译者 | 吕秋彤 WUSTL LL.M.
一审 | 王子安 香港城市大学J.D.
二审 | 李雨歆 杜伦 LLB/PhD
编辑 | 遐舟，西北LL.M.
·中  美  法  律  评  论·
01
ARTICLE
Law Within Congress
Jonathan S. Gould
LEGISLATION • STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
文章
题目：国会中的法律
作者：Jonathan S. Gould
分类：立法·法律解释
摘要
ABSTRACT.
Procedure has long shaped how Congress operates. Procedural battles have been central to legislative contestation about civil rights, the welfare state, tax policy, and presidential impeachments. In these instances and many others, procedural disputes often turn not on written rules but on parliamentary precedents. These precedents constitute a hidden system of law that has received little scholarly attention, despite being critical to shaping what goes on in Congress.
长期以来，程序一直影响着国会的运作方式。程序之争一直是有关民权、福利国家、税收政策和总统弹劾等立法争议的核心。在此些情况或其他情况下，程序争议往往不取决于书面规定，而是取决于议会先例。这些先例对国会每日运作有至关重要的影响，且这些先例构成了一个隐藏的法律体系，但却鲜少受到学术界的关注。
This Article explores parliamentary precedent in Congress. Parliamentary precedent mostly resembles judicial precedent: both are common-law systems that rely on the arguments of adversarial parties. But the two systems differ in key respects. Parliamentary decision-making employs an especially strong form of stare decisis, is minimalist in the extreme, and relies freely on legislative purpose and legislative history as tools of interpretation.
本文探讨了国会的议会先例。议会先例大多类似于司法判例：两者都是依赖对抗双方论证的普通法制度。但这两个制度在关键方面有所不同，议会决策采用一种极强的遵循先例的方式，这是极致的温和改良主义，并且自由地依赖立法目的和立法历史作为法律解释的工具。
These seemingly legal dynamics play out in the shadow of congressional politics. Understanding parliamentary precedent requires understanding the institutional positions of the parliamentarians, the nonpartisan officials who resolve procedural disputes. 
这些看似合法的国会动态实则笼罩在国会政治的阴影下。理解议会先例需要理解解决程序纠纷的无党派议员的制度立场。
The parliamentarians’ distinctive jurisprudence reflects their tenuous positions—namely, that they can be removed, overruled, or circumvented by the majority party. Drawing on novel interviews with parliamentarians and the legislative staffers who work closely with them, this Article illuminates the intersection of law and politics in the making of parliamentary precedent.
议员们独特的先例反映了他们立场的不坚定，更具体地说，议员们的立场可以被多数党改变、推翻或规避。本文通过对议员及与他们密切合作的立法人员的最新采访，阐明了在制定议会先例过程中法律与政治是如何交叉的。
A better understanding of parliamentary precedent contributes to our understanding of how Congress operates and the fault lines that emerge in an age of polarization and hardball. These dynamics also hold lessons for public law more broadly. First, the parliamentarians’ efforts to protect themselves from the political fray shed light on efforts by other governmental decision-makers (in all three branches) to do the same. Second, the development of parliamentary precedent provides insight into the relationships between positive law and common law and between law and politics. Third, understanding parliamentary precedent, like understanding other elements of Congress’s internal workings, can inform statutory interpretation.
更加深入地理解议会先例，有助于我们了解国会的运作方式，以及在两极分化和强硬时代出现的断层线。这些国会动态也广泛地为公法提供了经验教训。首先，议员们为保护自己免受政治斗争所干扰做的努力，揭示了其他政府决策者（在立法、司法和行政中）也采用了同样的做法。第二，议会先例的发展提供了深入理解制定法和普通法之间以及法律与政治之间关系的视角。第三，了解议会先例就像了解国会内部运作的其他要素一样，可以为法律解释提供参考。
·中  美  法  律  评  论·
02
ARTICLE
Competition Wrongs
Nicolas Cornell
LEGAL PHILOSOPHY • TORTS
文章
题目：商业竞争中的不法行为
作者：Nicolas Cornell
分类：法哲学·侵权法
摘要
ABSTRACT.
In both philosophical and legal circles, it is typically assumed that wrongs depend upon having one’s rights violated. But within any market-based economy, market participants may be wronged by the conduct of other actors in the marketplace. Due to my illicit business tactics, you may lose profits, customers, employees, reputation, access to capital, or any number of other sources of value. This Article argues that such competition wrongs are an example of wrongs that arise without an underlying right, contrary to the typical philosophical and legal assumption. The Article thus draws upon various forms of business law to illustrate what is a conceptual point: that we can and do wrong one another in ways that do not involve violating our private entitlements but rather violating only public norms.
在哲学界和法律界，人们通常认为不法行为取决于个人权利受到侵害。但在任何市场经济中，市场参与者都可能因为市场其他活动者的行为而遭受侵害。因为一个人的非法商业策略，另一个人可能会失去利润、客户、员工、声誉、获得资本的机会，或任何其他价值的来源。本文认为，此类竞争不法行为与哲学界和法律界的典型假设相反，是一种不存在侵犯前置权利的不法行为。因此，本文利用各种形式的商法来说明一个概念性论点，即我们能够以不涉及侵犯个人权利而仅以违反公共规范的方式对其他人实施不法行为。
·中  美  法  律  评  论·
03
REVIEW
Examining the Case for Socialized Law
Myriam Gilles & Gary Friedman
CIVIL PROCEDURE • LEGAL ETHICS
评论
题目：公费法律的情况审查
作者：Myriam Gilles & Gary Friedman
分类：民事诉讼法·法律职业道德
摘要
ABSTRACT.
Most people would agree with Frederick Wilmot-Smith that the rich have no greater claim to justice than the poor. And yet, as Wilmot-Smith points out in his provocative book, Equal Justice: Fair Legal Systems in an Unfair World, our laissez-faire legal-services markets ensure sharply unequal justice for rich and poor. The prescription at the heart of Equal Justice is the deprivatization of markets for legal services. To realize the ideal of equal justice, Wilmot-Smith would equalize the legal talent available to all and replace the market system with a centralized regime loosely analogous to socialized medicine.
大多数人都会同意弗雷德里克·威尔莫特-史密斯（Frederick Wilmot-Smith）的观点，即穷人对正义地要求比富人更高。但正如威尔莫特-史密斯在其挑起争议的著作《平等正义：不公世界中的公平法律制度》（Equal Justice: Fair Legal Systems in an Unfair World）中指出的那样，我们自由放任的法律服务市场造成了贫富之间极度不平等的正义。实现平等正义核心办法就是剥夺法律服务市场。为实现公平正义的理想，威尔莫特-史密斯将平等对待所有可用法律人才，并以一种类似于公费医疗的中央集权制度取代现有的市场体系。
Wilmot-Smith’s bold ideas lend much-needed urgency to the discussion of legal reform. The moral grotesquerie of the free market—where wrongful conviction and other risks are effectively reserved for those unable to buy high-quality counsel—demands nothing less. The bold rethink offered by Equal Justice, and its potential to drive debate, should be cheered by classic liberals, whose own incremental prescriptions for reform have (perhaps predictably) failed to ignite political action.
威尔莫特-史密斯的大胆想法为法律改革的讨论提供了了亟需的紧迫性。将误判和其他风险实际上留给那些无力购买高质量律师服务的人，这就是自由市场的道德怪诞。平等正义引发的大胆反思和其推动辩论的潜力应该受到古典自由主义者们的欢呼，但他们自己渐进式改革的方法（也许可以预见）却无法引发政治行动。
And yet, classic liberals will reject the core thesis of Equal Justice. American liberalism is suspicious of zero-sum assumptions, where providing more resources for the poor entails limiting the resources available to the rich. The challenge for Wilmot-Smith is to make the case that inequality itself is attended by negative externalities separate and apart from the insufficiency of legal resources available to the poor. And Wilmot-Smith accepts this challenge, proffering several reasons to support his equalization imperative. Whether those grounds are persuasive is the primary focus of this Review.
但古典自由主义者会拒绝平等正义的核心论点。美国自由主义对“为穷人提供更多资源意味着限制富人的可用资源”这一零和假设产生怀疑。威尔莫特-史密斯面临的挑战是要证明不平等本身伴随的外部负面情况与穷人可用法律资源的不足是可以区分开来的。威尔莫特-史密斯接受了这一挑战，并提出了几个支持其均衡必要性的理由。这些理由是否具有说服力是本文的主要关注点。
·中  美  法  律  评  论·
04
NOTE
Unconstitutional Incarceration: Applying Strict Scrutiny to Criminal Sentences
Salil Dudani
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW • CRIMINAL LAW
评注
题目：违宪监禁：对刑事判决适用严格审查
作者：Salil Dudani
分类：宪法·刑法
摘要
ABSTRACT.
The deprivation of a fundamental right triggers strict scrutiny, and freedom from physical restraint is a fundamental right. Indeed, the right to be free from physical restraint lies at the very core of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause. In the contexts of pretrial detention and civil commitment, courts hold that due process prohibits unnecessary incarceration and requires the government to prove the necessity of incarceration in each individual case. Without explanation, courts do not apply these same principles to criminal sentences, which just as surely infringe on physical liberty. This Note argues that they should: there is no good reason to exempt sentences of confinement from the fundamental due-process right to freedom from physical restraint. If the government cannot prove that a criminal sentence is necessary to achieve a compelling state interest, the sentence is unconstitutional, even when it is purportedly required by a statute establishing a “mandatory minimum sentence” for the crime of conviction. The Note discusses how courts should implement this scrutiny and suggests that state courts should lead the way in doing so.
不受限制的人身自由是一项基本权利，而剥夺一项基本权利便会引发严格审查。实际上，人身权利不受限制是正当程序条款保护自由的核心。在审前拘留和民事关禁的情况下，法院认为，正当程序禁止不必要的监禁，并且要求政府在个案中证明监禁的必要性。法院在没有任何解释的情况下，不会将这些相同的原则适用到肯定会侵犯人身自由的刑事判刑中。本文认为，法院将监禁判刑从免受人身限制的基本正当程序权利中排除的这一做法没有充分理由。如果政府无法证明刑事判决保障了国家的必要利益，即使该判决是为定罪设立的“强制性最低刑罚”的法规所要求的，那么该判决也是违宪的。本文讨论了法院应如何实施这一审查，并建议州法院应当在实施此种做法中起示范作用。
·中  美  法  律  评  论·
05
NOTE
Rulemaking § 101
Brendan Costello
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY • ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
评注
题目：法规制定 § 101
作者：Brendan Costello
分类：知识产权·行政法
摘要
ABSTRACT.
The doctrine of subject-matter eligibility, as developed from 35 U.S.C. § 101, ensures that no one can stifle innovation by gaining a monopoly over an abstract idea, natural phenomenon, or law of nature. By excluding abstract ideas and laws of nature from patent protection, the doctrine ensures that no one can stifle innovation by gaining a monopoly over something as fundamental as the law of gravity. But recent decisions by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit have muddied the distinction between patentable and unpatentable subject matter. The resulting doctrinal confusion around subject-matter eligibility has prompted innovators to warn of serious consequences to investment and also spurred a notoriously ossified Congress to consider bipartisan reforms.
从35 U.S.C. § 101发展而来的客体适格性原则确保任何人都不能通过对抽象概念、自然现象或自然规律的垄断来扼杀创新。该原则通过将抽象概念和自然规律排除在专利保护之外，从而确保了没有人可以通过垄断万有引力定律此类的基本原理来扼杀创新。但最高法院和联邦巡回法院最近的判决混淆了专利适格客体与专利不适格客体的区别。由此产生了关于客体适格原则的混乱，促使创新者向将面临严重后果的投资者发出警告，也迫使以僵化著称的国会考虑两党改革的问题。
Enter the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Although this office lacks the formal authority to promulgate substantive rules on subject-matter eligibility, it has nonetheless broadened its use of guidance documents in that area as a means of addressing this crisis. This Note chronicles the USPTO’s use of these guidance documents across time, as well as how federal courts and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board have come to rely on them. It argues that these guidance documents, for all their regulatory utility, closely resemble legislative rules. Looking ahead, this Note encourages Congress to grant the USPTO rulemaking authority over patentability. Until it does so, the USPTO’s recent guidance threatens to push the boundaries of its current authority and run afoul of the Administrative Procedure Act.
以美国专利商标局（USPTO）为例。虽然该局缺乏颁布有关客体适格的实质性规则的正式权力，但该局已将扩大该方面指导文件的使用作为解决这一危机的手段。本文记录了美国专利商标局在不同时期对这些指导文件的使用，以及联邦法院和专利审查与上诉委员是如何依赖这些指导文件的。本文认为，就监管效用而言，这些指导文件虽与立法性法规十分相似。展望未来，本文鼓励国会授予美国专利商标局关于专利适格的规则制定权。在国会这样做之前，美国专利商标局近期的指导文件是突破其现有权力的界限的，并且是违反《行政程序法》的。
·中  美  法  律  评  论·
继续阅读
阅读原文
关键词
法院
in the
作者
目录
of the