University of California Hastings College of the Law
UC Hastings Scholarship Repository (University of California, Hastings College of the Law)Not a member yet
18514 research outputs found
Sort by
Major Questions about Presidentialism: Untangling the \u27Chain of Dependence\u27 Across Administrative Law
No full textCare and Custody in Federal Bank Robbery
No full textBy the time federal appellate courts began to examine the withdrawal of money from an ATM and the question of to whom that money belongs pursuant to the first paragraph of the Federal Bank Robbery Act (“FBRA”), 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), the FBRA had been law for over seventy years and automated teller machines (“ATM”) had been in use for around thirty-five years. Since then, the circuit courts have disagreed as to whom the money belongs when an individual forces a victim to withdraw money and give it to the perpetrator. This question stems from competing methods of statutory interpretation and analysis. This Note examines the facts and holdings of the federal appellate court cases that gave rise to this circuit split as well as the analysis in federal and state court cases that have come after the split. Further examination of the case law shows that the courts representing the majority approach—which holds that forcing a victim to withdraw money from an ATM constitutes bank robbery under federal law—not only ignored the intent of Congress when it passed the FBRA, but also erroneously followed an “unwilling agent” theory in their analysis. As such, this Note contends that the circuit minority approach reflects the proper construction of § 2113(a) and demonstrates that, under the textualist and purposive theories of statutory interpretation and the rule of lenity, the action of an individual forcing a victim to withdraw money from an ATM does not constitute federal bank robbery under § 2113(a). This Note also argues that the majority errs in applying the “unwilling agent” theory without properly analyzing § 2113(a). This Note concludes by proposing possible resolutions by the Supreme Court and Congress to resolve this split and discussing how this case study is an exemplar of why courts must clarify existing law or pass new laws to adapt to rapidly changing technology
Breaking Bias: A Singular Chapter Solution For Racial Equity In Consumer Bankruptcy
No full textThis article explores the aftermath of the Covid-19 pandemic, revealing a looming medical debt crisis among Black families, while examining the intersection of racial bias, attorney practices, and the existing two-chapter consumer bankruptcy system. Proposing a solution, the article advocates for the consolidation of Chapters 7 and 13 into a single chapter, citing the Consumer Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2020 (CBRA) as a potential remedy. Further, this article argues that a single chapter would simplify the bankruptcy process, reducing the influence of attorney bias and promoting uniform eligibility criteria. This approach aims to make debt relief more accessible, especially for Black Americans disproportionately facing financial challenges exacerbated by the pandemic
