11929 research outputs found
Sort by
Reversal of Roe v. Wade and Implications of Legal Restrictions for Neonatal Care
No full textPurpose of review
This review examines the implications of the 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women\u27s Health Organization decision on neonatal care and explores how legal restrictions on abortion are influencing medical practices for neonates and the broader healthcare landscape for neonates. Recent findings
The Dobbs decision has led to increased uncertainty and challenges in both maternal and neonatal healthcare. Restrictive abortion laws are associated with higher infant mortality rates, increased health disparity, and increased care provider ethical dilemmas and moral distress due to legal uncertainty surrounding the care of infants. However, current changes in federal and state law regarding abortion do not change the previously established standard of care for neonates. Other federal legal statutes potentially addressing the care of neonates have existed for over 20 years and have had minimal effect on the practice of neonatology, because there is no record of federal enforcement actions or federal case law to clarify how the law should be interpreted. Summary
While restrictive abortion laws primarily affect women and pregnant people\u27s health care, indirect effects on neonatal care are becoming more common. There are other laws and policies with greater potential to regulate care for infants at the federal and state level. Professional medical standards remain the guiding framework in neonatal care. Clinicians can mitigate legal concerns through knowledge and advocacy
The “Gray Zone”: Safeguarding Diplomatic Premises from Attacks by Third Countries
Get PDFDiplomatic inviolability is a key norm in international law which guarantees that a state receiving a diplomatic mission from another state will not intrude on the mission’s physical premises and will protect them from any invasion or damage. The concept predates even Hugo Grotius, the so-called “father of international law,” who in his own works referenced it as established practice in the diplomatic community. The receiving state’s obligations towards diplomatic missions in its territory were solidified in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations in 1961. The same principles were later reiterated in the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.4 Both treaties have since received near-universal ratification and their principles have reached the status of customary international law
[quote] Trump’s Under-the-Radar Executive Orders and Why They Matter
No full text“By themselves, executive orders don\u27t necessarily have a lot of legal sway, and that\u27s particularly true if Congress has already spoken to the issue with a statute that\u27s a duly enacted law,” says William Snape, a professor at American University’s Washington College of Law.
Many of Trump’s executive orders are an attempt to push the legal envelope, according to Snape
Threats to Free Speech and Academic Freedom on Campus
No full textTenured faculty are being fired as the federal government presses university administrators to crack down on those who criticize Israel’s military actions and treatment of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. Students are being expelled and others disciplined for participating in demonstrations or writing op-eds in their college newspapers critical of Israel or supportive of DEI programs. Foreign students and faculty are having their visas revoked and they are threatened with deportation for expressing views that the Trump administration disagrees with. The government is cutting research funding to some universities, and has threatened to terminate such funding to others, unless they ban pro-Palestinian and speakers and purge DEI programs from their curricula
Professors and Company Law: Implications for Academic Freedom
Get PDFThis Article examines the intersection of company law and academic freedom, specifically exploring how nonprofit universities might invoke corporate and agency law principles to assert breach of fiduciary duty claims when a university could view a professor’s handling of controversial topics or facilitation of provocative class discussions as detrimental to its financial interests or public reputation. Such allegations might arise when universities perceive that these discussions alienate donors, provoke public backlash, or otherwise harm the institution’s standing, thereby framing the professor’s academic choices as potentially disloyal or harmful to the university. While public university professors might argue that the First Amendment protects such classroom activities, this Article contends that in both public and private institutions, extraconstitutional and extralegal considerations complicate the situation. By applying company law principles, this Article delves into the intricate fiduciary duties that professors may owe to their employing institutions, uncovering the legal and ethical tensions that these duties create within the academic environment. The Article challenges the conventional view of the university solely as a contractual nexus, proposing instead that complex fiduciary relationships that may conflict with traditional academic freedoms govern this entity
Is It Possible To Draft A Universal Criminal Code?
Get PDFThe world contains hundreds of distinct communities with their own traditions and values. One might assume that, despite the best efforts of international organizations, it would be impossible to draft a criminal code that could operate effectively for all countries. Is that the case? If one tried to construct a universal criminal code, what sorts of challenges and limitations with the effort face
Does Mandatory Corporate Human Rights Due Diligence Offer a Path to Resolving Global Food Insecurity Challenges?
Get PDFDespite the 2015 implementation of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal to end hunger and all forms of malnutrition by 2030 (the Zero Hunger Goal), food insecurity remains a persistent global problem. Well past the halfway point to 2030, the world is woefully off track to reach this goal. Current efforts to address global food insecurity are led by the public sector and focused on government interventions, and these are proving to be insufficient on their own. This Article argues that the private sector, and business enterprises and multinational corporations in particular, as important stakeholders in society, can and must assume a greater role in safeguarding and advancing the right to food. In this role, they have a commensurate duty—increasingly recognized in mandatory corporate social responsibility (CSR)—to take account of their social impacts, which includes upholding human rights such as the right to food. Secondly, there are international corporate-focused rights frameworks that reinforce this responsibility for businesses, such as the U.N. Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, and a suite of OECD guidelines that promote responsible business conduct. Finally, more than any other actor in society, these corporate actors have the capacity to do so. As such, this Article proposes a bold solution with significant potential to bring about systemic change enhancing global food security: reforming the human rights due diligence process by making it a legally binding obligation, which includes a reconceptualized right to food. Thus, this Article extrapolates from and adds coherence to a clear global trend shifting CSR from soft to hard law, with mandatory corporate human rights due diligence (HRDD) laws becoming an increasingly prominent form. The EU is at the forefront of this trend with hard law regulation of business and human rights already in place at the EU level—the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (2024)—and in Member States such as France and Germany. Therefore, the proposed solution is feasible from a legislative perspective, and it offers an important path to resolving global food insecurity challenges
The United States’ Strengthened National Security Review Of Chinese Investment: Implications From The Tech War
Get PDFIn recent years, the national security review system of United States (U.S.) foreign investment has entered into a period of intensified scrutiny of Chinese investment. This article analyzes the latest development of the U.S. foreign investment national security review system after the enactment of the 2018 Foreign Investment Risk Review and Modernization Act (FIRRMA) and relevant Executive Orders. The U.S. review of Chinese investment has been greatly strengthened in terms of the expanded scope of review in high-tech areas and prolonged and unpredictable review time. China has become the primary target of the U.S. national security review, especially in the finance, information, and manufacturing industries. Among Chinese investment review cases, successful Chinese investors usually fully employed the advantages of abundant capital and managed to balance economic benefits with security risks by negotiating mitigation agreements with the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). Unsuccessful Chinese investors often failed to make “declarations,” ignored the deterrent power of the U.S. long-arm jurisdiction, and chose to invest in sensitive areas without reaching mitigation agreements. In the regulation of TikTok and other apps from foreign adversaries, the 2024 Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act (PAFACA) has profoundly reshaped the national security review system in the U.S. high-tech industries. Compared with the Trump Executive Order 13942, the 2024 PAFACA has stronger legal force and its severability can defeat the litigation strategies that may be used by Chinese investors. It tends to prohibit TikTok in an indirect manner, which is a wiser and more flexible approach. Moreover, it has a wider scope of application and provides the possibility of mitigations and exemptions. The U.S. national security review regime reforms have exerted significant impacts on China. With the escalation of the Sino-U.S. political and economic tensions, China has gradually abandoned its original national security strategy, adopted a policy restricting outbound technology transfers, overhauled the foreign investment national security review law, and adopted retaliatory laws against U.S. sanctions
Forward Progress: The Rooney Rule and Its Post-SFFA Relevance
No full textIn 2003, the National Football League (NFL), which had long struggled with racial inequity both on and off the field, implemented a policy known as the Rooney Rule, requiring that any league club searching for a head coach interview at least one person of color before making a hire. In the over two decades since, employers of all sorts seeking to increase opportunities for people of color and women have adopted a form of the Rule. Indeed, it has gained traction from coast to coast. Hundreds of American employers utilize the Rooney Rule or a policy derived therefrom. In the wake, however, of the United States Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (SFFA) invalidating affirmative action admissions programs at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina, the Rooney Rule’s legal validity has come into question. If the Rooney Rule is deemed unlawful, the consequences would be substantial. It would prompt scores of employers to abandon their Rooney Rule analogs, likely damaging their efforts to ensure equitable employment opportunity in their organizations. This paper explores the NFL’s history of racial inequity, its implementation of the Rooney Rule as a means of increasing racial equity, the Rule’s impact, and the post-SFFA attacks that threaten its existence, concluding that the Rooney Rule was designed to, and likely will, survive the anti-affirmative action legal challenges it faces
Torts: Black Letter Outlines
No full textBlack Letter Outlines are designed to help law students and novice lawyers state clear legal rules, describe underlying tort principles, and apply those rules and principles to client representations and other real-world scenarios. Readers can use Black Letter Outlines as a study aid when preparing for classes, as a subject-matter review when studying for course or bar examinations, and as a convenient and easily-navigable refresher for the novice lawyer. Black Letter Outlines are written by experienced law school professors who are recognized national authorities in their subject area. New authors Abrams and Porter bring a niche expertise that combines their years of tort law practice experience with their classroom teaching experience and their added lenses of bar exam readiness instruction and inclusive pedagogy expertise. This Torts Outline particularly helps students see the major tort causes of action, developments and trajectory shifts in the field, and representative practice problems. It is a useful tool in helping aspiring Torts mavens at once see the big picture of Torts while also refining their precision in stating its rules and validating their knowledge by measuring content acquisition.https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/facsch_bks/1294/thumbnail.jp