the Bureau of Competition was","id":1905770,"source":"Federal Trade Commission Concurrence communiqués","titre":"FTC Chairman Ferguson Appoints Daniel Guarnera as Director of Bureau of Competition","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2025/02/ftc-chairman-ferguson-appoints-daniel-guarnera-director-bureau-competition","pubDate":"Tue, 11 Feb 2025 09:45:58 +0100"}]