9873 research outputs found
Sort by
THE COMPACT CLAUSE AND CYBERWAR
Get PDFThis article seeks to bring attention to the potential modern utility of Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3: the Compact Clause. This section of the Constitution has historically been archived. However, given cyberspace’s ever-growing prominence, the Compact Clause should be reconsidered as cyber warfare presents a novel opportunity for states to exercise their sovereign rights.
Section 10 restricts states’ powers to engage with foreign entities. Without the consent of Congress, states cannot enter into agreements with foreign powers or engage in war. These restrictions on states were necessary when the Constitution was drafted. To navigate foreign affairs nimbly, the United States needed to act as a unified force. Given that individual states\u27 interests can and will vary from national interests, there was a need for the states to be explicitly bound together. The internet has complicated this understanding of federalism. States are being hacked by foreign entities and the federal government is late to act. As a result, states are beginning to take matters into their own hands, disturbing the traditional balance of power between the states and the federal government.
This challenge of tradition prompts a review of history. States did not sacrifice their voices for free. In exchange for foreign influence, states were guaranteed protection by the federal military in the case of invasion or military threat. States were promised that they need not fight stronger forces alone and were assured that the federal government would “wage defensive war” if a state was invaded. Historically, the United States has honored this promise by developing itself as a military superpower. As a country, the United States has prepared itself for threats arising from land, sea, or air. However, cyberspace presents a new landscape in which the United States is not prepared, leaving room for states to advance their reserved war powers.
This article examines whether states can defend themselves and their constituents against cyberattacks while remaining consistent with the spirit of the Constitution. Part 1 will examine the historical backdrop of Section 10 and provide an overview of the past and present interpretations of invasion, imminent danger, and other related concepts. Part II will argue that warfare is becoming less kinetic and increasingly digital. Such digitization has led to states being attacked by foreign adversaries and other actors without organized federal aid. Part III points out the constitutional leeway permitting states to act during this cyber-era. While Montana’s attempt to ban TikTok, a popular social media platform, may not be constitutionally feasible, states may be able to take cyber matters into their own hands until the federal government can protect the United States in cyberspace
Just Memos: Preparing for Practice (7th ed.)
No full textFocusing on the process of writing both formal and less formal legal memos, Just Memos employs the same accessible approach that makes the authors’ flagship title, The Legal Writing Handbook, a perennial bestseller. Just Memos will help students transition from academic writing to legal writing with an introduction to the U.S. legal system, legal research, and legal analysis and reading. In addition, this concise text walks students through the process of writing predictive memos, e-memos, and opinion letters.https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/faculty-books/1102/thumbnail.jp
A Right to Repress: IPEC v Inslee and the Parental Right to Determine the Gender of a Child
Get PDFDo parents have a constitutional right to determine their child’s gender? No court has held that they do, but that assumption was the basis of a challenge brought in August 2023 to Senate Bill 5599 (ESSB 5599)—an amendment to the Washington State Family Reconciliation Act, which protects runaway youth seeking gender-affirming treatment and reproductive health care services from immediate parental notification. Plaintiffs International Partners for Ethical Care (IPEC) and others challenged the bill before the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. Their claims turn on parental rights, as well as several associated federal and state constitutional claims. The district court dismissed the case with prejudice in May 2024, and the plaintiffs timely appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals the following month. The Ninth Circuit heard oral arguments in the case in May 2025. Though this case has the potential to climb all the way to the United States Supreme Court, the plaintiffs’ arguments cannot justify a decision in their favor.
The context of ESSB 5599—and of transgender people in the United States more broadly—is vital to understanding this case. Recent years have seen a significant expansion in the rights, visibility, and acceptance of transgender people in the United States. Unfortunately, with that visibility has come a new wave of hatred, and many trans people are preparing for the worst under a second Trump presidency. In this political climate, it is unsurprising that Washington’s protection of gender-affirming treatment for runaway youth has drawn the ire of conservatives across the country. This Comment begins with an exploration of the greater context of ESSB 5599 before considering IPEC’s complaint in greater detail. It then considers standing federal precedent on both parental rights and the rights of transgender people to form a clearer image of the law as it stands. Finally, in order to explain why plaintiffs’ claims in this case must fail, this Comment distinguishes IPEC v. Inslee from early parental rights cases, analogizes to cases on transgender rights and definitions of child abuse and neglect, and proposes a solution that is in line with both established law and the best interests of children
Expanding Equity and Innovation in Pharmaceutical Law and Drug Development: Paying Clinical Trial Participants for their Data
Get PDFBringing a drug to market is exceedingly expensive and exposes pharmaceutical manufacturers to significant legal risk. But when companies are successful, their profits make the PowerBall jackpot look like petty cash. Staggering rewards measure in the billions or millions for the firms, CEOs, pharmacies, drug benefit managers, data brokers, and many more actors in the pharmaceutical-to-patient pipeline. The only individuals who don’t get paid handsomely are the clinical trial participants, whose voluntary participation and data helped make those successes possible. It is long past time that we reform the legal and regulatory roadblocks to paying clinical trial participants in the United States for the fair value of their data—for it is precisely their information (and personal sacrifice) that makes so many others in our country wealthy beyond imagination
