6163 research outputs found
Sort by
California
Get PDFIn general, California may be the most hospitable state to public sector collective bargaining. The basic rules are far more favorable to placing matters within the scope of mandatory subjects than any other state. There are, however, serious differences in how police and non-police bargaining is treated. Choice of Forum for Police. Under California’s public sector collective bargaining law, most unions and employers must resolve their conflicts about the scope of bargaining through California’s Public Employment Relations Board (PERB). For police only, however, the parties can also bring the disputes to court. Los Angeles Labor Relations. The scope of bargaining for employees of the City of Los Angeles is governed by a unique city ordinance and enforcement agency. This leads to diffusion of rules, difficulty in finding the decisions, and potential conflicts with state law. Interest Arbitration for Police. In 2000, the California legislature enacted a statute requiring interest arbitration for the resolution of any impasses in police and fire departments. In 2003 that statute was declared unconstitutional. Nevertheless, many charter cities continue to require interest arbitration. LOEBOR. California has a robust Law Enforcement Officers Bill of Rights statute providing protections in discipline investigations; these matters that are left to bargaining for every other type of employee. Oversight Common Law Different for Police. The PERB decisions on the implementation of outside oversight are more favorable to bargaining in the police context than in the non-police context. In addition, PERB is more accommodating of police bargaining on oversight than the California Courts. Transfer of Work Common Law is Different for Police. PERB’s decisions in this area are slightly more favorable to police bargaining than non-police
FIRST IN TIME SINCE TIME IMMEMORIAL: TRIBAL INSTREAM RIGHTS UNDERCUT WATER TAKING CLAIMS
Get PDFCourts have held that American Indian tribal fishery rights can give rise to tribal instream flow rights. They have also held that the curtailment of rights of diversion to protect fisheries under the Federal Endangered Species Act may give rise to potential takings claims under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. In its 2019 decision in Baley v. United States the federal circuit court of appeals held that minimum instream flows under the ESA were needed to fulfill American Indian tribal fishery rights, and these rights carried a priority date of “time immemorial” that was senior to any competing appropriative rights to divert water out of stream. The Court in Baley v. United States, therefore, provided a new basis to quantify minimum instream flows needed to satisfy tribal instream water rights and held that senior tribal instream water rights insulate ESA-mandated minimum flows from takings claims
New Jersey
Get PDFPolice and non-police bargaining units are treated differently in New Jersey, and the difference in treatment is reflected in statutes, case law, and Public Employment Relations Commission decisions. While the Commission is consistently more favorable to police unions, its decisions are often inconsistent, unpredictable, and made in spite of conflicting precedent.
· Commission Membership. The composition of the New Jersey Public Employment Relations Commission is disproportionately representative of unions.
· Poor Quality Decisions. The Commission’s decisions are often inconsistent, unpredictable, and made in spite of conflicting precedent.
· Impasse Procedures Favor Police Units. Police units must submit their negotiating impasses to binding interest arbitration, a requirement absent for non-police units.
· Disciplinary Decisions More Likely Subject to Bargaining for Police. The Commission is more likely to require bargaining of discipline, investigation, and oversight.
· Work Assignment More Likely Subject to Bargaining for Police. The Commission is more likely to require bargaining reassignments, duty changes, and subcontracting
This Is Not a Game: The Addictive Allure of Digital Companions
Get PDFArtificial Intelligence (AI) agents have become an inescapable part of modern childhood, reshaping education, leisure activities, entertainment, and social interaction. From AI-powered tutors that adapt to individual learning styles to emotionally responsive chatbots that simulate human companionship, these systems promise unprecedented personalization, cognitive stimulation, and social support. However, these benefits mask significant risks that remain unregulated and inadequately addressed.
Although adults are also susceptible to forming deep emotional bonds with AI companions—often trusting them as if they possessed genuine understanding and empathy—children are particularly vulnerable. Their misplaced trust can more severely distort social development, weaken critical thinking, and foster unhealthy dependencies. Moreover, longstanding AI-related risks such as misinformation, biased content, breaches of privacy, and harmful interactions become even more concerning when children, who generally lack awareness and effective coping tools, are involved. This raises urgent questions about the psychological, social, neurological and ethical implications, among others, of AI’s growing influence on young minds.
Despite these alarming risks, existing regulatory frameworks have yet to catch up with AI’s rapid expansion. Current laws provide inadequate oversight of features that encourage addictive use, insufficient content moderation, and frequent violations of children’s privacy. Without immediate and comprehensive intervention, AI agents could irrevocably shape childhood experiences, deepening social isolation, impairing decisionmaking, and worsening mental health challenges—while exposing young users to additional, emerging threats.
This Article delves into the intricate intersection of AI and childhood, critically examining both the tangible benefits and the profound hazards posed by emotional dependence, cognitive manipulation, and unregulated engagement. It highlights key case studies, including instances in which AI agents inadvertently promoted harmful behaviors. It proposes specific regulatory and enforcement mechanisms—including AI safety-by-design mandates, restrictions on manipulative engagement loops, and liability standards for AI developers—to safeguard children in an increasingly AIdriven era
Constitutional Futurism as Pedagogy
Get PDFConstitutional Law has transformed from a course on history to a discussion of current events. Cases like Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo reveal that the study of constitutional law is not a static, or even linear, discussion of constitutional text and history. Law is a shifting, changing enterprise that reflects social constructions of power, authority, and identity. How do we teach, learn, and understand constitutional law that is so laden with history, riddled with theories of consistency and adherence to precedent, but ultimately subject to upheaval? In this Article, I suggest that Afrofuturism opens a portal to teaching and learning constitutional law that understands that past, pre-sent, and futures are interlinked, and our role as teachers and learners is to engage in critical thinking, imagination, and empathy. Building on Bennett Capers’s Afrofuturism and constitutional futurism, this Article considers how we might apply principles of Sankofa, change, and positionality to legal pedagogy. Each decision of the Supreme Court presents an oppor-tunity to interrogate how we think, learn, and understand individuals, so-ciety, and relationships of power that tie it all together. Constitutional fu-turism as a pedagogy forces us to think beyond the limitations of conven-tional constitutional thinking—to teach students to think outside the box we must first define its boundaries and purpose. This Article therefore uses Students for Fair Admissions as a starting point for considering the assumptions, frameworks, and possibilities created by decisions of the Supreme Court, suggesting how we can learn and imagine from decisions that undermine visions of equity and justice
The U.S. Drug Policy Hamster Wheel: A Critical Discourse Analysis of Seattle’s New Drug Ordinance
Get PDFThe author critically examines Seattle’s new drug ordinance using Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) to reveal how legislative language influences the policy\u27s actual effect. Although the ordinance claims to prioritize diversion and community health, the use of permissive language such as “may” and “shall” grants broad discretionary power to law enforcement and undermines the stated intent. The author situates the ordinance within a broader historical context, highlighting how drug policy in the United States has consistently been shaped by racialized and stigmatizing narratives. Additionally, the author argues that meaningful reform requires reframing the discourse around substance use to support public health and equity rather than continuing cycles of criminalization