State and Local Government Law Commons^™

Can't We Just Talk About This First?: Making The Case For The Use Of Discovery Depositions In Arkansas Criminal Cases, Bryan Altman

Arkansas Law Review

“[T]he quest for better justice is a ceaseless quest, that the single constant for our profession is the need for continuous examination and reexamination of our premises as to what law should do to achieve better justice.” From time to time, it is important that we take stock of our legal surroundings and ask ourselves if our procedures are still properly serving us, or if there is need for change and improvement. In this Article, I argue that the time has come for Arkansas to provide the criminal defense bar with the affirmative power to conduct discovery depositions. Arkansas criminal …

The Best Of Both Worlds: Reconciling Tradition With Evolution Under The Ohio And Federal Right To A Civil Jury Trial, Jacob Hoback

University of Cincinnati Law Review

No abstract provided.

Race And Washington’S Criminal Justice System: 2021 Report To The Washington Supreme Court, Task Force 2.0

Washington Law Review

RACE & WASHINGTON’S CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM:

EDITOR’S NOTE

As Editors-in-Chief of the Washington Law Review, Gonzaga Law Review, and Seattle University Law Review, we represent the flagship legal academic publications of each law school in Washington State. Our publications last joined together to publish the findings of the first Task Force on Race and the Criminal Justice System in 2011/12. A decade later, we are honored to join once again to present the findings of Task Force 2.0. Law journals have enabled generations of legal professionals to introduce, vet, and distribute new ideas, critiques of existing legal structures, and reflections …

Slavery And The History Of Congress's Enumerated Powers, Jeffrey Schmitt

Arkansas Law Review

In his first inaugural address, President Abraham Lincoln declared, “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.” Like virtually all Americans before the Civil War, Lincoln believed in what historians call the “national consensus” on slavery. According to this consensus, Congress’s enumerated powers were not broad enough to justify any regulation of slavery within the states. Legal scholars who support the modern reach of federal powers have thus conventionally argued …

Why Arkansas Act 710 Was Upheld, And Will Be Again, Mark Goldfeder

Arkansas Law Review

A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes. - ironically, not Mark Twain The recent Eighth Circuit ruling in Arkansas Times LP v. Waldrip, the lawsuit revolving around an Arkansas antidiscrimination bill, has led to a lot of (at best) confusion or (at worst) purposeful obfuscation by people unwilling or unable to differentiate between procedural issues and the constitutional merits of a case. In other words, reports of the bill’s death have been very much exaggerated.

Reasoning V. Rhetoric: The Strange Case Of “Unconstitutional Beyond A Reasonable Doubt”, Hugh D. Spitzer

Articles

An odd formulation has frequented American constitutional discourse for 125 years: a declaration that courts should not overturn a statute on constitutional grounds unless it is “unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt.” This concept has been thought of as a presumption, a standard, a doctrine, or a philosophy of coordinate branch respect and judicial restraint. Yet it has been criticized because “beyond a reasonable doubt” is at root an evidentiary standard of proof in criminal cases rather than a workable theory or standard for deciding constitutional law cases. This article discusses the history and use of “unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt,” …

Decurtis V. Visconti, Boren & Campbell Ltd., 252 A.3d 765 (R.I. 2021), Alexus Bonilla

Roger Williams University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

Table of Contents

Challenging Solitary Confinement Through State Constitutions, Alison Gordon

University of Cincinnati Law Review

Eighth Amendment jurisprudence has resulted in limited scrutiny of solitary confinement despite the known harms associated with the practice. The two-part test established by the federal courts to evaluate Eighth Amendment claims and limitations on challenging prison conditions under the Prison Litigation Reform Act can make it difficult to establish that solitary confinement is cruel and unusual punishment.

State constitutional challenges to solitary confinement are underexplored. Nearly all state constitutions contain an equivalent provision to the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. State courts need not be bound by federal jurisprudence in interpreting the scope of the state …

Dead Men Tell No Tales: Arkansas’S Grave Failure To Honor Its Constituents’ Postmortem Quasi-Property Right, Mckenna Moore

Arkansas Law Review

It is doubtful that Hulon Rupert Austin woke up on the day of March 7, 1986 and expected it to be his last. March 7 was a typical day—a workday—that started with a simple drive to a job site with his co-worker. A day that began so unremarkably ended with his co-worker looking up from where he was working to see “Austin lying on the ground.”

The High Price Of Poverty In Arkansas’S Courts: Rethinking The Utility Of Municipal Fines And Fees, Madison Miller

Arkansas Law Review

The opposite of poverty is not wealth. It is justice. Beginning in the 1980s, a "trail of tax cuts" led to budget shortfalls and revenue gaps throughout the United States. These budgetary problems resulted in many cities and towns shifting their burden of funding courts and the justice system at large "to the 'users' of the courts, including those least equipped to pay." Although "jailing an indigent person for a fine-only, low-level offense is unconstitutional," it is still an ongoing practice in many states, including Arkansas. In 1995, Arkansas passed new legislation to govern its circuit courts' collection and enforcement …

The Right To Food Comes To America, Wendy Heipt

Journal of Food Law & Policy

The people of Maine recently exercised an opportunity no citizen of this country has ever had before: the ability to vote on whether to enshrine a right to food in their state constitution. This Essay provides an overview of Maine’s experience with food rights in order to explain how the state came to occupy this unique position.

France's Organisme De Défense Et De Gestion: A Model For Farmer Collective Action Through Standard Development And Brand Management, Christopher J. Bardenhagen, Philip H. Howard, Marie-Odile Noziéres-Petit

Journal of Food Law & Policy

Quality-based food production, often with a regional dimension, can provide farmers with new, value added markets. It can also provide consumers with access to place based high-quality products, and may benefit local economies through increased commerce. French Organismes de Défense et de Gestion (ODGs) illustrate a mode of quality-based agri-food business organization. ODGs focus on the development of production standards, as well as management of the intellectual property related to those standards. This mode, which is commonly used in Europe, has not often been used in the United States, despite its potential for regional food system development. The ODG mode …

Environmental Justice Class Action Rises Above The Rubbish: The Third Circuit Revives Common-Law Nuisance Remedies In Baptiste V. Bethlehem Landfill Co., Kyra G. Bradley

Villanova Environmental Law Journal (1991 - )

No abstract provided.

Getting Away With Murder: How California State Law Determined Recovery In First Roundup Cancer Case Johnson V. Monsato Co., Eliza L. Quattlebaum

Villanova Environmental Law Journal (1991 - )

No abstract provided.

A Costly Victory: June Medical, Federal Abortion Legislation, And Section 5 Of The Fourteenth Amendment, Thomas J. Molony

Arkansas Law Review

The United States Supreme Court’s recent major abortion ruling in June Medical Services L.L.C. v. Russo was a win for abortion rights supporters, but a costly one. Although the June Medical Court struck down a Louisiana law requiring abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at a local hospital, a majority of the Justices—and most importantly, Chief Justice Roberts, whose concurrence constitutes the Court’s holding—stressed that Casey’s constitutional standard for pre-viability abortion regulations is not the amorphous balancing test the Court suggested in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, but a more deferential one under which a pre-viability regulation typically will be …

Here Stood My Dreaming Tree: A Proposal To Reform Non-Lpr Cancellation Of Removal To Bring Undocumented Immigrants Out Of The Shadows, Andrea Barrientos

Cardozo Journal of Equal Rights & Social Justice

The note advocates for expanding nonLPR (non-Lawful Permanent Resident) cancellation of removal as a pathway to lawful status for undocumented immigrants. It critiques the current system’s restrictive eligibility criteria, annual caps, and high hardship standards, arguing that these limitations exclude many deserving applicants. The proposed reforms aim to eliminate the 4,000-person cap, convert the relief into an affirmative process, and lower the hardship standard to align immigration policy with U.S. values of fairness and inclusion. By doing so, the reforms would stabilize families, reduce marginalization, and bring undocumented immigrants out of the shadows.

Recent Developments, Clinton T. Summers

Arkansas Law Review

The United States Supreme Court upheld an Arkansas law regulating how pharmacies are reimbursed by pharmacy benefit managers. In Rutledge v. Pharmaceutical Care Management Ass’n, a unanimous Court decided that Arkansas Act 900, passed in 2015, was not pre-empted by the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”).

When The Rule Invites The Exceptions: How The Arizona Supreme Court's Attempt To Clarify The Economic Loss Rule In Flagstaff Affordable Housing Has Led To Discontinuity In Subsequent Application, Grant H. Frazier, Justin J. Larson

Barry Law Review

No abstract provided.

“Unconstitutional Beyond A Reasonable Doubt” – A Misleading Mantra That Should Be Gone For Good, Hugh Spitzer

Washington Law Review Online

For a century, Washington State Supreme Court opinions periodically have intoned that the body will not invalidate a statute on constitutional grounds unless it is “unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt.” This odd declaration invokes an evidentiary standard of proof as a rule of decision for a legal question of constitutionality, and it confuses practitioners and the public alike. “Unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt” is not peculiar to Washington State. Indeed, it began appearing in state court decisions in the early nineteenth century and, rarely, in opinions of the United States Supreme Court. But the use of the phrase rapidly increased …

Duress In Immigration Law, Elizabeth A. Keyes

Seattle University Law Review

The doctrine of duress is common to other bodies of law, but the application of the duress doctrine is both unclear and highly unstable in immigration law. Outside of immigration law, a person who commits a criminal act out of well-placed fear of terrible consequences is different than a person who willingly commits a crime, but American immigration law does not recognize this difference. The lack of clarity leads to certain absurd results and demands reimagining, redefinition, and an unequivocal statement of the significance of duress in ascertaining culpability. While there are inevitably some difficult lines to be drawn in …

Introductory Remarks, Michael Rogers, Hannah Hamley, Rayshaun D. Williams

Seattle University Law Review

Introductory Remarks.

Closing Remarks, Dontay Proctor-Mills

Seattle University Law Review

Closing Remarks.

Rock And Hard Place Arguments, Jareb Gleckel, Grace Brosofsky

Seattle University Law Review

This Article explores what we coin “rock and hard place” (RHP) arguments in the law, and it aims to motivate mission-driven plaintiffs to seek out such arguments in their cases. The RHP argument structure helps plaintiffs win cases even when the court views that outcome as unfavorable.

We begin by dissecting RHP dilemmas that have long existed in the American legal system. As Part I reveals, prosecutors and law enforcement officials have often taken advantage of RHP dilemmas and used them as a tool to persuade criminal defendants to forfeit their constitutional rights, confess, or give up the chance to …

Neither Safe, Nor Legal, Nor Rare: The D.C. Circuit’S Use Of The Doctrine Of Ratification To Shield Agency Action From Appointments Clause Challenges, Damien M. Schiff

Seattle University Law Review

Key to the constitutional design of the federal government is the separation of powers. An important support for that separation is the Appointments Clause, which governs how officers of the United States are installed in their positions. Although the separation of powers generally, and the Appointments Clause specifically, support democratically accountable government, they also protect individual citizens against abusive government power. But without a judicial remedy, such protection is ineffectual—a mere parchment barrier.

Such has become the fate of the Appointments Clause in the D.C. Circuit, thanks to that court’s adoption—and zealous employment—of the rule that agency action, otherwise unconstitutional …

Big Pharma, Big Problems: Covid-19 Heightens Patent-Antitrust Tension Caused By Reverse Payments, Hannah M. Lasting

Seattle University Law Review

In the wake of COVID-19, pharmaceutical companies rushed to produce vaccinations and continue to work on developing treatments, while the tension caused by reverse payments intensifies between patent and antitrust law. Lawmakers must address this tension, and the current pandemic should serve as a catalyst to prompt reform at the legislative level. By amending the Hatch-Waxman Act, lawmakers can ease the increasing strain between patent and antitrust policy concerns. In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court attempted to resolve this tension in its landmark decision, F.T.C. v. Actavis, but the tension remains as lower courts struggle to produce a uniform standard …

The Deans' Roundtable, Dean Angela Onwuachi-Willig, Dean Danielle Conway, Dean Tamara Lawson, Dean Mario Barnes, Dean L. Song Richardson

Seattle University Law Review

The Deans' Roundtable.

The Carbon Price Equivalent: A Metric For Comparing Climate Change Mitigation Efforts Across Jurisdictions, Gabriel Weil

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

Climate change presents a global commons problem: Emissions reductions on the scale needed to meet global targets do not pass a domestic cost-benefit test in most countries. To give national governments ample incentive to pursue deep decarbonization, mutual interstate coercion will be necessary. Many proposed tools of coercive climate diplomacy would require a onedimensional metric for comparing the stringency of climate change mitigation policy packages across jurisdictions. This article proposes and defends such a metric: the carbon price equivalent. There is substantial variation in the set of climate change mitigation policy instruments implemented by different countries. Nonetheless, the consequences of …

Assertion And Hearsay, Richard Lloret

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

This article explores the characteristics and functions of assertion and considers how the term influences the definition of hearsay under Federal Rule of Evidence 801. Rule 801(a) defines hearsay by limiting it to words and conduct intended as an assertion, but the rule does not define the term assertion. Courts and legal scholars have focused relatively little attention on the nature and definition of assertion. That is unfortunate, because assertion is a robust concept that has been the subject of intense philosophic study over recent decades. Assertion is not a mere cypher standing in for whatever speech or conduct one …

No, The Firing Squad Is Not Better Than Lethal Injection: A Response To Stephanie Moran’S A Modest Proposal, Michael Conklin

Seattle University Law Review

In the article A Modest Proposal: The Federal Government Should Use Firing Squads to Execute Federal Death Row Inmates, Stephanie Moran argues that the firing squad is the only execution method that meets the requirements of the Eighth Amendment. In order to make her case, Moran unjustifiably overstates the negative aspects of lethal injection while understating the negative aspects of firing squads. The entire piece is predicated upon assumptions that are not only unsupported by the evidence but often directly refuted by the evidence. This Essay critically analyzes Moran’s claims regarding the alleged advantages of the firing squad over …