7184 research outputs found
Sort by
Foreword: Lawyers and Linguists Collaborate in Using Corpus Linguistics to Produce New Insights Into Original Meaning
Get PDFThe Problem With Relying on Profit-Driven Models to Produce Pandemic Drugs
No full textThe longstanding problems of relying on a market response to a pandemic are becoming readily apparent in the United States, which has quickly become the epicenter of the COVID-19 outbreak. The problems are particularly pronounced in pharmaceutical markets, where we are pinning our hopes for both cures and vaccines. In previous work we have shown how characteristics of healthcare markets in the United States create a divergence between the private incentives of for-profit companies and public health needs, leading to sub-optimal health outcomes in what is a uniquely market-driven healthcare system. In this Essay, written as the COVID-19 pandemic unfolds, we illustrate how this divergence of private incentives from public health needs widens in contexts of pandemic preparedness and pandemic response. The Essay begins by explaining why the design of pharmaceutical markets in the United States yields suboptimal and sometimes even negative health outcomes. The Essay then follows the trajectory of the drug remdesivir as a case study that illustrates the consequences of relying on profit-driven pharmaceutical research and development (R&D) models for pandemic preparedness and response. We conclude that, contrary to what many commentators suggest, government policy responses to pandemic threats that rely primarily on increasing private market incentives within our existing pharmaceutical markets are unlikely to yield pandemic treatments that meet public healthcare needs. Policy interventions should instead be designed in ways that narrow the divergence of private interests from public health needs, especially in pandemic contexts. Achieving this will likely require greater public-sector involvement in pharmaceutical R&D
The Rise of Zero Tolerance and the Demise of Family
Get PDFThis article explores the intersection of immigration law and family law and argues that the current regime dedicated to decimating immigrant families in the United States does not comport with the history and spirit of immigration law and policy. Policies shifting away from family unity and towards an inhumane treatment of immigrant families is anchored in the political rhetoric that normalizes the oppression of immigrants. By characterizing immigrants as nonhuman—even “animals,” as described by President Donald Trump—the current slate of anti-immigrant policies that specifically target families is normalized. Part I discusses contemporary immigration law that terrorizes the family unit and explores the Zero Tolerance Prosecution policy against asylum seekers and other entering immigrants that led to Customs and Border Protection officials tearing children away from their parents at the border. The continuation and expansion of family detention bolsters the policy, in which immigrant families and unaccompanied minors are held in government custody. These policies prevail in part because the narrative surrounding immigrant criminality and dehumanization—despite empirical evidence demonstrating no correlation between immigrant status and criminality—paves the way to more easily tyrannize immigrant families.
In contrast to this contemporary movement against the family, Part II provides critical historical context, asserting that the history of immigration law and policy is one deeply committed to family unity. Although this history is clearly marred by the deeply entrenched legacy of racial and ethnic discrimination and is rooted in principles of male dominance, it is undeniable that family primacy is a fundamental principle in immigration law. Part III then explores immigration law’s precarious intersection with the laws that protect families and children, noting how immigration policies cloaked as national security measures have more recently infringed upon immigrant families’ decision making. The last generation of jurisprudence, though, has embraced a broader fealty to family integrity. This Part also discusses how policies of detaining immigrant families and children and separating immigrant families are in direct contradiction to the law’s established commitment to actions that are in the best interests of children and pursuant to child welfare standards. This discussion then leads to Part IV’s exploration of the recent litigation and advocacy efforts to dismantle the Family Separation Policy. It then predicts that this litigation and movement are harbingers of establishing due process rights of immigrant family integrity. The article concludes with a call to advocates to resist the demeaning, dehumanizing narrative and to push forward in preserving and protecting families
Feeling the Heat: The Endangered Species Act and Climate Change
Get PDFThe following Note discusses the effects that some of these rule changes will have on the Endangered Species Act in the face of uncertain climate change and the science behind it. Part I examines the background of the Act, its current rules, climate change’s impact on the environment, and judicial deference to agency interpretations. Part II analyzes how the current rules further the goals of the Act, how the proposed changes to those rules will add to the confusion surrounding the Act’s standards, and the role climate change studies have in both of those implementations. Part III will propose a few alternatives for how the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Endangered Species Act can accommodate climate change, such as a broader ecosystem-based approach, a narrower approach focused on climate-impacted species, and a conjunctive effort to work with other parties
Wills, Trusts, Guardianships, and Fiduciary Administration
No full textThis Article describes significant cases decided by the Georgia Court of Appeals during the period of June 1, 2020, through May 31, 2019, that pertain to Georgia fiduciary law and estate planning
