Rwu First Amendment Blog: Jared Goldstein's Blog: Masterpiece Cakeshop Ruling: No Constitutional Right To Discriminate (For Now) 06-05-2018,
2018
Roger Williams University School of Law
Rwu First Amendment Blog: Jared Goldstein's Blog: Masterpiece Cakeshop Ruling: No Constitutional Right To Discriminate (For Now) 06-05-2018, Jared A. Goldstein
Law School Blogs
No abstract provided.
Vulnerability, Access To Justice, And The Fragmented State,
2018
William S. Boyd School of Law, University of Nevada Las Vegas
Vulnerability, Access To Justice, And The Fragmented State, Elizabeth L. Macdowell
Michigan Journal of Race and Law
This Article builds on theories of the fragmented state and of human and institutional vulnerability to create a new, structural theory of “functional fragmentation” and its role in access to justice work. Expanding on previous concepts of fragmentation in access to justice scholarship, fragmentation is understood in the Article as a complex phenomenon existing within as well as between state institutions like courts. Further, it is examined in terms of its relationship to the state’s coercive power over poor people in legal systems. In this view, fragmentation in state operations creates not only challenges for access, but also opportunities for …
Batson For Judges, Police Officers & Teachers: Lessons In Democracy From The Jury Box,
2018
Rutgers Law School
Batson For Judges, Police Officers & Teachers: Lessons In Democracy From The Jury Box, Stacy L. Hawkins
Michigan Journal of Race and Law
In our representative democracy we guarantee equal participation for all, but we fall short of this promise in so many domains of our civic life. From the schoolhouse, to the jailhouse, to the courthouse, racial minorities are underrepresented among key public decision-makers, such as judges, police officers, and teachers. This gap between our aspirations for representative democracy and the reality that our judges, police officers, and teachers are often woefully under-representative of the racially diverse communities they serve leaves many citizens of color wanting for the democratic guarantee of equal participation. This critical failure of our democracy threatens to undermine …
Fairness In The Exceptions: Trusting Juries On Matters Of Race,
2018
University of Michigan Law School
Fairness In The Exceptions: Trusting Juries On Matters Of Race, Virginia Weeks
Michigan Journal of Race and Law
Implicit bias research indicates that despite our expressly endorsed values, Americans share a pervasive bias disfavoring Black Americans and favoring White Americans. This bias permeates legislative as well as judicial decision-making, leading to the possibility of verdicts against Black defendants that are tainted with racial bias. The Supreme Court’s 2017 decision in Peña-Rodriguez v. Colorado provides an ex post remedy for blatant racism that impacts jury verdicts, while jury nullification provides an ex ante remedy by empowering jurors to reject convicting Black defendants when to do so would reinforce racially biased laws. Both remedies exist alongside a trend limiting the …
Habitual Residence V. Domicile: A Challenge Facing American Conflicts Of Laws,
2018
University of Maine School of Law
Habitual Residence V. Domicile: A Challenge Facing American Conflicts Of Laws, Mo Zhang
Maine Law Review
Habitual residence has now become an internationally accepted connecting factor in conflict of laws and is widely being used as an alternative to, or replacement of, domicile. This concept, however, remains remote to American conflict of laws. Although the use of habitual residence in the U.S. courts is mandated by the codification of the Hague Child Abduction Convention, there is still a lack of general acceptance in American conflict of law literature. The Article argues that habitual residence should be adopted as a conflict of law connecting factor in American conflict of laws, and it would be unwise for the …
Charting A New Course In Cuba? Why The Time Is Now To Settle Outstanding American Property Claims,
2018
Brooklyn Law School
Charting A New Course In Cuba? Why The Time Is Now To Settle Outstanding American Property Claims, Marco Antonio Dueñas
Brooklyn Journal of International Law
The recent warming of relations between the United States and Cuba offered generations of Cubans; Americans; and Cuban Americans renewed hope for normalized relations. One obstacle—satisfactory resolution of property claims—stands in the way; which dates back to the Cuban government’s nationalization of all U.S. assets on the island. The Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996 (the “Helms-Burton Act”) predicates resolution of these decades-old property claims by the Cuban government as an essential condition for the full resumption of economic and diplomatic relations between the two neighbors. Separated by only ninety miles of Caribbean Sea; but more than a …
Investor-State Dispute Settlement: Is There A Better Alternative?,
2018
Brooklyn Law School
Investor-State Dispute Settlement: Is There A Better Alternative?, Emily Osmanski
Brooklyn Journal of International Law
As the world has transitioned from national; isolated economies with localized issues into a globalized and interconnected economy with cross-border disputes; the law has struggled to keep up. Recent trade negotiations have highlighted the difficulty states face in promoting trade; while also creating a fair; accessible; and equitable forum for producers and consumers with nationalities touching every area of the globe. For several decades; Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) has been in place to address claims brought by foreign investors against the host states. External improvements have helped support foreign direct investment and the ISDS model of dispute resolution; such as …
"It's Not You, It's Your Caseload": Using Cronic To Solve Indigent Defense Underfunding,
2018
University of Michigan Law School
"It's Not You, It's Your Caseload": Using Cronic To Solve Indigent Defense Underfunding, Samantha Jaffe
Michigan Law Review
In the United States, defendants in both federal and state prosecutions have the constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel. That right is in jeopardy. In the postconviction setting, the standard for ineffective assistance of counsel is prohibitively high, and Congress has restricted federal habeas review. At trial, severe underfunding for state indigent defense systems has led to low pay, little support, and extreme caseloads—which combine to create conditions where lawyers simply cannot represent clients adequately. Overworked public defenders and contract attorneys represent 80 percent of state felony defendants annually. Three out of four countywide public defender systems and fifteen …
Hearsay In The Smiley Face: Analyzing The Use Of Emojis As Evidence,
2018
St. Mary's University School of Law
Hearsay In The Smiley Face: Analyzing The Use Of Emojis As Evidence, Erin Janssen
St. Mary's Law Journal
Abstract forthcoming
Prior Mental Health Treatment And Mental Health Court Program Outcomes,
2018
CUNY John Jay College
Prior Mental Health Treatment And Mental Health Court Program Outcomes, Lauren Rubenstein
Student Theses
In response to the high volume of mentally ill individuals involved in the criminal justice system, mental health courts have emerged as an alternative to incarceration for these individuals. Based on the literature, it is hypothesized that participants with a history of prior mental health treatment will have better outcomes in MHC programs, including more compliant behavior and more successful completion of the program than participants with no history of prior mental health treatment. The findings of this research can be used in order to help MHC programs better accommodate all participants regardless of their treatment history.
Social Work Students’ Attitudes And Beliefs About Mental Health Courts,
2018
California State University, San Bernardino
Social Work Students’ Attitudes And Beliefs About Mental Health Courts, Nicholas Bettosini, Conrad Paul Akins-Johnson
Electronic Theses, Projects, and Dissertations
Mental Health Courts (MHCs) are a diversion program for mentally ill offenders in lieu of incarceration. The Substance Abuse and Mental Services Administration (SAMHSA) developed these specialized court programs in the 1990’s to assist mentally ill offenders in overcoming barriers to treatment. While new laws have begun to change the way mentally ill offenders are viewed from a law enforcement standpoint, social workers’ attitudes and beliefs about these programs have not been studied. This quantitative study’s purpose was to examine Master of Social Work (MSW) Graduate students’ attitudes and beliefs of mentally ill offenders and MHCs. Social work student participants …
A Status Update For Texas Voir Dire: Advocating For Pre-Trial Internet Investigation Of Prospective Jurors,
2018
St. Mary's University School of Law
A Status Update For Texas Voir Dire: Advocating For Pre-Trial Internet Investigation Of Prospective Jurors, Luke A. Harle
St. Mary's Law Journal
The Internet provides trial attorneys an additional tool to investigate the backgrounds of prospective jurors during voir dire. Online searches of a person’s name and social media accounts can reveal information that could be used as grounds for a challenge for cause or to facilitate intelligent use of peremptory strikes. Texas lawmakers have not yet provided any official guidance as to whether attorneys can investigate prospective jurors online or how they might do so, should it be allowed. Texas’s current voir dire structure, judicial opinions, and ethics opinions, together, support the notion that Texas trial attorneys should be given opportunities …
Hearing The States,
2018
Pepperdine University
Hearing The States, Anthony Johnstone
Pepperdine Law Review
The 2016 Presidential and Senate elections raise the possibility that a conservative, life-tenured Supreme Court will preside for years over a politically dynamic majority. This threatens to weaken the public’s already fragile confidence in the Court. By lowering the political stakes of both national elections and its own decisions, federalism may enable the Court to defuse some of the most explosive controversies it hears. Federalism offers a second-best solution, even if neither conservatives nor liberals can impose a national political agenda. However, principled federalism arguments are tricky. They are structural, more prudential than legal or empirical. Regardless of ideology, a …
Eight Justices Are Enough: A Proposal To Improve The United States Supreme Court,
2018
Pepperdine University
Eight Justices Are Enough: A Proposal To Improve The United States Supreme Court, Eric J. Segall
Pepperdine Law Review
Over the last twenty-five years, some of the most significant Supreme Court decisions involving issues of national significance like abortion, affirmative action, and voting rights were five-to-four decisions. In February 2016, the death of Justice Antonin Scalia turned the nine-Justice court into an eight-Justice court, comprised of four liberal and four conservative Justices, for the first time in our nation’s history. This article proposes that an evenly divided court consisting of eight Justices is the ideal Supreme Court composition. Although the other two branches of government have evolved over the years, the Supreme Court has undergone virtually no significant changes. …
Justice As Fair Division,
2018
Pepperdine University
Justice As Fair Division, Ian Bartrum, Kathryn Nyman, Peter Otto
Pepperdine Law Review
The current hyperpoliticization of the Court grows out of a feedback loop between politicized appointments and politicized decision-making. This Article suggests a change in the internal procedures by which the Court hears and decides particular cases. A three-Justice panel hears and decides each case. Appeal to an en banc sitting of the entire Court would require a unanimous vote of all non-recused Justices. This Article explores several possible approaches in selecting the three-Justice panel. This Article proposes that applying a fair division scheme to the Court’s decision-making process might act to reverse this loop and work to depoliticize the Court …
How The Prohibition On "Under-Ruling" Distorts The Judicial Function (And What To Do About It),
2018
Pepperdine University
How The Prohibition On "Under-Ruling" Distorts The Judicial Function (And What To Do About It), A. Christopher Bryant, Kimberly Breedon
Pepperdine Law Review
Lower courts face a dilemma when forced to choose between older Supreme Court precedent that directly controls the present legal dispute and an intervening Supreme Court ruling that relies on rationale which erodes or undermines the rationale of the direct precedent. Nearly thirty years ago, the Supreme Court announced a rule requiring lower courts to follow the older precedent and disregard any inconsistency resulting from intervening rulings, effectively barring lower courts from “under-ruling” the older Supreme Court precedent. This prohibition on “under-ruling,” here referred to as the “Agostini Rule,” reflects a departure from the core rule-of-law values requiring similar cases …
The Pirate’S Code: Constitutional Conventions In U.S. Constitutional Law,
2018
Pepperdine University
The Pirate’S Code: Constitutional Conventions In U.S. Constitutional Law, Mark Tushnet
Pepperdine Law Review
A convention is a practice not memorialized in a formal rule but regularly engaged in out of a sense of obligation, where the sense of obligation arises from the view that adhering to the practice serves valuable goals of institutional organization and the public good. Constitutional conventions are important in making it possible for the national government to achieve the goals set out in the Preamble. Over the past twenty years or so, however, such conventions have eroded. This article addresses the role and importance of constitutional conventions in the United States, arguing that conventions’ erosion has been accompanied by …
What Are The Judiciary’S Politics?,
2018
Pepperdine University
What Are The Judiciary’S Politics?, Michael W. Mcconnell
Pepperdine Law Review
What are the politics of the federal judiciary, to the extent that the federal judiciary has politics? Whose interests do federal judges represent? This Essay puts forward five different kinds of politics that characterize the federal judiciary. First, the federal judiciary represents the educated elite. Second, the federal judiciary represents past political majorities. Third, the federal judiciary is more politically balanced than the legislative or executive branches. Fourth, the federal judiciary is organized by regions, and between those regions there is significant diversity. Fifth, to the extent that the judiciary leans one way or the other, it leans toward the …
Better Briefs,
2018
St. Mary's University School of Law
Better Briefs, Lydia Fearing
St. Mary's Journal on Legal Malpractice & Ethics
Abstract forthcoming
Keep Suing All The Lawyers: Recent Developments In Claims Against Lawyers For Aiding & Abetting A Client’S Breach Of Fiduciary Duty,
2018
South texas College of Law
Keep Suing All The Lawyers: Recent Developments In Claims Against Lawyers For Aiding & Abetting A Client’S Breach Of Fiduciary Duty, Katerina P. Lewinbuk
St. Mary's Journal on Legal Malpractice & Ethics
Lawyers have increasingly become subject to liability under various legal theories, ranging from traditional legal malpractice or negligence liability claims to various third-party actions. Most recently, state and federal courts across the country have recognized attorney liability for aiding and abetting a client’s breach of fiduciary duty. This Article will address the current status of the cause of action for a lawyer’s aiding and abetting her client’s breach of fiduciary duty, explain the commonalities and distinguish nuances as outlined by particular states, examine recent decisions by federal courts that have recognized the cause of action, and culminate in its conclusion …
