6163 research outputs found
Sort by
Towards a Critical Legal Tech Education: A Decolonial Approach
Full text linkThe intersection of law, technology, and decolonial theory offers a critical framework for exposing and challenging power asymmetries embedded in both legal and technological systems. Drawing from his experience as a criminal defense attorney and legal academic, Diego H. Alcalá Laboy critiques how surveillance technologies, often framed as tools for justice, disproportionately harm marginalized communities. Grounded in Latin American decolonial theory, particularly the modernity/coloniality/decoloniality triad and the concept of pluriversality, he argues for reimagining legal scholarship and pedagogy to disrupt Eurocentric and universalist assumptions. Using a colonizer/colonized framework, he advocates for bottom-up knowledge creation that centers the voices of those historically excluded from legal and technological discourse. The article ultimately calls for a decolonial legal tech education that resists epistemic homogeneity and envisions more equitable, community-driven alternatives to mainstream law and technology paradigms
The “Marketplace” Myth: Addressing Amazon’s Defense to Product Liability Claims
Full text linkMany courts continue to analyze law as if we have not evolved from the early days of the internet, when Facebook was a “social networking” site, AOL made messages “instant,” and eBay let everyone auction random items. The internet connected people. Because it did not touch them, it could not harm them. However, with storefronts closing, brick-and-mortar retail chains declaring bankruptcy, and “Uber lots” popping up at airports, the internet “cloud” has touched down all over the country, and online businesses are now harming people just as human actors and brickand-mortar stores always have.
While generating thousands of new ride hail drivers and marketing itself as a transportation company, Uber disclaims responsibility for driver negligence, claiming it merely connects drivers with “independent contractor” riders. Amazon dominates the retail industry to the point of antitrust charges yet disclaims responsibility for products sold on its site by arguing it is merely a “marketplace,” not a product seller or distributor that can be liable under products liability law.
Although Amazon has won battles to avoid products liability, it is losing the war. Economic trends, government regulators, and legal analysis are shifting in favor of increased responsibility for Amazon’s increasing—and enormous—role in retail. This Article deconstructs Amazon’s marketplace argument and applies settled law in favor of the retail giant’s liability. First, each consumer “transaction as a whole” likely supports Amazon’s liability as a product distributor, if not as a seller. Second, public policy—at the root of products liability law—highlights Amazon’s influence in pushing for safer products. Third, Amazon’s broad public assurances of product safety exceed the role of a marketplace fostering transactions. As with other internet companies like Uber, the right to control the consumer experience is the most pervasive common thread in Amazon’s liability to the consumer—a legal principle far older than the internet
Student Life E-Newsletter February 10, 2025
Full text linkhttps://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/studentlife/1177/thumbnail.jp
Student Life E-Newsletter January 13, 2025
Full text linkhttps://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/studentlife/1174/thumbnail.jp
Brief of Amici Curiae Fred T. Korematsu Center for Law and Equality, Service Employees International Union, American Federation of Teachers, American Association of University Professors, Center for Civil Rights and Critical Justice, Race and Law Centers, and Civil Rights and Advocacy Organizations in Support of Plaintiff
Full text linkBrief of Amicus Curiae the Fred T. Korematsu Center for Law and Equality, the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, the Center for Civil Rights and Critical Justice, and 82 Additional Nonprofit and Grassroots Organizations and Race and Law Centers in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellees
Full text linkAmicus Brief of Center for Civil Rights and Critical Justice, ACLU-Washington, King County Department of Public Defense, and TEAMCHILD in Support of Appellant
Full text linkNo Lawyer, No Jail: A Critical Case Study of Pragmatism and the Flaws of “Purposeful” Decision Making in Argersinger v. Hamlin
Full text linkBy releasing conference notes and internal communications, Supreme Court Justices provide insight into the otherwise private decisionmaking process, shedding light on how case outcomes and legal reasoning are framed and negotiated. The watershed case of Argersinger v. Hamlin (1972) extended the constitutional right to counsel to some, but not all, misdemeanor defendants. The case was argued twice, and the Court relied on empirical and authoritative sources to answer complex and practical questions about requiring counsel. This case study employs critical discourse analysis to uncover what influenced the Justices’ decisions and how they framed, shaped, and constructed social realities to foreground the values of legal elites at the expense of nondominant interests. Pragmatic considerations and expert authorities emerged as two prominent and discursive strategies that shifted the emphasis, favored the voices and values of legal elites, and narrowed the scope of the right to counsel. Conclusions drawn from these findings show the implications for criminal defendants’ interests and advance the need for future qualitative research that critically scrutinizes the hegemonic influence of legal pragmatism on constitutional decision-making
The Public Square in a Private-Property Obsessed Country: What New York City’s POPS Regulations Get Right and Why Other Cities Should (Mostly) Copy Them
Full text linkWhen New York City (NYC) was first becoming the metropolitan monolith it is today, it had a problem: the city streets were chock full of skyscrapers, and sunlight, air, and usable open space were at a premium. In response, the City promulgated its first Privately Owned Public Spaces (POPS) regulations, which allowed developers to build skyward in exchange for providing public space on the street level. Unfortunately, in July of 2023, the New York Times (NYT) discovered that New Yorkers received only a fraction of what they were promised. Building owners received billions of dollars’ worth of added floor space, and yet, many plazas and arcades remained closed to the public. According to the NYT, building owners are simply paying the minimal fine to keep the space private and leaving the public out to dry. The discrepancy is best shown through an example in the NYT article: “the owners of 325 Fifth Avenue have been assessed a total of 80 million.” Despite that monumental failure, this Note argues that POPS regulations allow for more capable enforcement as they are currently written and that other cities should implement them for the same original reasons NYC did—the now-understood public physical and mental health benefits
Formula 1’s Drive to Environmental Sustainability
Full text linkThis article explores Formula 1’s (F1) evolving commitment to environmental sustainability, examining the regulatory, technological, and institutional shifts that support its goal of achieving carbon neutrality by 2030. Despite its reputation as a resource-intensive sport, F1 has adopted meaningful reforms, ranging from hybrid power units and alternative fuels to eco-friendly manufacturing practices, without compromising performance. Through an analysis of the Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile’s (FIA) regulatory authority, stakeholder influence, and corporate social responsibility framework, the article argues that F1 is not merely greenwashing but genuinely redefining motorsport’s role in a climate-conscious era. It concludes that profitability and sustainability can—and increasingly do—coexist in elite motorsport