Skidaway Institute of Oceanography
DigitalCommons@University of Georgia School of LawNot a member yet
17912 research outputs found
Sort by
A Governor\u27s Duty to Ask
Full text linkAs some federal constitutional protections contract, state constitutions are becoming an increasingly important source of individual rights. But state constitutional development involves either amendment or litigation, processes both slow and costly. Ten states offer a third path: They empower governors to request advisory opinions from their supreme courts. These governors, however, have rarely exercised this power.
This article argues that a governor’s refusal to seek such advice violates the constitutional duty to faithfully execute the law; specifically, the law respecting the separation of powers. Drawing on an empirical analysis, I first show that governors are generally shy to ask for advice, a trend which has only intensified in recent years. I then conduct a survey of state executive power jurisprudence to show that each of the ten states imposes a gubernatorial duty to compel constitutional behavior from the executive branch.
That duty necessarily includes a responsibility to determine what the constitution requires. But the task of state constitutional interpretation falls firstly to the state supreme court, not the governor. Ultimately, I argue that respect for the separation of powers—particularly when read in light of the constitutional grant of the advisory power—requires governors to more actively use their power to ask for advice.
Recognizing this “duty to ask” not only respects the role of the state supreme court in defining the constitution, it also catalyzes the development of state constitutional law. By inviting courts to define state rights proactively, governors can help build a doctrinal foundation for future litigants and promote the public good
Legal Writing Manual (4th ed.)
No full textThis manual provides you with an overview of first-year legal writing topics and provides checkpoints during your writing process. On the other hand, this manual does not answer every question you have ever had on any legal writing concept and it is certainly not a spellbook that will make you instantly awesome at legal writing. Writing as a skill is a lifelong development process. Everyone can be an effective legal writer. Put in the time to study the concepts and then to practice using those concepts in your writing. Seek feedback on your writing and implement the feedback you receive. Writing takes practice, and this manual can help guide you through.https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/books/1202/thumbnail.jp
UGA Closed and on Modified Operations for January 21 and January 22
No full textThe University of Georgia continues to monitor the development of the winter storm. UGA will be Closed and on Modified Operations for January 21 and January 22. With the safety and security of our faculty, staff and students foremost in our minds, all in-person classes, campus events and activities will be canceled. Further updates will be sent as they become available. 1/21/25 8:03PM School of Law updates to UGA to be Closed and on Modified Operations Wednesday, Jan. 22
With ice anticipated on roads and sidewalks and temperatures not expected to move above freezing for much of the day on Wednesday, the University of Georgia will close and move to modified operations on Wednesday, Jan. 22, 2025. All in-person classes, campus events and activities will be canceled throughout the day.
This means School of Law buildings will be closed on Wednesday, Jan. 22.. We will look to reschedule any events and activities that were scheduled for this period when operations return to normal. For those organizing or hosting events during this period, please reach out to any scheduled guests and registered attendees to ensure they are aware of UGA’s closure.
The Law Library will be closed, which will include swipe card access.
Regarding classes: Consistent with the University\u27s guidance, each faculty instructor will determine whether to hold their class online at the scheduled time, post asynchronous lectures, or reschedule the classes. This is for several reasons, including accreditor rules and institution-wide demands on IT staff and other staff who may be personally affected by weather-related matters.
Regarding clinics: The same closure applies, with one caveat as described. Under no circumstances should students be required to appear in person on campus (or anywhere else). Nor, as a general matter, should clinical faculty or staff come to campus or the clinic offices downtown. That said, we understand that clinical faculty or staff may have certain ethical duties to clients or courts that must be adhered to. If such matters can be rescheduled or conducted remotely, that should be the first course of action. If not, clinical faculty and staff may work in person unless conditions prevent safe travel.
Whom should I contact if I have questions? Students with class-specific questions should contact their professors. Students with more general questions should contact Dean Dennis or Ms. Tickles. Employees should contact their direct supervisors, most of whom are on the School of Law’s Crisis Response Group.
Please remain mindful of weather and treacherous travel conditions and keep your devices charged. Also, be sure to check in with your friends and family.
Please continue to check emergency.uga.edu or UGA’s social accounts, including UGA’s X (@universityofga), for university updates and other safety information. As necessary, the School of Law will supplement UGA’s messaging with law school specific impacts. 1/21/25 12:01 PM School of Law updates to UGA to Move to Early Release at 2:00 p.m. on Tues., Jan. 21
As you may be aware, the University of Georgia is moving to an early release with modified operations at 2:00 p.m. today, Jan. 21, 2025. All in-person classes, campus events and activities will be canceled for the remainder of the day due to the winter storm heading toward our area.
This means School of Law buildings will be locked starting at 2:00 p.m. today, Jan. 21, 2025 (however, law buildings will remain accessible by swiping your UGA ID). We will look to reschedule any events and activities that were scheduled for this period when operations return to normal. For those organizing or hosting events during this period, please reach out to any scheduled guests and registered attendees to ensure they are aware of UGA’s early release.
The Law Library will be closed starting at 2:00 p.m., but swipe card access to the law library will remain available.
Regarding classes beginning after 12 noon today: Consistent with the university\u27s guidance, each faculty instructor will determine whether to hold their class or provide an alternative. This is for several reasons including accreditor rules, institution-wide demands on IT staff and other staff who may be personally affected by weather-related matters.
Regarding clinics: The same closure applies, with one caveat as described. Under no circumstances should students be required to appear in person on campus (or anywhere else). Nor, as a general matter, should clinical faculty or staff come to campus or the clinic offices downtown. That said, we understand that clinical faculty or staff may have certain ethical duties to clients or courts that must be adhered to. If such matters can be rescheduled or conducted remotely, that should be the first course of action. If not, clinical faculty and staff may work in person unless conditions prevent safe travel.
Whom should I contact if I have questions? Students with class-specific questions should contact their professors. Students with more general questions should contact Dean Dennis or Ms. Tickles. Employees should contact their direct supervisors, most of whom are on the School of Law’s Crisis Response Group.
Most importantly, please be careful. Make sure your devices are charged and stay in touch with your friends and family.
Note: UGA will continue to monitor conditions and will provide an update this evening or tomorrow morning with plans for Wednesday, Jan. 22. Please continue to check emergency.uga.edu or UGA’s social accounts, including UGA’s X (@universityofga), for university updates and other safety information. As necessary, the School of Law will supplement UGA’s messaging with law school specific impacts.
The safety of our community is always our #1 priority, and the law school\u27s standing crisis response team remains in frequent communication regarding potential inclement weather events and the effects they may have on law school operations and on those in our community who are living in and/or traveling through the weather’s path.
In these situations, please remember: Your primary source for emergency news and information relating to the University of Georgia is emergency.uga.edu. As information emerges from emergency.uga.edu and other official UGA communications, the law school will update its own homepage and social media platforms based on that information. As necessary, the law school will send separate emails to students, staff and faculty regarding law-school-specific impacts of any university-wide decisions. We will also utilize ugaLAWalert for texting law-school-specific messaging (see below). School of Law faculty, staff and students are invited to sign up for a one-way texting notification system by following these instructions: Text “ugaLAWalert” to 877-804-2955. Please note that you must chose to opt in to this service, and you can opt out at any time. Please remember this texting feature does NOT take the place of our uga.edu email address that serves as the primary form of emergency notification. In summary, the law school generally follows UGA’s lead when it comes to inclement weather and other crises. Please rely on UGA sources first, knowing the law school will supplement those as needed
Countries as Laboratories: Reflections on Sierra Leone’s Amended Anti-Human Trafficking Law
Full text linkSierra Leone’s improved anti-trafficking laws align with global norms, but enforcement remains weak due to socio-economic realities and Western deterrence mismatches, limiting effective prosecution despite recent legislative reforms
Time to Put Down IQ Testing: Analyzing the Unreliability of IQ Testing in Capital Offenses
Full text linkGeorgia sentences individuals with intellectual disability (“ID”) to death at an alarming rate. As a result, Georgia has likely executed individuals with ID in violation of the United States Constitution already. These unjust executions are a result of the impossibly high “beyond a reasonable doubt” burden of proof that capital defendants in only Georgia must meet to prove they are intellectually disabled. One large hurdle for defendants attempting to meet this standard is the unreliability of IQ testing. IQ testing, a soft science, provides inconsistent results due to ever-changing variables in the testing process. Additionally, the generally accepted threshold IQ score of 70 used to distinguish an individual with ID from one without is arbitrary.6 Because there are other, more reliable methods for determining whether an individual has ID,7 IQ testing should be eliminated from the equation as a whole when weighing whether a capitally-charged defendant has met their burden to prove they have ID. Since the removal of IQ testing will likely be a gradual process, the burden of proof that a capitally-charged defendant must meet to prove ID in Georgia should be reduced from “beyond a reasonable doubt” to a “preponderance of the evidence.” Part A of the background section of this note will discuss U.S. Supreme Court cases involving the overlap between ID and the death penalty. Part B of the background section will discuss the adoption of the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard for determining ID in Georgia. and case law demonstrating instances where defendants with clear signs of ID were nonetheless executed. Part C of the background section will briefly discuss the history of IQ testing, the unreliable aspects of IQ testing, and how the unreliability of IQ testing perpetuates a defendant’s struggle to meet the “beyond a reasonable doubt” burden of proof required to prove ID. Under the analysis section of this note, more reliable methods that do not utilize IQ testing will be proposed to guide factfinders in determining whether a defendant has ID. Furthermore, this section will contain a proposition to reduce the burden of proof that a defendant must meet from “beyond a reasonable doubt” to “preponderance of the evidence”. This reduction will be posed as an interim solution while courts slowly adjust to testing for ID without using IQ scores. The analysis section will end by discussing potential issues with this note’s solutions to those issues. Finally, the note will conclude by putting the issue of unreliability in death penalty cases into perspective. Specifically, the fact that there has only been one case where a defendant was found guilty but intellectually disabled since Georgia adopted this standard, a number far lower than any other state that still enforces the death penalty, will be highlighted
The Shadow Pandemic: The Response to Domestic Violence in the Wake of COVID-19 and What We Can Carry Forward
Full text linkWhen the COVID-19 virus brought the pandemic to the United States in March of 2020, the legal system was not prepared for the increase in domestic and intimate partner violence that would follow. The United Nations (UN) later identified this social phenomenon as a second pandemic, a “shadow pandemic” that resulted from an increase in stay-at-home orders and a decrease in support services for victims. By the end of 2021, forty-five percent of women globally reported either they themselves or a woman they know had experienced some form of domestic or intimate partner violence since the emergence of COVID-19. One in two women experienced or knew someone who experienced domestic or intimate partner violence during the pandemic, most commonly with women between the ages of eighteen and forty-nine. Stressors, such as financial struggles, unemployment, and lack of access to food, intensified conflicts within the home, causing women to feel less safe while stay-at-home orders were in place. The United States alone saw an 8.1% spike in domestic violence after stay-at-home orders were implemented. Although the early research had not yet determined what the driving force behind the increase was, it was clear that the “cocktail” of COVID-19, forced isolation, and stress from the pandemic created an unstable environment for those exposed to domestic and intimate partner violence. As such, properly funded and staffed domestic violence shelters and survivor support services were critical to ensuring the safety of victims of domestic and intimate partner violence once the pandemic reached the United States. In response, many areas implemented new protocols aimed at providing assistance to individuals suffering from domestic violence. Support services for domestic violence and intimate partner violence victims consistently reported that they were not adequately funded to meet the needs of victims during the pandemic. Either services could not get the technology necessary to make services accessible to everyone or they did not have the funds to hire enough staff to help victims navigate the technology. While the CARES Act granted limited funds, Congress ignored calls to provide funding under the Violence Against Women Act. However, steps taken by victims’ services organizations still effectively assisted those suffering from domestic and intimate partner violence despite Congress’ lack of funding, particularly at the CJFJC in Tacoma, Washington. This Note will examine domestic violence and family violence intervention law prior to the COVID-19 pandemic and the changes it underwent following the implementation of stay-at-home orders in the United States. Moreover, this Note will advocate for a multi-step solution to enhance Georgia victims’ services in three parts. First, Congress should provide additional funding for domestic violence and intimate partner violence intervention programs under the Violence Against Women Act. Second, Georgia should use those funds to implement a similar system to the CJFJC’s model, which would align with principles already set forth by the Atlanta Forum. Lastly, Georgia should adopt a no-questions-asked protocol of aiding victims of domestic and intimate partner violence that incorporates a multi-field perspective
PennEast Pipeline and the Policy Implications of the Private Use of Eminent Domain
Full text linkThis Note considers the modern implications of the takings power in light of PennEast Pipeline Co. v. New Jersey, a 2021 U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that states do not have the right to exercise state sovereign immunity against private parties holding congressionally delegated authority. Against current environmental conditions and recent takings power history, this Note then examines the delegation power of Congress and the public policy implications of the present administrative scheme—as compared to the typical exercise of the federal eminent domain power. Finally, this Note argues that the current administrative scheme ultimately removes important decisions impacting local environments from the same communities that will feel their repercussions