Geological Observatory of Coldigioco
PennState, The Dickinson School of Law: Penn State Law eLibraryNot a member yet
7581 research outputs found
Sort by
Gendered Effects of U.S. Pandemic Border Policy on Migrants from Central America
No full textThe journeys of women and girl migrants traveling over land to the United States are made more precarious because of their gender. They are more vulnerable than men and boys to many risks, among them sexual violence, sex trafficking, and labor trafficking. At the start of the COVID-19 outbreak in the United States in March 2020, public health authorities invoked an obscure statute to virtually halt asylum processing at its southern border, a policy known as “Title 42.” Hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers have been expelled under this policy and now face longer journeys and new challenges. Title 42 purports to address a global public health issue but exacerbates another: violence against migrant women and girls from the Global South, primarily Central America. It is an example of how public health policy can reinforce preexisting advantage and disadvantage, compounding negative consequences for subordinated groups.https://insight.dickinsonlaw.psu.edu/book-contributions/1045/thumbnail.jp
Materiality in the Long Now: Navigating the Intersection of Decision-Making, Time, and Strategy
No full textExisting formulations of materiality in the federal securities laws contain an inherent limitation because they don’t adequately account for how risks and opportunities change over time. This can mislead investors looking to understand how well a company is poised to avoid long-dated risks and take advantage of evolving opportunities because those risks and opportunities don’t neatly fit into the rubric of “likelihood of occurrence times magnitude of harm equals materiality.” This is because the likelihood of any long-dated risk occurring within a short reporting time frame will always approach zero, which means the traditional model of materiality will always classify it as not material. What is lost is that over time, decisions that a company could make that would mitigate or eliminate longer term risks won’t be recognized and taken in time. This can result in the company having less or zero flexibility when the realization that the likelihood and impact will be greater than previously anticipated. We propose addressing the materiality problem by applying a different analytical framework, drawn from modern decision theory, that would complement the existing understanding of materiality but provide new and useful insights about the impact of time on decision-making and risk
Weed Like Our Money Back: Amending Pennsylvania’s Medical Cannabis Law for Insolvent Cannabusinesses
No full textIn 2016, Pennsylvania joined what is now 37 states and the District of Columbia in legalizing medical cannabis. The Commonwealth’s cannabusinesses share in a struggle that is common in other legal jurisdictions: operating within the confines of the Controlled Substances Act and the Bankruptcy Code. Insolvent individuals and businesses that profit from cannabis or hold cannabis assets cannot declare bankruptcy because cannabis is a Schedule I drug. Under state law, other insolvency alternatives like an assignment for the benefit of creditors, receiverships, and compositions with creditors exist as potential alternatives.
Pennsylvania’s insolvent cannabusinesses are in a uniquely poor position because of the state’s prohibition on the transferability of cannabis permits to third parties. These permits are an incredibly valuable asset for these businesses. To fix this issue, Pennsylvania can look to both its own Liquor Code or New Jersey’s cannabis permitting transfer scheme. Yes, even New Jersey gets some things right. As a result, if Pennsylvania adopted a cannabis permit transferability provision in its medical cannabis law, insolvent cannabusiness could likely resolve their financial issues through an assignment for the benefit of creditors
Chilling Victims’ Rights: The Supreme Court Creates a “Pride of Place” for True Threats
No full textLiving in the Information Age means that information is literally always at our fingertips. This also means that keeping tabs on one another is as easy as a tap on a screen. The effortless ability to follow another’s life on the internet has led to a sinister phenomenon: cyberstalking. Prosecuting cyberstalking cases poses complex constitutional challenges. Specifically, prosecuting these cases may clash with a perpetrator’s First Amendment right to free speech. However, the First Amendment does not protect all categories of speech. One of those unprotected categories is the category of “true threats.” If a perpetrator’s conduct constitutes a “true threat,” then there can be no First Amendment violation.
While this bedrock principle may sound clear enough, the U.S. Supreme Court never definitively ruled on which standard of proof is required to prove a true threat. Due to this ambiguity, federal courts have applied different standards of proof; some utilized the objective standard while others utilized the subjective standard. However, this ambiguity was resolved in 2023 when the Supreme Court affirmatively rejected the objective standard in Counterman v. Colorado. The Court reasoned that the objective standard created a chilling effect on the First Amendment. However, the Court failed to adequately address the ruling’s impact on cyberstalking victims.
This Comment seeks to analyze the Supreme Court’s reasoning in rejecting the objective standard. More specifically, this Comment addresses the Court’s failure to consider the ruling’s one-sided consequences, leaving victims without any of the safeguards that are afforded to their perpetrators. This Comment offers potential remedies for this unjust outcome, including holding social media companies accountable, placing pressure on legislatures to regulate true threats, and urging the Court to revisit its decision
