6163 research outputs found
Sort by
Student Life E-Newsletter April 21, 2025
Get PDFhttps://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/studentlife/1185/thumbnail.jp
Student Life E-Newsletter April 07, 2025
Get PDFhttps://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/studentlife/1184/thumbnail.jp
Student Life E-Newsletter February 03, 2025
Get PDFhttps://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/studentlife/1176/thumbnail.jp
ESG Investing Breaches ERISA Fiduciary Duties? A Closer Look at Spence v. American Airlines, Inc.
No full textIn Spence v. American Airlines, Inc., the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas found that American Airlines breached its fiduciary duties due to BlackRock’s ESG investing practices. Contrary to some reports suggesting that the ruling prohibits ESG investing under ERISA, a closer look at the ruling shows that the court only targeted American Airlines’ failure to manage conflicts of interest appropriately, rather than the legality of ESG investing itself. In light of the intensifying ESG backlash in the United States, this Article cautions against further restrictive measures on ESG investing. Such measures would exacerbate the widening transatlantic divide on ESG regulation, complicating regulatory compliance for U.S. asset managers operating in global markets. Even as U.S. asset managers retreat from ESG, many global asset owners remain focused on climate risks and long-term values. Restricting ESG investing could harm the competitiveness of U.S. asset managers. In light of the risks of climate change and the global focus on ESG, permitting the consideration of ESG factors for risk-return purposes under ERISA is not only prudent for the U.S. asset management industry—but more importantly, it is loyal to the planet
Maine
Get PDFIn Maine there are several areas of difference in the treatment of police and non-police collective bargaining. They include the following: No Statutory Differences. The Maine statute does not differentiate between police and non-police units. Highly Qualified Board Members. The Maine Labor Relations Board Members are uniformly qualified and the Board is well balanced between those with experiences with unions and those with experiences with employers. No Police Cases Between 2003 and 2023. There is thus no way to compare outcomes. Police Oversight Must Be Bargained. There is one 2001 case in which the Board found police oversight must be bargained, but in subsequent teacher cases, the Board found that evaluation of teacher performance did not need to be bargained
Wisconsin
Get PDFIn 2011, Wisconsin enacted a law known as Act 10, which dramatically narrowed the scope of public sector collective bargaining for all employees, except public safety employees. After the enactment of that decision, there were virtually no cases addressing mandatory subjects of bargaining for “general” governmental employees, i.e., non-police. Thus, this fact sheet will focus on statutory changes, with only a small number of cases
“A Plain Denial”: Reclaiming Equal Protection in American Juvenile Law
No full textJuvenile courts are based on the premise that children are different from adults and should therefore be treated differently. Children may be treated more informally by courts, punished for different purposes, and brought before the court for different behaviors. Since In re Gault, the Supreme Court has been clear that there are limits to how different juvenile courts can be. Juveniles are entitled to many of the same procedural protections as adult criminal defendants, although the Court has preserved some procedural differences where it has determined that their benefit is outweighed by the need to preserve the informality, flexibility, and confidentiality of juvenile courts. While the Court has mainly applied the Fifth Amendment’s due process guarantee in these cases, Justice Black’s concurrence in Gault noted that “it would be a plain denial of equal protection of the laws—an invidious discrimination—to hold that others subject to heavier punishments could, because they are children, be denied these same constitutional safeguards.” Since then, litigants in state and lower federal courts have challenged juvenile laws and procedures by arguing that they violate the Equal Protection Clause. While equal protection arguments may appear facially inconsistent with the “children are different” rhetoric underpinning juvenile courts today, they can be an important tool for protecting children’s rights. “Different” is usually understood to mean “more lenient,” but a deferential constitutional standard may also cloak state actions that harm children, intentionally or unintentionally. As Justice Black suggested, robust review under the Equal Protection Clause is necessary to ensure that, when it comes to children, states are striking the correct balance between protection and rights. This Article systematically reviews equal protection claims in juvenile delinquency cases. Some courts have shown a willingness to carefully consider the specific reasons for different treatment in a particular context and to strike down laws that discrimination against children irrationally, or require sufficient procedural safeguards to avoid unfairness. We argue that equal protection provides an opportunity to thoroughly examine the tension between equality and difference that has long animated conversations about juvenile court; it is an argument that advocates should continue to make and that courts should carefully engage, regardless of the level of scrutiny applied. While courts are likely to reach similar conclusions in many cases as they do when using either the due process or cruel and unusual punishment frameworks, equal protection arguments apply to all aspects of juvenile law, not just delinquency procedure and extreme punishments, including decisions to sanction certain conduct and the decisions to deny children certain rights. Equal protection arguments thus provide an opportunity to link the jurisprudence and theory of juvenile delinquency courts with that of children’s constitutional rights more generally
Mandating Fluoride: A Constitutional Exercise of Police Power
No full textThis Note addresses the ongoing debate over fluoridation: the regulation of fluoride levels in public water systems. Extensive research indicates fluoridation, when regulated at the recommended concentration, is both safe and highly effective in preventing dental caries. Better known as cavities, dental caries is a preventable yet widespread health issue that disproportionately affects low-income populations. Reducing dental health disparities among economic classes is a pressing public health issue. Fluoridation is not merely a policy option, but a critical, proven tool to address such disparities and uphold the collective welfare of Washingtonians. This Note focuses on fluoridation as a public health necessity by highlighting the relevant science and dispelling the concerns surrounding fluoridation. Drawing on constitutional principles and legal precedent, this Note demonstrates that a statewide mandate for low-level fluoridation in Washington is a feasible measure to promote equitable dental health among all residents