9873 research outputs found
Sort by
Rethinking Article I, Section 9: State Protections Against Self-Incrimination in the Wake of GR 37
Full text linkWhen adopted by Washington courts in 2018, General Rule 37 marked a significant advance in the fight against racial discrimination. Modifying the third step of Batson v. Kentucky, GR 37 requires that peremptory challenges must be denied if an “objective observer” could view race or ethnicity as a factor in the strike. Applying the objective observer standard to contexts beyond jury selection—such as evaluation of jury verdicts, seizures of persons, and prosecutorial misconduct—has led to major statewide victories toward establishing a more equitable justice system. However, courts have not granted all requests to extend the objective observer standard to other contexts. Most notably, Division III of the Washington Court of Appeals recently rejected a request to apply the objective observer standard in construing the privilege against self-incrimination in custodial police interrogations. Its decision can be attributed to the fact that prior successful applications of the objective observer standard relied upon state law; in contrast, state courts apply Fifth Amendment jurisprudence in the custodial interrogation context. This is because, in outdated precedents, the Supreme Court of Washington interpreted article I, section 9 of the Washington State Constitution—which provides for the privilege against self-incrimination—as being only as protective as the Fifth Amendment. This Comment advances two arguments: (1) article I, section 9 ought to be interpreted as being more protective than the Fifth Amendment, and (2) the objective observer standard should be applied to the custody analysis governing when law enforcement must provide an advisal as required under Miranda v. Arizona
The Tax Exempt Innovation Cycle
Full text linkExecutive Summary:
The U.S. innovation ecosystem thrives on a complex interrelationship between tax policy, philanthropic foundations, and entrepreneurial ventures. The tax code, particularly provisions related to private foundations and Program-Related Investments (PRIs), play a critical role in funding high-risk, high-impact innovations that address societal challenges. Wealth funds the foundation, the foundation funds innovation, and innovation enhances the founder’s lasting impact on society.
Key Findings: Tax-Exempt Foundation Structure: Private foundations, established by wealthy individuals and corporations, serve as powerful vehicles for channeling substantial capital into innovation while providing tax benefits to donors. The Innovation Funding Cycle: Private foundations and other non-profits bridge the critical valley of death between basic research and commercial viability by providing capital for high-risk ventures. Once funded, the foundation invests its assets, frequently in equities, hedge funds, or impact-driven investments like climate technology startups or educational initiatives. Program-Related Investments: The PRI exception under 26 U.S. Code § 4944 allows private foundations to make investments in mission-aligned ventures without triggering tax penalties, even when these investments carry significant risk. Mission-Related Investments: Other non-profits (public charities, universities, etc.) make Mission-Related Investments (MRIs) or impact investments under general fiduciary standards and UBIT rules. Economic Impact: PRIs, MRIs, and impact investments create jobs, catalyze additional private capital, and drive technological breakthroughs across sectors including healthcare, clean energy, and education. Case Studies: Prominent foundations like the Gates Foundation, Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, and the MacArthur Foundation demonstrate how strategic PRIs can accelerate innovation in areas of critical importance. Policy Considerations: Current administration policies, particularly regarding international grantmaking, may significantly impact the global reach of U.S. foundation investments
Reaganomics: History Repeats Itself, But Louder
Full text linkExecutive Summary
Ronald Reagan’s presidency (1981–1989) dramatically reshaped the American economic and institutional landscape. He championed “supply-side” economics, dubbed “Reaganomics.” Through sweeping tax cuts, deregulation, and a reallocation of federal funding priorities, Reagan shifted the burden of public services, especially in education and research, from government to individuals and private markets. Public universities saw deep cuts in federal support and increasingly turned to industry partnerships and commercialization to survive. Simultaneously, Reagan expanded defense research funding, fostering a close relationship between the government and elite research institutions. Innovation policy was formalized through the Bayh-Dole Act and the creation of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Decades later, many of Reagan’s themes reemerged under President Donald Trump. The Trump administration mirrored Reagan’s priorities: cutting taxes, defunding higher education, expanding defense budgets, and pushing universities toward privatization. Both presidents treated higher education as a private benefit, emphasized industry collaboration, and deprioritized funding for social sciences and liberal arts. This report traces those parallel approaches in tax policy, education reform, research funding, and innovation governance. This article aims to compare both presidents’ policies, especially regarding their tax reforms and economics
Washington\u27s Implementation of Legalized Cannabis: A Model for Other States and the Federal Government
Full text linkThis Article examines the process and outcomes of cannabis legalization in Washington State, offering insights for other states and potential federal legalization schemes. It begins with an overview of the campaign that led to the passage of Initiative 502 (I-502), detailing the initiative’s structure, which draws from liquor licensing laws. The Article then explores the establishment of a recreational cannabis market from scratch, focusing on agency structure, federal responses such as the Cole Memorandum, and the state’s regulatory framework aimed at preventing adverse outcomes.
Additionally, this Article highlights Washington’s efforts to promote social equity, emphasizing that I-502 was framed as a criminal justice reform measure. It also discusses the influence of Washington’s model on broader nationwide legalization efforts, addressing key aspects such as vertical integration, residency requirements, and the merging of medical and recreational markets. Through this comprehensive analysis, the Article provides a roadmap for policymakers considering cannabis legalization at both state and federal levels
Smoking Guns in the Rearview Mirror: Defending Washington\u27s Firearm Regulations with Historical Analogues
Full text linkMass shootings and gun violence are inescapable facts of American life. America is the only developed country where mass shootings occur almost daily. Despite the widespread sentiment of hopelessness surrounding this problem, state and local governments have been enacting various gun restriction laws. However, in a series of recent cases, the U.S. Supreme Court established an originalist standard for evaluating Second Amendment claims that poses significant challenges to the constitutionality of state and local gun laws. To survive constitutional muster, gun laws today must share common regulatory purpose and mechanism with historical analogues from the period between the founding and the Fourteenth Amendment’s adoption.
This Comment analyzes three gun restriction measures recently enacted by Washington State—the large capacity magazine restriction, the assault weapons restriction, and the public nuisance liability statute. This Comment argues that historical firearm regulations from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries provide sufficient analogues to the Washington statutes and establish their constitutionality. In addition to providing doctrinal support to the Washington laws, the historical firearm regulations expose the fundamental inconsistency in the originalist Second Amendment jurisprudence: not all gun laws were created equal. Some were enacted with invidious racist and colonialist intent to disempower Indigenous and African American communities. This Comment concludes that the Court compromised the ideological integrity and logical foundation for gun regulations in this nation by incentivizing states to model their laws on historical laws and selectively relying on some parts of history while ignoring others
UNRAVELLING THE METAVERSE MATRIX: NAVIGATING PRIVACY PROTECTION WITHIN MODELLING AND SIMULATION PLATFORMS
Full text linkThis article examines how personal data are regulated in emerging modelling and simulation environments, including computer games, mobile apps, and digital twin platforms. This article centers on a specific type of simulated and modelling environment, namely the metaverse. This article considers the privacy issues that arise when people subscribe to and participate in modelling and simulation platforms where vast amounts of data are collected, disclosed and stored. Such data may be vulnerable to misuse by the platform and third parties. This article considers Meta’s “horizons metaverse” platform as a case study for an immersive modelling and simulation platform. It examines the way in which personal data is used in the context of the metaverse and the mechanisms by which the United States and the European Union regulate such data. This article sheds light on the adequacies and inadequacies of existing legal protections and considers the way in which privacy by design may assist in filling the gaps in the current regulatory framework
