16178 research outputs found
Sort by
From Womb to Wallet: Recognizing the Placenta’s Lawful Role in the U.S. Marketplace
No full textModern biotechnology has transformed the human placenta from medical waste into a lucrative commercial resource. Placental tissue is used across industries—from cosmetics touting antiaging effects to pharmaceuticals employing it as a raw material for wound therapies. Yet while hospitals and biotechnology companies profit from this growing placenta economy, the women from whom the placentas originate receive neither compensation nor complete information. Federal law provides little guidance, and most states lack explicit regulations, producing a legal vacuum that allows stakeholders to exploit ambiguity. For-profit companies routinely frame their placenta procurement as altruistic donation rather than commercial exchange, citing the federal law to justify nonpayment.
Although placentas function as temporary organs inside the womb, this Note contends that the placenta’s characteristics align it more closely with other lawful markets in biological materials such as plasma and gametes than with organs that federal law forbids from sale or compensated transfer. Unlike those vital organs, placentas are naturally and necessarily expelled from the body during childbirth. Because the law already permits compensation for analogous body products such as plasma and gametes, placentas should receive equivalent treatment as legitimate objects of market exchange for which donors may lawfully receive compensation.
To remedy this inequitable framework, this Note proposes amending the National Organ Transplant Act to expressly exclude placentas from its scope. Such a reform would align federal law with the realities of the modern bioeconomy and affirm women’s rightful stake in the economic value of the materials their bodies produce—formalizing the placenta’s legal and economic transformation from afterbirth to asset
No More “Vague Handwaving”: Applying the Overlooked “Person Aggrieved” Provision of the North Carolina Administrative Procedure Act to Election Litigation
No full textThe North Carolina Administrative Procedure Act requires claimants against state agencies to be “persons aggrieved,” meaning they have been “affected substantially” in their “person, property, or employment” by the challenged agency action. But in the 2024 general election, North Carolina state courts largely ignored this requirement, permitting plaintiffs to sue based on allegations of harm that some considered to reflect no more than “vague handwaving about election integrity.” This fact-light litigation strained state resources and reduced ballot access. But the solution is not so simple as just reminding courts that a statute exists. State appellate courts have never explained how the “person aggrieved” provision should apply to elections, so it has previously been unclear what plaintiffs challenging electoral regulations must show to satisfy the NCAPA’s “person, property, or employment” formulation. This Note dispels the confusion. It conducts the first ever comprehensive survey of the history and case law surrounding the “person aggrieved” provision and extrapolates how that provision should apply to elections. It concludes that to challenge electoral regulations under the NCAPA, the plaintiff must be a political party or candidate and must show that the challenged regulation stands to substantially affect the outcome of a specific race
Offshore Wind in Vertically-Integrated Versus Deregulated Models: Considerations for State Policymakers
No full textEnergy law scholars and economists have long studied the theoretical differences between vertically-integrated and deregulated models of electricity regulation. Now, diverse regulatory approaches and advances in renewable electricity technology present the opportunity to go beyond the abstract. This case study applies tenets of energy law and economic theory to offshore wind initiatives to concretize lessons of a clean energy transition for state policymakers going forward.
By comparing Virginia’s and New York’s offshore wind ventures, this analysis lends nuance and practicality to otherwise abstract energy regulation principles. These states are leaders in the volatile offshore wind industry, a target for the second Trump administration. Their projects pursue similar goals by similar means; however, while Virginia has embraced a traditional monopolistic system of electricity regulation, New York has turned towards competition. This comparison identifies the tradeoffs between these two regulatory models as applied to high-risk, high-capital technologies like offshore wind—which may be critical tools for decarbonization. It urges state policymakers to examine the costs and benefits of these models and to align their energy goals with the appropriate regulatory model for best results.
The federal government’s hostility towards renewable energy transition and offshore wind in particular leaves states in a newfound position of opportunity and responsibility. The present administration has created an incredibly challenging environment for clean energy innovation and transition, yet the importance of accelerating energy transition is as apparent as it has ever been. Thus, it is more critical than ever that state policymakers capitalize on existing lessons of energy transition, rather than repeating past mistakes
State Siting of Renewable Energy – Preemptive Power Grab or Power Play?
No full textThe United States needs more—and cleaner—energy. Experts project that in the near future, the United States will need to significantly increase its electricity generation. Currently, the burning of fossil fuels remains a significant source of power generation in the United States. However, these fossil fuels produce greenhouse gases that are one of the main drivers of the impending and likely disastrous, climate change. Therefore, it has never been more vital to decarbonize the energy sector. However, there are two significant impediments to the deployment of renewable energy: restrictive local siting laws and community opposition.
According to the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School, at least 459 counties and municipalities across 44 states have severe local restrictions on siting renewable energy projects. In response to the proliferation of restrictions, several states have passed siting reform bills to bypass local restrictions and authorize state-level siting of renewable energy projects. Although many siting reform frameworks aim to streamline permitting and support community engagement, opponents of siting reforms that expand states’ siting authority argue that they constitute an improper appropriation of local land-use authority. This Article will examine this policy tension and whether these siting reform bills strike a balance that allows for community involvement while ensuring a transition to cleaner energy sources.
This Article will also examine opposition to state-level siting by analyzing the specific example of the agricultural sector, which is divided on this issue and is directly impacted by siting decisions. Farmers who support siting reforms desire a streamlined system to facilitate the leasing of farmland for renewable energy generation. Farmers who oppose siting reforms argue that siting should remain a local issue, fearing that state-level siting will enable the conversion of prime farmland and unduly burden rural communities. As the time to take adaptive action to prevent the most severe impacts of climate change approaches, this Article examines whether siting reforms are an improper preemptive power grab of land-use control or a strategic power play to protect the public from a climate catastrophe
