Loyola University Chicago, School of Law: LAW eCommons
Not a member yet
4877 research outputs found
Sort by
The Evolution of Crowdfunding: Reconciling Regulation Crowdfunding with Initial Coin Offerings
No full textBudding Torts: Forecasting Emerging Tort Liability in the Cannabis Industry
No full textThe marijuana industry is booming. It is expanding into new states while it grows beyond the medical marijuana market into the recreational world. What was once illicit profit is quickly becoming on-the-books gains. As the industry matures, billions will be made, and companies once viewed suspiciously will become market giants. But this growth will not be without consequences. As marijuana use grows, and those who profit from it become established companies, the marijuana industry will become a target for tort claims that other industries have faced for decades. These claims, ranging from product liability claims to vehicular injury to consumer class actions, will expose actors in the industry to potentially ruinous damages. This is particularly true if the industry remains, as it is now, only partially prepared. Particularly dangerous will be third-party claims (claims filed by people who did not purchase marijuana themselves). In those claims, the illegal status of marijuana in federal law could make establishing liability against manufacturers, wholesalers, and sellers easier than it is for other products. This Article chronicles the most likely claims to emerge en masse in courts and puts forth potential, viable industry responses
How Trump\u27s Land of the Free Turned into the Home of the Cages for Immigrant Families Seeking Asylum
No full textWhy a President Cannot Authorize the Military to Violate (Most of) the Law of War
Get PDFWaterboarding and “much worse,” torture, and “tak[ing] out” the family members of terrorists: President Trump endorsed these measures while campaigning for office. After his inauguration, Trump confirmed his view of the effectiveness of torture and has not clearly rejected other measures forbidden by international law. This Article therefore examines whether a President has the power to order or authorize the military to violate international humanitarian law, known as the “law of war.” Rather than assess whether the law of war generally constrains a President as Commander-in-Chief, however, its focus is the extent to which Congress requires the U.S. military to comply with the law of war in its disciplinary code, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). It clarifies how Article 18 of the UCMJ empowers military criminal courts, known as courts-martial, to try and punish not only conduct denominated a “war crime” by international law but also any other conduct for which the law of war permits punishment by military tribunal. Punishable conduct under Article 18 includes any law of war violation that entails or results in a criminal offense under the UCMJ. Put differently, this Article clarifies why reasonable compliance with the *814 law of war is necessary to justify war measures that are otherwise common crimes such as murder, maiming, and assault, that are defined and made punishable by the UCMJ. This Article then explains why this execution of the law of war in the UCMJ limits a President\u27s authority as Commander-in-Chief: a President does not possess constitutional power to override congressional regulation of the military, particularly in matters of military discipline. So long as the law of war component of Article 18 remains unchanged, no President may order or authorize war crimes or most other law of war violations that entail or result in a UCMJ offense
Constitutionally Different: A Child’s Right to Substantive Due Process
Get PDFKent v. United States required trial courts to conduct an individualized assessment before transferring a juvenile defendant to criminal jurisdiction. Several decades later, in Miller v. Alabama, the Supreme Court prohibited imposing life without parole sentences upon youth offenders without first conducting an individualized assessment. The latter holding also pronounced that juveniles are constitutionally different from adults, finding support in social science, developmental psychology and neuroscience advancements. This same body of adolescent behavioral research casts fundamental fairness concerns on a transferred youth’s ability to effectively participate in other parts of the justice process when removed to criminal court. Whereas due process and the Eighth Amendment have fully draped constitutional juvenile issues to date, my Article proposes that substantive due process more aptly secures a youth offender’s liberty interests when battling disadvantages attributable to their youthfulness traits as experienced throughout the entire justice process—from adequate representation, to transfer, to trial participation, to the sentencing phase. At present, fourteen states absolutely deprive juveniles of an individualized assessment at any juncture in the justice process, including at the initial jurisdictional transfer determination. This Article contributes the first holistic analysis for recognizing the constitutional difference between juveniles and their adult counterparts at critical adjudicatory points, not only at transfer or the sentencing stage, through a substantive due process framework
\u3cem\u3eCazorla v. Koch Foods of Mississippi, LLC\u3c/em\u3e: Where Discovery Issues Meet Current Immigration Policy
No full textIn 2016, the Fifth Circuit addressed whether a district court’s finding that Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allowed discovery of U-visa information from individual plaintiffs. The court declined to impose an order of its own. Instead, it remanded the case to the district court to devise an approach to U-visa discovery that “adequately protects the diverse and competing interests at stake.”1
The Fifth Circuit case arose when workers at a Koch Foods plant brought a Title VII suit against Koch. They alleged Koch supervisors made it common practice to grope female workers, assault them, and often offer female workers money or promotions for sex. Koch defended, arguing that workers fabricated their accusations in hopes of securing U-visas, an incentive that those who assist the government in investigating qualifying crimes may receive under the Violence Against Women Act. And, Koch argued that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission solicited and certified these false claims to build a high-profile, class-based discrimination suit against the company. The case highlights by far the most contentious issue regarding U-visas under the current administration, and conservative administrations in recent years: that mass “fraud” has destroyed United States immigration procedures.
Rather than remanding the case, the Fifth Circuit should have imposed a total bar on the discoverability of this information because the idea that “mass” fraud in the U-visa system is exaggerated, and the importance of upholding the legislative intent behind the program outweighs the relevance of such information
