16178 research outputs found
Sort by
The Military Uses of Artificial Intelligence
No full textFireside Chat: Lt Gen John N.T. “Jack” Shanahan, USAF (Ret.) former Director of the Department of Defense’s Joint Artificial Intelligence Center.
Discussant: Prof Gary Corn, Director of the Technology, Law & Security Program and adjunct professor at American University’s Washington College of Law
Flips and Splits in Administrative Law
No full textIntro by Omar
Daniel Hemel, Flips and Splits in Administrative Law
Discussants Jill E. Family and Stuart M. Benjami
Stacked Against Defendants: Retroactivity, Vacatur, and the First Step Act in Hewitt v. United States
Full text linkIn 2018, Congress passed the First Step Act with overwhelming bipartisan support. One of its provisions, § 403, clarifies 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) by eliminating the stacking of mandatory minimum sentences for certain firearm offenses for first-time offenders. Section 403(b) makes the provision retroactive so long as a sentence for the offense has not been imposed as of the Act\u27s date of enactment.
In 2009, bank robbers Corey Duffey, Tony Hewitt, and Jarvis Ross were convicted of several federal crimes, including stacked § 924(c) offenses. After their sentences were vacated in 2020, they argued that they should be resentenced under the First Step Act because a vacated sentence is not one that has been imposed. The district court, and subsequently the Fifth Circuit, disagreed, holding that a sentence had been imposed, thus precluding retroactive application of § 403.
The Supreme Court should reverse the Fifth Circuit\u27s decision given § 403(b)\u27s plain text, that a vacated sentence has not been imposed, and that the broader purpose of the First Step Act as reflected in Congress\u27s intent supports Petitioners
Molecular Diagnostic Patenting After Mayo v. Prometheus: An Empirical Analysis
No full textSince the United States Supreme Court\u27s 2012 decision in Mayo v. Prometheus announced a new legal test for patent-eligible subject matter, policymakers, and scholars have vigorously debated the decision\u27s impact on molecular diagnostics innovation. Molecular diagnostics serve as the cornerstone of personalized medicine and its promise of treatments with fewer side effects and better outcomes for patients. This article contributes to the presently thin evidence base on the impact of Mayo by using data on patent applications, examinations, and grants from 2010 to 2019 to comprehensively trace the effects of the test and subsequent related developments. Using descriptive data as well as a difference-in- difference (DID) design we evaluate the extent to which the decision was followed by one of three expected outcomes: a decline in patent quantity (“retrenchment”); increase in patent prosecution “toughness”; and applicant “adaptation” with respect to submitted claims. We find substantial support for our toughness and adaptation hypotheses, but not our retrenchment hypothesis: molecular diagnostic patenting did not decline in aggregate, though there is some evidence of a decline, relative to a control, in the number of diagnostic patent applications and grants associated with small, U.S.-based firms. These results suggest that molecular diagnostic patents are harder to get but they are still being applied for and granted, with their narrowed scope making them less likely to block follow on innovation
Finding a Purpose in Bruen\u27s World
Full text linkFewer than seven months after the Highland Park mass shooting, the Illinois General Assembly passed the Protect Illinois Communities Act (“PICA”), a statewide ban on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines. Gun-rights advocates have characterized PICA (and other similar strong state gun laws) as unconstitutional laws intentionally enacted to defy the Supreme Court’s protection of the right to keep and bear arms. In response to such severe accusations, especially in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, this Note assesses these claims using PICA as a case study. Through an investigation of its legislative history—an investigation that analyzes everything from floor-debate transcripts to committee-hearing recordings—this Note observes that PICA’s drafters and supporters were constitutionally conscientious when they enacted the assault weapon and large-capacity magazine ban.
To help other state legislators avoid accusations of defying their oaths of office, this Note also investigates the Seventh Circuit’s application of Bruen’s text-and-history test to hold PICA to be likely constitutional. This inquiry makes two related findings. First, it would be prudent for state legislators to articulate their purpose for enacting a firearms ban in the text of the ultimate bill. Second, to accomplish this first task, state legislators should avoid resorting to procedural shortcuts—like the gut and replace tactic used to pass PICA—to enact firearms bans. If constitutionally conscientious state legislators wish to respond meaningfully to gun violence with strong gun regulation, they must still respect the legislative procedural processes. Ultimately, even if the ends are legitimate, the means must always be proper
Fireside Chat: Hot Topics from the Pentagon to the Pacific
No full textSpeaker: Col Eveylon “Corrie” Mack, USAF, Principal Deputy Legal Counsel, Office of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Speaker: CAPT Trevor Grant, USN, Fleet Judge Advocate, U.S. Pacific Fleet.
Discussant: Maj Gen Charlie Dunlap, USAF (Ret.), LENS Executive Directo
