9873 research outputs found
Sort by
Playing with a Purpose: Tips for Integrating New Games into the Classroom
No full textWhen you challenge students with a well-designed game, you make class more fun while also sneakily reinforcing your key concepts. In this presentation, I explore principles for creating new games that lie outside of the vocab-quiz comfort zone
Culverts
No full textJohn Sledd (Kanji & Katzen), Implementation of the Culverts Decision (timestamp - 5:20)
Kim Rydholm (Fish Passage Delivery Manager, Washington State Department of Transportation) & Mark Schumock (Assistant Attorney General, Transportation and Public Construction Division), Restoring Fish Passage at WSDOT Stream Crossings (timestamp - 24:53
Development Disrupted: The Case of Afghanistan Taliban 2.0 and Lessons Learned About Foreign Aid Management
Get PDFIn August 2021, the United States withdrawal from Afghanistan marked the end of twenty years of attempts at liberal state building and development in that country. Despite spending trillions of dollars to create a capable, functional government, the Afghan government could not last even a week without US military and financial support. After its collapse, the Taliban immediately took over Afghanistan for the second time (Taliban 2.0). This turn of events resulted in the discontinuance of foreign aid and immediate downturn of the Afghan economy. Since then, there has been debate, among other issues, over why and how the foreign aid failed, and whether and how aid (if any) should continue to flow into the country under Taliban rule. This Article argues that foreign aid from governments and non-governmental donor agencies was not the essential problem, but it was the centralized aid and public finance management system which caused systemic corruption and waste. The monopoly of authorities, discretion over resources, and lack of downward accountability promoted a top-down, unanswerable aid and public finance management system which ultimately failed the Afghan State. With the Taliban again in power, there are two main issues that challenge the flow of foreign aid, aside from its egregious human rights record. First, the international community cannot trust a regime that has not (yet) been formally recognized or proved itself a reliable recipient; and second, the authoritarian and undemocratic leadership is pursuing the same centralized approach to management of aid and public funds. While the aid would remain humanitarian in scope, there is no assurance, as was the case in the previous regime, of any sustainable prospect of peace and in-country development. Nevertheless, the international community must find a way to meet this development challenge
Wrong or (Fundamental) Right?: Substantive Due Process and the Right to Exclude
Get PDFSubstantive due process provides heightened protection from government interference with enumerated constitutional rights and unenumerated—but nevertheless “fundamental”—rights. To date, the United States Supreme Court has never recognized any property right as a fundamental right for substantive due process purposes. But in Yim v. City of Seattle, a case recently decided by the Ninth Circuit, landlords and tenant screening companies argued that the right to exclude from one’s property should be a fundamental right. Yim involved a challenge to Seattle’s Fair Chance Housing Ordinance, which, among other things, prohibits landlords and tenant screening companies from inquiring about or considering a rental applicant’s criminal history when making tenancy decisions. The plaintiffs contended that the Ordinance deprived them of their right to exclude by restricting a highly relevant consideration for tenancy decisions.
This Comment argues against the existence of a fundamental right to exclude in the substantive due process context, at least as far as commercial property is concerned. At its core, property is a thing—a resource. When property is used commercially, whether as an apartment or office building or something else, its owner’s power to limit access becomes the power to affect others engaged in the marketplace. This broad power over the public brings commercial property within the concern of the community. So, when the government places limits on the power to exclude from commercial property, it is regulating the marketplace and ensuring access is not being improperly denied to certain persons. Protecting the ability of its citizens to get by is inherently an exercise of legitimate government authority. As such, placing heightened substantive due process limits on the government’s power over the right to exclude would have dramatic consequences for the operation of government and for some individuals’ capacities to access shelter. It would seriously misapply and disfigure the law of substantive due process. The costs of recognizing a fundamental right to exclude from commercial property simply are not justified
(Some) Land Back...Sort of: The Transfer of Federal Public Lands to Indian Tribes Since 1970
Get PDFFederal public lands in the United States were carved from the territories of Native Nations and, in nearly every instance, required that the United States extinguish pre-existing aboriginal title. Following acquisition of these lands, the federal government pursued various strategies for them, including disposal to states and private parties, managing lands to allow for multiple uses, and conservation or protection. After over a century of such varied approaches, the modern public landscape is a complex milieu of public and private interests, laws and policies, and patchwork ownership patterns. This complexity depends on—and begins with—the history of Indigenous dispossession but subsequent developments have created additional layers of complication. Recently, a broad social movement, captured succinctly by the social media hashtag “#Landback” and including some American Indian tribes, has begun calling for the restoration of the nation’s lands to Native ownership, including the transfer of all public lands to tribal hands. This article aims to contextualize and assess the more recent history of the transfer of federal public lands to Indian tribes, which has often taken the form of the United States transferring such lands into trust ownership for the benefit of a particular tribe. The article is the first comprehensive collection and analysis of 44 statutes enacted by Congress from 1970 to 2020 that transfer ownership interests in public lands to federally-recognized Indian tribes. These statutes are bookended by the return of Blue Lake to Taos Pueblo in New Mexico (1970) and the return of the National Bison Range to the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes in Montana (2020). Analysis of these laws surfaces common themes and provisions related to the political dynamics of such congressional actions and the terms of post-transfer tribal or federal management. In particular, the article relies on four primary case studies to provide background, context, and detail in illustrating these themes : (1) Blue Lake on the Carson National Forest to Taos Pueblo, (2) the Western Oregon Tribal Fairness Act, (3) Chippewa National Forest land to the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe in Minnesota, and (4) the National Bison Range to the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes in Montana. These examples are representative of the larger catalog of transfer statutes and demonstrate the variation and complexity associated with each individual transfer situation. Hopefully, this first-ever collection of these laws will provide a practical grounding and depth of understanding for those considering or advocating for “#Landback.” More broadly, these examples and the common themes that tie them together raise important questions about the historical and continuing patterns of public land ownership and control
Brief of Law School Clinics Focused on Civil Rights as Amici Curiae, Portugal v. Franklin County, Washington State Supreme Court Docket No. 100999-2
Get PDFIntroduction: For decades, Washington’s electorate has been rapidly diversifying—but its elected representation has not. Against this backdrop, Washington enacted antidiscrimination legislation, the Washington Voting Rights Act (“WVRA” or the “Act”), that established a simple principle: All the State’s residents, regardless of their race, must be afforded equal voting opportunity. Within the bounds of that antidiscrimination guardrail, local jurisdictions retain broad discretion to define the method and manner of elections. The rights the WVRA creates flow to members of all racial groups, and the remedies it envisions can be entirely race-neutral. To the extent that the WVRA requires consideration of race at all—to show racially polarized voting—it expressly binds itself to federal case law. Yet Appellant James Gimenez argues that these equal protection efforts are at odds with the Equal Protection Clause, rendering the Act facially unconstitutional. That conclusion is as wrong as it sounds
Native American Natural Resources Law: Cases and Materials
No full textNative American Natural Resources Law: Cases and Materials provides a thorough examination of the interconnection between land, religion, culture, and the law. The text includes basic Indian law history and focuses on aboriginal, treaty, and executive order title; allotment; and the intersection between Indian Country and surrounding lands. Special emphasis is placed on the tribal role in environmental protection, tribal natural resources development, and tribal taxation authority, as well as a detailed consideration of water rights and usufructurary rights to hunt, fish, and gather.
The fifth edition incorporates the many major developments in the law since the fourth edition, with expanded materials on momentous decisions of the United States Supreme Court, such as McGirt v. Oklahoma, and ongoing land management issues, including tribal-federal costewardship of places like Bears Ears National Monument and elsewhere; the numerous policy initiatives of the Biden administration aimed at reshaping the federal-tribal relationship; and important circuit court decisions related to water rights, the federal government\u27s trust relationship with tribes, and much more.https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/faculty-books/1089/thumbnail.jp