Law Commons^™

No Child Left Behind Bars: Applying The Principles Of Strict Scrutiny When Sentencing Juveniles Tried As Adults, Max Chu

William & Mary Law Review

The Commonwealth of Virginia was the first in the nation to pass legislation that provides judges with the discretion to veer away from the mandatory minimum sentence and to impose trauma-informed and age-appropriate sentences for juvenile offenders convicted of felonies and tried as adults. Although Virginia’s new law, House Bill 744 (HB 744), is a pioneering step in the right direction, this Note argues that the law may now provide judges with too much discretion. In other words, HB 744 alone, without more guidance, does not go far enough to protect the rights of juvenile offenders.

Therefore, this Note proposes …

No Time To Waste: Can A State Prevent Nuclear Waste Transportation Within Its Borders Once Yucca Mountain Becomes Operational?, Ryan Franklin

William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review

Following the drop of the first atomic bomb over Hiroshima on August 6th, 1945, the United States seriously began contemplating the use of atomic energy not just as a weapon, but as an efficient energy source. President Eisenhower delivered his “Atoms for Peace” speech in front of the United Nations eight years later, effectively launching a massive American campaign to build numerous nuclear power plants to generate enough clean energy to power the entire nation. As these plants were being constructed, however, policymakers and lawmakers who were champions of this endeavor failed to consider the problem of nuclear waste generated …

Manning, Powell, And The Habitual Misunderstanding Of Addiction, Matt Dean

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

Bryan Manning, a homeless resident of Roanoke, Virginia, has been arrested and prosecuted more than thirty times for drinking or possessing alcohol. Although alcohol is generally legal in Virginia, Mr. Manning was forbidden for many years to “possess” it, “consume” it, or “purchase” it. On at least one occasion, police arrested him merely for “smelling like alcohol.” On another occasion, he was arrested because he happened to be shopping in a Walmart where alcoholic beverages were sold. For decades, Virginia law permitted a state circuit court to issue a civil order declaring an individual to be “an habitual drunkard” …

Law School News: Mike Andrews '97 Nominated To U.S. Court Of Federal Claims 12-15-2020, Michael M. Bowden

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

Brief Of Amici Curiae Professors Katherine Mims Crocker And Brandon Hasbrouck In Support Of Neither Party With Respect To Defendant's Motion To Dismiss, Katherine Mims Crocker, Brandon Hasbrouk

Briefs

No abstract provided.

Virginia Uranium, Inc. V. Warren, Nyles G. Greer

Public Land & Resources Law Review

The Supreme Court of the United States recently ruled that the Atomic Energy Act did not preempt a Virginia law prohibiting uranium mining in the Commonwealth. The Court held that although the Act delegated substantial power over the nuclear life cycle to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, it offered no indication that Congress sought to strip states of their traditional power to regulate mining on private lands within their borders.

This Land Is Your Land? Survey Delegation Laws As A Compensable Taking, Doug Chapman

Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice

While every state in the Union has a statute delegating in some form surveying authority to private entities, the practice has been especially visible and controversial due to pipeline construction in the Commonwealth of Virginia. A major point of contention in pipeline development has centered upon the ability of private companies to use delegated eminent domain powers to survey land for possible future development. While recent decisions by both a federal Virginia District Court and the state’s Supreme Court have upheld the state’s surveying delegation law from landowner challenges, the issue is far from resolved. Virginia therefore provides an ideal …

Hall V. Florida: The Supreme Court’S Guidance In Implementing Atkins, James W. Ellis

James W. Ellis

No abstract provided.

Newsroom: A Painful History 1-19-2018, Roger Williams University School Of Law

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

Master File, Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. V. Colo. Civil Rights Comm., __ U.S. __ (2017): Legislative History Of Sb08-200, Matt Simonsen

Research Data

This Master File of the legislative history of a 2008 amendment to the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA) was researched and compiled by Matt Simonsen, J.D. Candidate 2019, University of Colorado Law School, and submitted to law professors Craig Konnoth and Melissa Hart. The SB08-200 Master File is cited in Brief of Amici Curiae Colorado Organizations and Individuals in Support of Respondents, Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, __U.S.__ (2018) (No. 16-111).

449 p.

Indecency Four Years After Fox Television Stations: From Big Papi To A Porn Star, An Egregious Mess At The Fcc Continues, Clay Calvert, Minch Minchin, Keran Billaud, Kevin Bruckenstein, Tershone Phillips

University of Richmond Law Review

Using the WDBJ case as an analytical springboard, this article examines the tumultuous state of the FCC's indecency enforcement regime more than three years after the Supreme Court's June 2012 opinion in Fox Television Stations. Part I of this article briefly explores the missed First Amendment opportunities in Fox Television Stations, as well as some possible reasons why the Supreme Court chose to avoid the free-speech questions in that case." Part II addresses the FCC's decision in September 2012 to target only egregious instances of broadcast indecency and, in the process, to jettison hundreds of thousands of complaints that had …

Newsroom: Time: Bogus On Second Amendment 09/28/2016, Arica L. Coleman, Roger Williams University School Of Law

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

Sexualization, Sex Discrimination, And Public School Dress Codes, Meredith Johnson Harbach

University of Richmond Law Review

This essay joins the conversation about sexualization, sex discrimination, and public school dress codes to situate current debates within in the broader cultural and legal landscapes in which they exist. My aim is not to answer definitively the questions I pose above. Rather, I ground the controversy in these broader contexts in order to better understand the stakes and to glean insights into how schools, students, and communities might better navigate dress code debates.

A Call To Leadership: The Future Of Race Relations In Virginia, Rodney A. Smolla

Rod Smolla

Not available.

A Tale Of Two (And Possibly Three) Atkins: Intellectual Disability And Capital Punishment Twelve Years After The Supreme Court’S Creation Of A Categorical Bar, John H. Blume, Sheri Lynn Johnson, Paul Marcus, Emily Paavola

Sheri Lynn Johnson

No abstract provided.

Marriage Equality Comes To Virginia, Carl Tobias

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Shot In The Dark: Why Virginia Should Adopt The Firing Squad As Its Primary Method Of Execution, P. Thomas Distanislao

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Scottish Independence Referendum And The Principles Of Democratic Secession, Benjamin Levites

Brooklyn Journal of International Law

On September 18, 2014, Scottish voters decided whether to sever the 307 years of unity between Scotland and the United Kingdom in an independence referendum. While the voters ultimately rejected independence, the process by which the Scots accomplished this historic exercise will inform further democratic secession movements.

This Note examines the significant implications of Scotland’s independence referendum by assessing the history of independence referendums and the present scope of relevant international law. The formative history of the independence referendum and modern precedential examples established the requirements for democratic secession. In turn, the Scottish independence referendum, in the context of evolving …

Risk-Based Pretrial Release Recommendation And Supervision Guidelines, Mona J.E. Danner, Marie Vannostrand, Lisa M. Spruce

Sociology & Criminal Justice Faculty Publications

[Introduction] Pretrial services agencies in Virginia are actively engaged in identifying, testing, and implementing pretrial services legal and evidence-based practices (LEBP) that are consistent with the legal and constitutional rights afforded to accused persons awaiting trial, and that research has proven to be effective in reducing unnecessary detention while assuring court appearance and the safety of the community during the pretrial stage. The virginia pretrial risk assessment instrument (VPRAI), known nationally as the "Virginia Model," was the first research-based statewide pretrial risk assessment in the country. The VPRAI examines eight risk factors that are weighted to create a risk score, …

Does Atkins Make A Difference In Non-Capital Cases? Should It?, Paul Marcus

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

The Daryl Atkins Story, Mark E. Olive

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

The True Legacy Of Atkins And Roper: The Unreliability Principle, Mentally Ill Defendants, And The Death Penalty’S Unraveling, Scott E. Sundby

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

In striking down the death penalty for intellectually disabled and juvenile defendants, Atkins v. Virginia and Roper v. Simmons have been understandably heralded as important holdings under the Court’s Eighth Amendment jurisprudence that has found the death penalty “disproportional” for certain types of defendants and crimes. This Article argues, however, that the cases have a far more revolutionary reach than their conventional understanding. In both cases the Court went one step beyond its usual two-step analysis of assessing whether imposing the death penalty violated “evolving standards of decency.” This extra step looked at why even though intellectual disability and youth …

A Tale Of Two (And Possibly Three) Atkins: Intellectual Disability And Capital Punishment Twelve Years After The Supreme Court’S Creation Of A Categorical Bar, John H. Blume, Sheri Lynn Johnson, Paul Marcus, Emily Paavola

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Scientizing Culpability: The Implications Of Hall V. Florida And The Possibility Of A “Scientific Stare Decisis”, Christopher Slobogin

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The Supreme Court’s decision in Hall v. Florida held that “clinical definitions” control the meaning of intellectual disability in the death penalty context. In other words, Hall “scientized” the definition of a legal concept. This Article discusses the implications of this unprecedented move. It also introduces the idea of scientific stare decisis—a requirement that groups that are scientifically alike be treated similarly for culpability purposes—as a means of implementing the scientization process.

Challenges Of Conveying Intellectual Disabilities To Judge And Jury, Caroline Everington

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Hall V. Florida: The Supreme Court’S Guidance In Implementing Atkins, James W. Ellis

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Supreme Court, Tompkins County, Seymour V. Holcomb, Jessica Goodwin

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Virginia's Targeted Regulations Of Abortion Providers: The Attempt To Regulation Abortion Out Of Existence, Katharine Greenier, Rebecca Glenberg

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Commonwealth And Constitution, Robert S. Claiborne Jr.

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Commandeering And Constitutional Change, Jud Campbell

Law Faculty Publications

Coming in the midst of the Rehnquist Court’s federalism revolution, Printz v. United States held that federal commandeering of state executive officers is “fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.” The Printz majority’s discussion of historical evidence, however, inverted Founding-era perspectives. When Federalists such as Alexander Hamilton endorsed commandeering during the ratification debates, they were not seeking to expand federal power. Quite the opposite. The Federalists capitulated to states’ rights advocates who had recently rejected a continental impost tax because Hamilton, among others, insisted on hiring federal collectors rather than commandeering state collectors. The commandeering power, it turns …