6163 research outputs found
Sort by
Brief of Amici Curia King County Department of Public Defense, Center for Civil Rights and Critical Justice, ACLU of Washington, and Washington Defender Association
Full text link
Demanding More from Distance Learning: The Virtual & Democratized Futures of Legal Education
Full text linkAntonio M. Coronado and Gabriela Elizondo-Craig examine the transformative potential of online legal education through their work at Innovation for Justice, where they lead virtual legal training programs for community-based justice workers. They trace the development and limitations of ABA Standard 306, highlighting how the COVID-19 pandemic exposed both the rigidity of traditional legal education and the possibilities of technology-enabled learning. Drawing on adult education theory and best practices in online pedagogy, Coronado and Elizondo-Craig challenge prevailing critiques of distance legal education and advocate for a learner-centered, accessible, and inclusive model. Their experience demonstrates how online legal education, when intentionally designed, can democratize legal knowledge, empower underserved communities, and expand who gets to access and wield the law. They ultimately call for a reimagining of legal education that centers equity, care, and community legal empowerment
Navahine v. Hawaiʻi Dept. of Transportation: The Keiki Will Lead Us
Full text linkThe author analyzes the landmark case Navahine v. Hawaiʻi Department of Transportation, which culminated in the world’s first constitutional climate settlement. Catherine Smith, serving as an expert for the youth plaintiffs, situates the case within Hawaiʻi’s legal tradition of prioritizing children’s rights and intergenerational equity. She explores the evolution of children’s constitutional protections, contrasting Hawaiʻi’s progressive jurisprudence with the dominant adult-centric legal framework on the mainland. She critiques four recurring analytical missteps in U.S. courts that marginalize children’s interests and highlights Hawaiʻi’s public trust doctrine and cultural values, such as the Aloha Spirit, as models for addressing climate-related harms. Ultimately, the author argues for centering children’s rights to ensure meaningful legal responses to climate change
Good Newsletter Septemeber 2, 2025
Full text linkhttps://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/goodnewsletter/1014/thumbnail.jp
Understanding the Big Three’s Wavering Support of Environmental and Social Shareholder Proposals
Full text linkBecause of their substantial equity portfolios, BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street (the Big 3) are central players in corporate governance. It is, therefore, critical to understand how they vote. One puzzle is that their support for shareholder proposals on environmental and social matters appears to waiver. In 2020, for instance, BlackRock supported 11.1% of environmental proposals at S&P 500 firms. In 2021, it seemingly reversed course, supporting 55.2%. It then flipped again, supporting 32.1% in 2022. Such statistics suggest that the Big 3 are constantly changing their views on these topics. This Article seeks to better understand whether this is the case. Using a hand-collected dataset of the Big 3’s voting records with respect to S&P 500 firms from 2018–2022, we first describe the extent to which Big 3 voting has fluctuated. Second, we show that because the pool of proposals varies from year to year, and the companies targeted for such proposals also vary, summary statistics about Big 3 voting tell us little about whether they are changing their positions from year to year. Finally, to control for variation in the pool of proposals and in the pool of companies, the Article analyzes Big 3 voting only with respect to repeat proposals at the same firms. We find (1) that the Big 3 remained largely, but not wholly, consistent; (2) that when they changed their votes, it was usually to support proposals that they previously opposed; and (3) that, in some cases, changes on repeat proposals provide a meaningful explanation for year-over-year changes in their voting patterns
Brief of Amici Curiae Center for Civil Rights and Critical Justice, ACLU of Washington and King County Department of Public Defense
Full text linkModern Day Colonialism Through Hawaiʻi’s Quiet Title and Partition Laws
Full text linkThis Note will attempt to highlight important aspects of Hawaiian history to provide readers with a clear picture on how Native Hawaiians are still impacted by colonialism, specifically when plaintiffs bring a quiet title or partition action against Native Hawaiian owners of kuleana lands. Before colonization, the concept of private land ownership did not exist in Hawai‘i, and Native Hawaiians adopted a feudal system by dividing land into geographical areas. Missionaries and businessmen brought Western ideas to Hawai‘i and influenced legislation such as the Great Māhele and the Kuleana Land Act of 1850, which solidified the concept of private property. The distribution and recording of land parcels given through these legislative actions were written on hard copy documents and often imperfect. Throughout the generations, ownership became unclear due to the passing of these lands to next of kin or the interference of commercial businesses on the land. In modern days, plaintiffs seek to gain ownership of kuleana lands through the quiet title and partition action processes. However, more often than not, Native Hawaiians lose their land ownership through these legal actions because they do not have the means or resources to defend against these claims
The Right to Repair Medical Devices: A Right to Patient Needs
Full text linkThe laws governing the repair of medical devices, most notably §1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), place unnecessary and harmful restrictions on healthcare access in the United States. As hospitals increasingly rely on complex medical technologies, manufacturers have relied on anti-circumvention laws to block independent and in-house repairs, effectively monopolizing the repair market. As a result, our current system is one that delays treatment, inflates costs, and leaves healthcare providers and consumers with fewer options during times of crisis and routine care alike. Drawing on legal analysis, policy critique, and lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic, this article shows how current repair restrictions compromise the autonomy of healthcare institutions and limit patient access to vital medical equipment. It also considers how intellectual property protections intersect with safety, commercial incentives, and global disparities in medical infrastructure. The article suggests a limited right to repair, including changes to §1201, standardized certification, and incentives for manufacturer transparency. These changes aim to find a balance between maintaining device integrity and ensuring that patients and providers are not limited when it comes to essential care tools