Geological Observatory of Coldigioco
PennState, The Dickinson School of Law: Penn State Law eLibraryNot a member yet
7581 research outputs found
Sort by
The Neuroscience of Qualified Immunity
No full textQualified immunity not only absolves public officials from accountability for the damages caused when they deprive a citizen of their constitutional rights; by virtue of companion doctrines shielding governmental entities from liability, conferral of immunity leaves the victim to bear the loss. Therefore, it is essential that the contours of immunity be carefully calibrated to align with its intended purposes.
The United States Supreme Court has continuously expanded immunity to protect the exercise of discretion where, albeit acting in violation of constitutional norms, the official could have reasonably believed their conduct was constitutional. This Article exposes the implicit assumptions as to the operation of the brain that underpin the evolution of the Court’s immunity jurisprudence. It then explains how the Court’s suppositions are refuted by recent findings in the field of neuroscience and proposes reforms that would harmonize immunity with the true workings of the minds of government officials
Refusing To Concede The Election: Defending Democracy By Expanding The G7 Rapid Response Mechanism
No full textThe past decade is rife with examples of actions by nefarious groups to improperly interfere in democratic elections around the world, and it is time that democratic nations band together to effectively combat these interference efforts. More than two dozen nations around the world have fallen victim to some form of election interference. The United States and its allies have traced many of these interference campaigns to state actors, particularly the Russian government.
In 2018, the Group of Seven (G7) announced the creation of a Rapid Response Mechanism (G7 RRM). The aim of the G7 RRM is to limit the impact of election interference through collecting and sharing information about interference campaigns. Most G7 nations have generally complied with the requirements for the G7 RRM, but, by limiting the institution to only G7 nations, the G7 RRM will not have a broad enough membership base to have the necessary impact to protect elections.
The United States should take a prominent role in the development and expansion of election security expertise by leading the creation of an Election Security Centre of Excellence (ESCOE) accredited by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). The knowledge gained from the ESCOE should then be operationalized and incorporated into U.S. election laws. NATO is well positioned to host an “expanded-G7 RRM,” or ESCOE. NATO has more than four-times as many member nations as the G7, has a history of countering Russian influence, has developed expertise relevant to election security, and its “center for excellence” (COE) organization model would be effective to create an ESCOE. With the knowledge gained from an ESCOE, democracies around the world can better defend their elections
Tying a Tribal Officer\u27s Hands: Tribal Law Enforcement Authority Under United States v. Cooley
No full textCentury\u27s Objection to Terms of Proposed Bar Date Order and Form of Proof of Claim
No full textCentury\u27s Objection to Terms of Proposed Bar Date Order and Form of Proof of Claim, filed January 13, 2021
Tort Claimant Creditors\u27 Committee\u27s Motion Compelling Debtor to Comply with Rule 2004 Subpoena
No full textNotice of motion of the Official Committee of Tort Claimant Creditors for an order compelling the debtor to comply with Rule 2004 subpoena, filed 02/22/2021
Century\u27s Motion for Production of Documents Directed to Debtors
No full textCentury\u27s Motion for Production of Documents Directed to Debtors, filed January 20, 2021
LMI\u27s Objection to Diocese\u27s Motion for Order
No full textLondon Market Insurers\u27 Objection to the debtor\u27s motion for entry of an order (A) approving disclosure statement; (B) establishing plan solicitation, voting, and tabulation procedures; (C) scheduling a confirmation hearing and deadline for filing objections to plan confirmation; and (D) granting related relief, filed March 1, 2021
Health Care Sanctuaries
No full textIt is increasingly common for noncitizens living in the United States to avoid seeing a doctor or enrolling in publicly funded health programs because they fear surveillance by immigration authorities. This is the consequence of a decades-long shift in the locus of immigration enforcement activities from the border to the interior, as well as a recent period of heightened immigration enforcement. These fears persist because the law incompletely constrains immigration surveillance in health care.
This Article argues that immigration surveillance in health care is a poor choice of resource allocation for immigration enforcement because it has severe consequences for health and the health care system; additionally, it compromises the legitimacy of the state vis-à-vis its noncitizen residents. The consequences include public health threats, health care system inefficiency, ethical dilemmas, and increased vulnerability in immigrant communities. Laws permitting immigration surveillance in health care also create legitimacy harms by obstructing noncitizens’ access to health care and undermining their privacy and rights to public benefits. The COVID-19 pandemic starkly illustrates these dangers, but they exist even in the absence of a novel disease outbreak.
Health care access for noncitizens has largely been left to the vagaries of immigration policy. Immigration surveillance in health care should prompt us to consider the scope and limits of health law and the role of discretion in immigration law. Health care sanctuaries —durable legal protections against immigration surveillance in health care —recover some of the lost equilibrium between immigration enforcement and other goals and values of public policy
Artificial Intelligence and Liability in Medicine: Balancing Safety and Innovation
No full textPolicy Points With increasing integration of artificial intelligence and machine learning in medicine, there are concerns that algorithm inaccuracy could lead to patient injury and medical liability. While prior work has focused on medical malpractice, the artificial intelligence ecosystem consists of multiple stakeholders beyond clinicians. Current liability frameworks are inadequate to encourage both safe clinical implementation and disruptive innovation of artificial intelligence. Several policy options could ensure a more balanced liability system, including altering the standard of care, insurance, indemnification, special/no-fault adjudication systems, and regulation. Such liability frameworks could facilitate safe and expedient implementation of artificial intelligence and machine learning in clinical care