Geological Observatory of Coldigioco
PennState, The Dickinson School of Law: Penn State Law eLibraryNot a member yet
7581 research outputs found
Sort by
After Chevron’s Demise, Should Courts Be Giving Deference to the Trump Administration’s Foreign Policy Considerations When Deporting a Noncitizen?
No full text
Characterizing a Violation of International Public Policy: How Has France Changed the Review of Awards
No full text
Cuba and the Constitution of a Stable State of Misery: Ideology, Economic Policy, and Popular Discipline
No full textSovereignty vs. Humanity: The Evolution of International Law in Civil and Colonial Wars and Modern Implications
No full textDobbs v. Brown
No full textDobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization1is the most important and impactful Supreme Court decision since at least Roe v. Wade, and potentially since Brown v. Board of Education. Past survey data show that most Americans can only name two Supreme Court opinions: Roe and Brown. Dobbs will surely join that list. This Article compares the history, drafting, and opinions of Dobbs and Brown to show what a missed opportunity Dobbs represents. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the opinion, it should be clear that Dobbs was one of those unique times (like that of Brown) where the Court had the country’s undivided attention. In Brown, the Court took the opportunity to write a short, readable opinion (just 13 pages in the U.S. Reports) that explained its reasoning in a manner any literate American could understand. The Brown opinion can be summed up in a short 24-word quote: “We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.
By contrast, Dobbs is a mess. The slip opinion in Dobbs clocks in at an unimaginable 213 pages and has 5 separate opinions, a majority, a dissent, 3 concurrences, and 3 appendices. Its appendices are three times as long as the entire Brown opinion. Nor does the case do a great job of explaining in plain terms the disagreement between the majority, Justice Roberts’s concurrence, and the dissent. It certainly does not fail due to brevity. It fails because the central argument of the role of originalism in constitutional analysis is buried amongst pages and pages of argument about the history of the reconstruction amendments, abortion, and the nature of precedent and stare decisis. Dobbs is a massive, missed opportunity for the Court and the country
Considering the Child’s Wishes—But How? Allowing Children to Speak in Their Custody Matters
No full textIn the United States, states universally may consider the child’s wishes when determining their custody placement. While their decision or preference is not binding for the judge, it allows the child meaningful participation in decisions that directly affect them. There are many ways courts can ensure a child’s voice is heard: through an interview with the judge, professional evaluations, child advocates, and even child-inclusive mediation. Yet state laws give judges broad discretion when determining how to weigh the child’s wishes.
This discretion will inevitably leave some children behind without having their voices heard. Allowing children meaningful participation in their custody proceedings is not a new idea but follows a more significant global trend. Not only does their input allow them more autonomy over their life and decisions, but it can also reduce the adverse psychological implications of being silenced, allow for a greater understanding of the facts and circumstances surrounding the case, and help diminish disparate impacts from judicial discretion.
The Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act has been significantly influential in family law. Since all courts are obliged to consider the child’s wishes, amending the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act with stricter language requiring courts to give children the option to provide input will better ensure this factor is truly considered and given its due weight
