7184 research outputs found
Sort by
SB 79 - Controlled Substances
No full textThis Act amends various sections of Georgia’s criminal code. Three key changes are particularly noteworthy. First, the Act revises threshold amounts of fentanyl and related substances for the offenses of possessing, selling, distributing, manufacturing, and trafficking such substances. Second, the Act increases the penalties for such offenses. Lastly, the Act revises mandatory minimum departure provisions for defendants convicted of trafficking fentanyl and related substances
HB 127 - Education Generally
No full textThe bill proposed a prohibition on local education agencies and postsecondary institutions from endorsing any programs or activities that advocate for diversity, equity, and inclusion, which includes any efforts to promote the different treatment of individuals on the basis of race, color, sex, ethnicity, national origin, gender identity, or sexual orientation. However, the bill excludes policies and rules relating to restrooms and changing areas. Violation of the bill’s provisions may result in the withholding of state funding or state-administered federal funding
Disrupting the Biospecimen “Treasure Trove”: Practice, Precedent, and Future Directions
No full textThe article focuses on how decentralized biobanking offers a approach to reconnect individuals with their biospecimens, challenging the traditional treasure trove model where institutions exclusively control and profit from donated biological materials. Topics include the legal precedents shaping donor rights, technological innovations such as blockchain and NFTs for transparent specimen tracking, and the ethical and practical implications for research participation, and benefit-sharing
SB 69 - Litigation Financing Practices
No full textThe Act primarily functions to regulate “third-party litigation financing” (TPLF). Also known as the Georgia Courts Access and Consumer Protection Act, the Act mandates that all litigation financiers operating within Georgia register with the Department of Banking and Finance and disclose ownership details, including any foreign affiliations. In addition, the Act bars financiers from directing litigation strategies, selecting legal representation, offering attorneys commission, or influencing decisions related to expert witnesses and settlements
More Than Words: Using Land Use Rules to Fight Climate Destruction
No full textIt is now unlikely that meaningful federal legislation on climate destruction will be advanced in a second Trump administration. If “no action” is the alternative for the federal government, it will be up to the states to develop measures to counteract this challenge. These measures — in response to a trend in Supreme Court rulings that restrict or deny federal environmental action without explicit congressional approval – could include, among other things, new air and water quality standards, fishing restrictions, and changes to water allocations in our rivers. Yet these potential changes may be themselves limited by federal actions that would preempt state and local environmental measures. But that federal power has not been historically exercised in the planning and land use regulatory powers that traditionally lie with the states and their local governments.
This paper examines one state’s attempt to use its planning and land use regulatory powers to respond to climate destruction as a template for other states to respond to a “no action” alternative. This introduction deals with the political and regulatory background of the state of Oregon leading to adoption of the “Climate-Friendly and Equitable Communities” (CFEC) Rules. Following the introduction, Section II sets out the rules themselves. Further sections discuss the (largely unsuccessful) challenge to those rules, approaches taken by other states, and an evaluation of Oregon’s efforts to avert climate destruction