7184 research outputs found
Sort by
Faux Originalism and Supreme Hypocrisy—Reflections on Day 1 of the US Supreme Court’s 2024-2025 Term
No full text
Transforming Disaster Risk Reduction With AI and Big Data: Legal and Interdisciplinary Perspectives
No full textManaging complex disaster risks requires interdisciplinary efforts. Breaking down silos between law, social sciences, and natural sciences is critical for all processes of disaster risk reduction. This enables adaptive systems for the rapid evolution of AI technology, which has significantly impacted the intersection of law and natural environments. Exploring how AI influences legal frameworks and environmental management, while also examining how legal and environmental considerations can confine AI within the socioeconomic domain, is essential.
From a co-production review perspective, drawing on insights from lawyers, social scientists, and environmental scientists, principles for responsible data mining are proposed based on safety, transparency, fairness, accountability, and contestability. This discussion offers a blueprint for interdisciplinary collaboration to create adaptive law systems based on AI integration of knowledge from environmental and social sciences. Discrepancies in the use of language between environmental scientists and decision-makers in terms of usefulness and accuracy hamper how AI can be used based on the principles of legal considerations for a safe, trustworthy, and contestable disaster management framework.When social networks are useful for mitigating disaster risks based on AI, the legal implications related to privacy and liability of the outcomes of disaster management must be considered. Fair and accountable principles emphasise environmental considerations and foster socioeconomic discussions related to public engagement. AI also has an important role to play in education, bringing together the next generations of law, social sciences, and natural sciences to work on interdisciplinary solutions in harmony
Implementing Information Fiduciaries
Get PDFThis Note discusses the information fiduciary model, proposed by Jack Balkin, where fiduciary duties would be imposed on data collectors and analyzes how such a model could come to pass in the United States
A Taxing Problem: The Impacts of Research Payment Practices on Participants and Inclusive Research
No full textEmpirical data regarding payments to participants in research is limited. This lack of information constrains our understanding of the effectiveness of payments to achieve scientific goals with respect to recruitment, retention, and inclusion. We conducted a content analysis of consent forms and protocols available on clinicaltrials.gov to determine what information researchers provide regarding payment. We extracted data from HIV (n = 101) and NIMH-funded studies (n = 65) listed on clinicaltrials.gov that had publicly posted a consent form. Using a manifest content analysis approach, we then coded the language regarding payment from the consent document and, where available, protocol for purpose and method of the payment. Although not part of our original planned analysis, the tax-related information that emerged from our content analysis of the consent form language provided additional insights into researcher payment practices. Accordingly, we also recorded whether the payment section mentioned social security numbers (or other tax identification number) in connection with payments and whether it made any statements regarding the Internal Revenue Service or the tax status of payments. We found studies commonly offered payment, but did not distinguish between the purposes for which payment may be offered (i.e., compensation, reimbursement, incentive, or appreciation). We also found studies that excluded some participants from receiving payment or treated them differently from other participants in the study. Differential treatment was typically linked to US tax laws and other legal requirements. A number of US studies also discussed the need to collect Social Security numbers and income reporting based on US tax laws. Collectively, these practices disadvantage some participants and may interfere with efforts to conduct more inclusive research
Articulating and Claiming the Right to Stay in the Context of Climate Change
No full textClimate-related displacement is a topic of increasing concern in both academic research and the political, social, and humanitarian spheres. As many seek to develop legal regimes that will allow those living in the most climate-affected areas to move with dignity, individuals and communities living in these countries, regions, and localities are often resistant to the idea of migration as their best adaptation option, and instead call for policy choices that will allow them to stay in place. In this article we seek to legally situate these calls for a right to stay and examine the specific forms that they are taking on the ground. We suggest that there is a typology of right to stay claims, ranging from classic claims—primarily against local government or private actors, against takings or for protection from forced eviction or relocation—to more expansive claims for revised economic, social, or environmental policies to address the underlying drivers of displacement, which may also involve national government and even the international community. We argue that the full range of these different types of claims have relevance in the climate change context, and that such claims may have important legal, moral, and discursive power in efforts to meaningfully address climate change-related displacement in a manner consistent with the rights of those most affected
Summer NY 2020: Black Legal Observers, Black Solidarity
No full textLeading up to the summer of 2020’s historic mobilizations in the name of protecting Black lives, Black community organizers in New York City frequently lamented the relative absence of a critical stakeholder: the Black legal observer. Like other legal observers, Black legal observers are legal workers and others invited to protests and direct actions to (1) deter illegal police behavior by documenting their interactions with protesters and (2) facilitate the release of arrestees by obtaining their personal information pre-arrest. Unlike other legal observers, Black legal observers are part of a lineage of Black people monitoring state actors and serving a uniquely critical role in the larger Black liberation movement ecosystem. In response to persistent demands, a group of primarily legal workers formed a Black-led legal observer group in 2019 called the New York City Black Legal Observer Collective (“BLOC”). Using BLOC as a backdrop, this essay connects Black legal observation to the protracted struggle for Black self-determination in the United States that continues today. Part I explores different conceptions of Black self-determination since the inception of the Trans-Atlantic trade in enslaved Africans and the role of Black community members who engaged in various forms of largely self-defense-oriented state observation or monitoring. It brings this history full circle by highlighting contemporary examples of Black-led legal observer collectives that preceded BLOC. Part II focuses on BLOC’s formation, work, and attempts to support Black organizing in New York City during 2019 and 2020. To emphasize the value of formations such as BLOC, Part III highlights how BLOC supported Black-led organizing during the height of organizing for Black lives during the summer of 2020. This essay ends by reflecting on lessons from our time with BLOC that future efforts can learn from to build more sustainable Black legal observers and mass-defense organizations. For those committed to a world where Black people can experience their full humanity, we argue that Black legal observers are an essential element
Banging the Gavel: Supreme Court Decisions That Shook the Nation this Summer: Agency Action Under Attack?
No full textUnder the Chevron Doctrine, the Supreme Court has long deferred to agencies’ reasonable interpretation of the law. The Court’s decision in this summer’s Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo has overturned Chevron. In combination with cases such as Ohio v EPA, SEC v Jarkesy, and Corner Post vs Federal Reserve System, this creates new obstacles to agency action. Even seemingly favorable decisions released this summer, such as Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine and Murthi v. Missouri, have implications for who has standing to challenge agency actions. This session will examine these cases, and discuss the potential impact, including how agencies like FDA, CMS, CFPB, and EPA will implement these decisions, how the entities they regulate will respond, how Congress may legislate, and how the courts may resolve disputes going forward
