美国最高法院，上诉法院引用了2015年四所波士顿大学法学院
Beermann、Collins、Dogan和Lawson教授的奖学金在涉及从反垄断法到移民政策等问题的联邦案件中被引用。
Between May and July 2015, one Supreme Court justice and three federal appellate courts cited the scholarship of BU Law faculty in four separate cases, including the high-profile Jerusalem passport case。
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas referenced arguments made by 教授 加里·劳森。 Opinions issued by the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit cited the scholarship of 教授s 斯泰西多根 and 克里斯汀·柯林斯 in cases involving big pharma/antitrust law and citizenship transmission。 And the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit drew from work by 教授 杰克Beermann in a decision regarding President Obama’s executive action on immigration。
The direct impact of 波士顿大学法学院澳门威尼斯人注册网站奖学金 on modern-day judicial review is nothing new。 事实上，波士顿大学法学院60%的终身教授都曾在联邦法院的裁决中被引用。
阅读下文，了解更多澳门威尼斯人注册每位教员对这些最近案例的贡献。
克拉伦斯·托马斯大法官引用了加里·劳森教授在耶路撒冷护照案中的论文
齐沃托夫斯基诉克里案
Supreme Court of the United States
Decision – June 8, 2015
Work cited: 联邦权力的“适当”范围：对“横扫条款”的司法解释
In the recently decided 齐沃托夫斯基诉克里案, Justice Clarence Thomas referenced a constitutional interpretation of congressional power proposed in a paper coauthored by Philip S。 Beck法学教授加里·劳森。
The 13-year legal battle began when the US State Department declined the Zivotofsky family’s application to have Israel listed as the place of birth on their son’s passport。 虽然美国政府不承认任何国家对耶路撒冷拥有主权，但国会在2002年通过了一项法律，指示国务卿允许在耶路撒冷出生的美国公民根据要求将“以色列”列为出生地。
6月8日 六比三的决定在美国，最高法院推翻了这项法律。 他部分同意/部分反对托马斯法官同意多数人的意见，即国会不得强迫行政部门发布与官方外交政策相悖的文件。 But he also contends that the 2002 law goes beyond the jurisdiction granted to Congress by the “Necessary and Proper” clause (also known as the “Sweeping” Clause) of the Constitution。
Thomas’s interpretation 劳森教授和他的合著者帕特里夏·格兰杰（Patricia Granger）在1993年发表在《科学》杂志上的论文中提出了“横扫条款”的概念 杜克法律评论。
阅读全文Appellate Court Opinion Cites 教授 斯泰西多根’s Antitrust Article in Big Pharma Alzheimer’s Drug Case
纽约州诉阿特维斯案
US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decision – May 22, 2015
Work cited: 反垄断法与监管博弈
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently cited 一篇文章 coauthored by 教授 斯泰西多根 in the case of 纽约州诉阿特维斯案, which concerns an antitrust action brought by the State of New York against top-ten global pharmaceutical manufacturer Actavis。
该公司在其专利独占期即将结束时，几乎撤走了所有用于治疗阿尔茨海默病的每日两次的药物，迫使阿尔茨海默病患者改用每日一次的新专利药物。 纽约州辩称，Actavis的强制转换计划违反了反垄断法，因为每日一次的版本没有通用的替代品。
Ruling in favor of New York, the court cited Dogan and coauthor Mark Lemley’s paper, “反垄断法与监管博弈,” three times in 其决定, supporting the paper’s “产品跳跃”——将患者转换为新产品以逃避仿制药竞争——的概念违反了反垄断法。
教授 杰克Beermann Cited in Court Decision Blocking President Obama’s Executive Action on Immigration
德克萨斯州诉美国
US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Decision – May 26, 2015
Work cited: 国会政府
法官斯蒂芬·希金森引用 这是哈里·埃尔伍德·沃伦学者和法学教授2006年发表的一篇论文 杰克Beermann 在他对一起联邦移民案件的反对意见中， 德克萨斯州诉美国。
The central issue in the case was President Obama’s executive action on immigration, which would have directed the Department of Homeland Security to prioritize the deportation of undocumented felons while offering paths to citizenship for certain undocumented parents of US citizens and parents of legal permanent residents。 The Fifth Circuit’s three-judge panel upheld the lower court’s decision to block the executive order by a two-to-one vote, Judge Higginson being the lone dissenter。
Judge Higginson’s dissent draws from 教授 Beermann’s examination of the balance of federal powers in“国会政府。” He argues that the case should not have been adjudicated, but should have been left to the federal political branches “so that nationwide concerns and practicalities are weighed, Congress’s purse dispensed as it chooses, and the Executive refines its enforcement priorities or is compelled by Congress to do so。”
US Court of Appeals Cites 教授 克里斯汀·柯林斯’s Scholarship in Citizenship Transmission Case
莫拉莱斯-桑塔纳诉林奇案
US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decision – July 8, 2015
Article cited: Illegitimate Borders: 法律杂志 Citizenship and the Legal Construction of Family, Race, and Nation
教授 克里斯汀·柯林斯的 2014 耶鲁法学杂志 文章中, “Illegitimate Borders: 法律杂志 Citizenship and the Legal Construction of Family, Race, and Nation,” was cited multiple times by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in its July 8 opinion in 莫拉莱斯-桑塔纳诉林奇案。
此案的争议在于，一项规定美国澳门威尼斯人注册网站在外国出生的孩子是否为美国公民的法规是否符合宪法。 如果澳门威尼斯人注册网站没有结婚，并且只有父亲是美国公民，那么法律对公民身份的传递施加了许多限制，而只有母亲是美国公民时则不适用。
2014年秋天，在柯林斯的文章发表后不久，第二巡回上诉法院命令当事各方引用这篇文章重新概述核心宪法问题，并最终得出结论，该雕像违反了宪法中的性别平等原则。