Geological Observatory of Coldigioco
PennState, The Dickinson School of Law: Penn State Law eLibraryNot a member yet
7581 research outputs found
Sort by
To Kill and Let Suffer: The Incompatibility of the Death Penalty and Medical Aid in Dying, and the Necessity for a Fundamental Right to Life
No full textCurrently, the Supreme Court holds that the death penalty is constitutional and that a person has no right to Medical Aid in Dying, resulting in a legal environment in which a person can unwillingly be put to death while simultaneously having no ability to end their own life if terminally ill and in pain. The conclusion drawn from the Supreme Court’s decisions means that death row inmates who wish to end their lives have a greater right to die than law-abiding citizens. This state of affairs is untenable and contradictory to the founding principles of the United States. This Comment argues for a recognized fundamental right to life under substantive due process to mend this divide. Such a recognition would result in the death penalty being deemed unconstitutional. This Comment also argues for a reanalysis of Washington v. Glucksberg under the modern understanding of Medical Aid in Dying and the rights of life and liberty. This reanalysis would reveal that the right at issue in Glucksberg—the right of suicide—was overly broad and not reflective of American history and tradition. The true right at issue was the right to hasten one’s own death, which is strongly supported by history and tradition. Analyzing this right under substantive due process shows that it would be unconstitutional to deny a terminally ill patient from having access to Medical Aid in Dying when they have a life expectancy of six months or less
Nest Eggs and Lifelines: The Overlooked Strain of Economic Volatility on 401(K) Participants
No full textMany Americans rely on defined contribution plans like 401(k) plans for retirement savings. These plans do not guarantee a fixed retirement benefit; rather, the benefit is based on accumulated contributions and investment performance. When the stock market drops, so do retirement account balances. When inflation hikes living expenses, money does not go as far. President Donald Trump\u27s policies, including those associated with tariffs, are causing economic and resource volatility leading to financial hardship. Americans worry as they watch living costs increase and their retirement savings diminish. It is well known that retirees rely on 401(k) plan balances to fund their living costs. Yet the effects of economic volatility on 401(k) values extend well beyond retirees. Because these accounts serve a dual purpose-funding both retirement and, at times, current spending-workers who are years away from retirement also feel the impact. This Article examines the often-overlooked consequences of economic volatility under Trump 2.0 tariffs and related policies on 401(k) plan participants, including the ways in which inflation and recessionary pressures may drive pre-retirement withdrawals
Suppressing the Surge: Starbucks and the Limits of Labor Rights
No full textIn the wake of the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, Starbucks workers launched an unprecedented movement to organize workers at each store. Starbucks management responded to this movement with an unlawful union busting campaign. The National Labor Relations Board found that the Starbucks campaign violated workers’ rights to engage in union activity under the National Labor Relations Act. Starbucks’ efforts allowed them to stave off any collective bargaining agreement between the stores and the union. The company adopted aggressive tactics in the run-up to worksite elections which the Board found amounted to unlawful interference. The endeavor to organize workers at Starbucks stores is a case study of all the shortcomings of the National Labor Relations Act. The complaints about the ineffectiveness of the National Labor Relations Act are well documented, and countless solutions have been recommended. This Comment will revisit some of those grievances and how they remain relevant in the labor movement’s challenges against Starbucks. This Comment will endorse the Protecting the Right to Organize Act of 2021. But in addition to that endorsement, this Comment will examine new developments in administrative law that portend that administrative adjudications will no longer be an effective process to enforce the law. These new developments include the possible inability of federal agencies to seek civil penalties in administrative adjudications and the legal challenges to for-cause removal protections for Administrative Law Judges and head agency officials. As a result, this Comment will recommend that all enforcement proceedings under the National Labor Relations Act be removed to Article III federal courts. While this proposal is likely to receive skepticism, it will ensure that enforcement against employers is not thwarted by politics and that workers’ rights under the National Labor Relations Act are protected
Trained, Trusted, and Vetted, But Still Unarmed: The Army is Bucking Congress and the Court by Continuing to Prohibit Concealed Carry
No full textThe constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not “a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.” We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need. That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self-defense.
A Simple Second Look: The Argument for Mandatory Judicial Recusal in Pennsylvania Post Conviction Hearings
No full textThe Due Process Clause guarantees criminal defendants an impartial adjudicator, yet post-conviction proceedings often escape meaningful judicial recusal. In Pennsylvania, the same judge who presided over a criminal trial commonly adjudicates that defendant’s post-conviction review, even when prior rulings are challenged. This Article argues that such self-review creates an objectively intolerable risk of bias, undermining due process and public confidence in the judiciary. Drawing on Supreme Court precedent and psychological research on confirmation bias, the Article demonstrates that existing recusal standards fail to address structural risks in post-conviction adjudication. It proposes legislative reform mandating judicial recusal when a judge previously presided over the same case, better safeguarding fairness, judicial integrity, and constitutional protections
