9873 research outputs found
Sort by
Rights of Nature, Wrongs for the Commons: Risks of Assigning Legal Personhood to the Rivers of Washington State
No full textThe Rights of Nature (“RoN”) movement, which seeks to grant legal personhood to natural entities, has recently gained traction in Washington State and globally. While intended to enhance environmental protection and Indigenous sovereignty, RoN burdens commons governance by expanding the right to exclude. This paper advances a critique of proposals to grant legal personhood to rivers in Washington State, highlighting conflicts with standing, liability, and the jurisprudential tenets of legal personhood. RoN undermines equitable usufructuary access to the commons, or lands and waters without exclusionary rights, thereby impeding marginalized peoples’ ability to utilize shared resources. Instead of assigning legal personhood to nature, effective commons governance must integrate economic prosperity with social and environmental justice. Commons regulatory schemes should be optimized to foster equitable opportunities for wealth creation
Opioids and Oblivion: Corporate Bankruptcy and the Erosion of Accountability in Big Pharma
No full textIn June 2024, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma that nonconsensual releases for nondebtors are unconstitutional. The decision marked a key development in mass tort litigation involving Purdue Pharma, the company at the center of the opioid crisis. The Sackler family sought to use Purdue’s bankruptcy proceedings to shield themselves from liability, but the Court’s ruling invalidated the use of nondebtor releases to protect third parties from claims without the full consent of affected parties. While the ruling strengthens creditor protections, it creates uncertainty regarding how mass tort bankruptcies can efficiently compensate victims, particularly in public health crises with long-term effects.
This Comment argues that Congress should expand section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code, which currently only applies to asbestos-related claims, to include other mass torts. To address public health crises and enhance bankruptcy’s effectiveness, the framework should include a structured test to determine if a mass tort bankruptcy qualifies for section 524(g) protections. Examining the Supreme Court’s reasoning, the history of nondebtor releases, and asbestos bankruptcy precedents, this Comment advocates for a tailored legislative solution to ensure fair, long-term compensation for those harmed by entities like Purdue Pharma
The Cambridge Handbook of Generative AI and the Law
No full textThis handbook offers an important exploration of generative AI and its legal and regulatory implications from interdisciplinary perspectives. The volume is divided into four parts. Part I provides the necessary context and background to understand the topic, including its technical underpinnings and societal impacts. Part II probes the emerging regulatory and policy frameworks related to generative AI and AI more broadly across different jurisdictions. Part III analyses generative AI\u27s impact on specific areas of law, from non-discrimination and data protection to intellectual property, corporate governance, criminal law and more. Part IV examines the various practical applications of generative AI in the legal sector and public administration. Overall, this volume provides a comprehensive resource for those seeking to understand and navigate the substantial and growing implications of generative AI for the law.https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/faculty-books/1100/thumbnail.jp
Navigating Tribal Law Research: A Short Guide for Washington Attorneys
No full textIn law school, you probably learned how to find both state and federal law in your legal research and writing classes. But did you know that there is an important third source of law? It’s Tribal law. (And, yes, you should capitalize “Tribal.”)
Since time immemorial, Tribes have “engaged in dispute resolution and the effectuation of [T]ribal justice.” But modern-day Tribal law refers to the law set out by each of the more than 570 federally recognized and self-governed Tribal Nations in the United States. The U.S. Constitution recognizes the inherent sovereignty of Tribal Nations: They have the power to establish their own forms of government, enact legislation, and establish law enforcement and court systems. There is great variety in the ways Tribal Nations do this. So, this discussion of Tribal courts and Tribal law “cannot adequately account for the complete range of experiences of all tribal nations and courts.”
But if we focus on Tribal law for the 29 federally recognized Tribal governments within Washington, the discussion is more manageable. This article is a primer to help you do Tribal law research within Washington, something that most legal professionals, regardless of practice area, should know how to do.
Even attorneys who do not practice within Tribal courts can encounter Tribal law when advising clients on issues like land use, environmental regulation, business matters, criminal law, or family law matters. For example, you might represent a client in a divorce who is not a Tribal member but is married to a Tribal member and owns a house financed with money from a Tribal program. Or you might represent an insurance company that is sued for breach of contract by a Tribe in Tribal court instead of Washington state court