Geological Observatory of Coldigioco
PennState, The Dickinson School of Law: Penn State Law eLibraryNot a member yet
7581 research outputs found
Sort by
Contempt: The Original Judicial Cheat Code
No full textThe judicial contempt power challenges the fundamental rights enshrined in America’s Constitution. Imagine spending eight years in federal prison with no right to a jury trial or a court appointed attorney. Your only reprieve is the discretion of the judge who is imprisoning you. Meaningful appeals and even habeas corpus actions are generally not available remedies. Instead, what was originally justified as an inherent power of the court, necessary to maintain order and decorum, is increasingly used for trivial offenses or to incarcerate individuals for far longer than their possible crimes would otherwise warrant.
Despite widespread instances of abuse of the contempt power, there has been scant legal attention to, responsible management of, or corrective reform actions taken for contempt. Instead, abuse of the contempt power is justified in the dicta of cases that the public is entirely unaware of. This Article illuminates the constitutional challenges regarding the contempt power and provides recommendations for reforming the judiciary’s application of the power. It does so by analyzing the foundations of the contempt power, finding that our current interpretations take both the Constitution and case law out of context. It begins with an authoritative historical account of the contempt power, contextualizing its role as a hold-over power from English Courts and noting its tension with fundamental individual rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. It argues that the way contempt is implemented today—particularly in cases of civil contempt, where contemnors can be imprisoned for years without the right to a jury trial, the right to appeal, or the writ of habeas corpus—stretches the idea of this inherent judicial power beyond the realm of constitutionality. This Article then presents several mechanisms for reforming the contempt power. These proposed mechanisms will facilitate the judiciary’s goal of maintaining order in the court and simultaneously ensure the people that the contempt power does not violate basic tenets of America’s Constitution
Uninsured immigrants in the United States significantly delayed the initiation of prenatal care after the changes to the Public Charge Rule
No full textObjective We estimated the impact of the changes made to the Public Charge Rule on the initiation of prenatal care among uninsured immigrants in the United States. Study design We used a difference-in-differences approach to analyse the impact of the changes made to the Public Charge Rule (first difference) on initiation of prenatal care between uninsured and privately insured immigrants (second difference). Methods We used the natality data by the National Center for Health Statistics as the main data source, which includes all singleton births in a hospital to an immigrant birthing person aged from 15 to 44. The study covers three phases: (1) the period prior to the leaked draft Executive Orders concerning changes made to the public charge policy—from January 2014 to December 2016; (2) the period after the draft Executive Orders were leaked until the proposal of the Public Charge Rule—from January 2017 to September 2018; and (3) post proposal of the Public Charge Rule —from October 2018 to December 2019. Results After the proposal of the Public Charge Rule in 2018, the odds of initiating prenatal care in the first trimester decreased among uninsured immigrants by 12% (odds ratio [OR]: 0.880; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.832, 0.931) compared to privately insured immigrants. The odds of second trimester initiation of prenatal care was also negatively associated with the leak of the draft Executive Orders (OR: 0.942; 95% CI: 0.905, 0.981). Conclusion The results of this study suggest that uninsured immigrants in the United States significantly delayed prenatal care after the changes were made to the Public Charge Rule
An LLC by Any Other Name Is Still Not a Corporation
No full textBusiness entities have their own unique characteristics. Entrepreneurs and lawyers who represent them select an entity structure based on the business’s current and projected needs. The different needs of each business span myriad topics such as capital requirements, taxation, employee benefits, and personal liability protection. These choices present advantages and disadvantages, many of which are built into the type of entity chosen. It is critically important that people, especially lawyers, recognize the difference between entities such as corporations and limited liability companies (LLCs). It is an egregious, nearly unforgivable, error to call an LLC a “limited liability corporation.” This is not only because lawyers should try to get things right but also because conflating the two entity types can lead to unpredictable outcomes. Perhaps more important, it could lead to incorrect and unjust results. A prime example lies within the veil piercing context. There are nearly nine thousand references to the phrase “limited liability corporation” in court cases. Practicing attorneys are not the only people messing this up. Judges, legislators, federal and state agency officials, and media pundits are also getting it wrong. Most recently, Justice Samuel Alito scribed an op-ed that was published in The Wall Street Journal where he misused the term. Even the TV show Jeopardy! allowed “What is a limited liability corporation?” as the correct answer during one episode. Enter artificial intelligence (AI). AI relies on information it can find, and therefore text generators, like ChatGPT, replicate the incorrect term. With a proliferation of users and programs using ChatGPT and other AI resources, the use of incorrect terminology will balloon and exacerbate the problem. Perhaps one day, AI can be used to correct this problem, but that cannot happen until there is widespread understanding of the distinct nature of LLCs and a commitment to using precise language. This Article informs of the looming harms of misidentifying and conflating LLCs with corporations. Additionally, it presents a warning together with ideas on how to correct the use of incorrect terminology in all contexts surrounding LLCs
