9873 research outputs found
Sort by
State Constitutional Prohibitions of Slavery and Involuntary Servitude
Get PDFIn recent years, the Thirteenth Amendment has drawn sustained criticism for its “Punishment Clause,” which exempts those duly convicted of criminal offenses from the Amendment’s prohibition of slavery and involuntary servitude. Citing the Punishment Clause, courts have struck down challenges by those sentenced to forced labor, arguing that such involuntary servitude is explicitly permitted for those convicted of crimes. Recent criticism draws on concerns over mass incarceration and expansive forced labor practices—urging that the Thirteenth Amendment be revised to remove the Punishment Clause.
Prompted by increased attention to and criticism of the Punishment Clause, some states have taken matters into their own hands. Many state constitutions contain provisions prohibiting slavery and involuntary servitude, yet most of these provisions include similar language permitting involuntary servitude to be imposed as punishment for crimes. Starting in 2018, seven states amended their constitutions to remove the punishment exemptions— creating a meaningful difference between the scope of state constitutional protection and the limited protection afforded by the Thirteenth Amendment.
This Article examines state-level constitutional prohibitions of slavery and involuntary servitude, and recent trends toward eliminating punishment clause language from these provisions. Several recent amendments fall short of meaningful reform by inserting additional qualifications that undo any substantive changes these amendments may have made. Other provisions are limited by state constitutional requirements that mandate forced labor practices. Despite these shortcomings, Alabama’s, Colorado’s, and Nebraska’s constitutions now contain unequivocal bans on slavery and involuntary servitude—provisions that may lend meaningful support to challenges of forced labor regimes. The Article concludes by encouraging other states to adopt similar amendments and urging those pursuing mass incarceration reforms to take note of state constitutional provisions
Drawing Connections: A Guide to Visual Advocacy for Lawyers
No full textTwelve thousand. That’s the word limit for opening briefs in Washington appellate courts. Figuring the average reader can process 256 words per minute, that’s slightly more than a 45-minute read time. Per brief. How can you cut through word count and make your writing memorable? Incorporate visuals.
When combined with text, visuals boost comprehension and retention. Our brains process images faster than text. And images stick: readers recall images more clearly than text. In short, visuals bring fuzzy text into focus
Sidestepping Substance: How Administrative Law Plays an Outsized Role in Shaping Environmental Policy and Why Recalibration is Necessary
Get PDFAdministrative law and environmental law are companion fields. Still, they are not interchangeable. They promote different values. And yet, sometimes when courts resolve environmental disputes by relying on administrative doctrines, courts elevate the values of administrative law over those codified in environmental statutes. This is particularly concerning when courts rely on judicially-created administrative law doctrines to sidestep congressional intent as expressed by the substantive aims of environmental statutes.
To reduce the risk of sidestepping—whether inadvertent or intentional—this Article critically examines how administrative law doctrines can undermine environmental law. Drawing on prominent case examples, including the Supreme Court decision in Sackett v. EPA, this Article shows how administrative law can be operationalized to destabilize environmental law, thwart the law’s need for predictability, and otherwise create pathways for judicial activism. This Article goes on to examine the three features of administrative law that allow courts to use it as a tool for sidestepping environmental law’s normative aims: fluidity in individual application, evolution over time, and roots in tenuous textual tethers.
Ultimately, this Article calls for a recalibrated approach to the relationship between administrative law and environmental law in judicial review—one that puts administrative law in its place and gives due respect to the values that Congress codified in the underlying environmental statutes. Doing so will foster the integrity of both fields