Hauptman-Woodward Medical Research Institute
Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of LawNot a member yet
8606 research outputs found
Sort by
Presidential Ideology and Immigrant Detention
Get PDFIn our nation’s immigration system, a noncitizen charged with deportability may be detained pending the outcome of removal proceedings. These individuals are housed in remote facilities closely resembling prisons, with severe restrictions on access to counsel and contact with family members. Given severe backlogs in the adjudication of removal proceedings, such detention may last months or even years.
Many of the noncitizens initially detained by enforcement officials have the opportunity to request a bond hearing before an administrative adjudicator called an Immigration Judge (IJ). Although these IJs preside over relatively formal on-the-record hearings and are understood to exercise “independent judgement,” concerns have been raised that they have been subject to control by political superiors in the Executive Branch.
We analyze roughly 630,000 individual custody decisions by IJs from 2001 through June 2019 to explore this question. Our bivariate analyses based on cross-tabulations (without additional controls) show that noncitizens fared worse in bond proceedings during the Trump Administration than they did during the prior two Administrations. Moreover, the difference is not solely attributable to the behavior of Trump appointed IJs. Rather, even appointee cohorts who had been relatively favorable toward noncitizens during prior Eras imposed higher bond amounts and were more likely to deny bond altogether during the Trump Era. These findings suggest that political actors in the Executive Branch may be influencing immigrant bond outcomes not only through their power to appoint, but also through their power to supervise
Teaching Copyright Law through Participatory Involvement in an Unconference Setting
Get PDFAn “unconference” is an attempt by librarians and other professionals to work outside of the traditional conference model. Presenters are encouraged to break out of traditional modes of presentation and try new methods of engaging with the participants. We submitted an idea for a session focused on demystifying domestic and international copyright law and discussing how the law affects libraries and archives. Modern librarianship demands at least a basic understanding of copyright and intellectual property issues, and librarians have reported that they lack training and knowledge in this area. We determined that we did not want to present a formal lecture on copyright in libraries, especially given the freedom and intellectual experimentation encouraged by an unconference setting. Instead, we determined that the best way to present copyright principles would be to share examples of real-life scenarios with the participants and assist them in applying the principles of copyright law to those situations. We hoped that participants would build confidence in their ability to respond when copyright issues arose at the workplace. This paper outlines the approach we took to prepare and present this unconventional session, and it includes an assessment of the results
Data Management Law for the 2020s: The Lost Origins and the New Needs
Get PDFIn the data analytics society, each individual’s disclosure of personal information imposes costs on others. This disclosure enables companies, deploying novel forms of data analytics, to infer new knowledge about other people and to use this knowledge to engage in potentially harmful activities. These harms go beyond privacy and include difficult to detect price discrimination, preference manipulation, and even social exclusion. Currently existing, individual-focused, data protection regimes leave law unable to account for these social costs or to manage them.
This Article suggests a way out, by proposing to re-conceptualize the problem of social costs of data analytics through the new frame of “data management law.” It offers a critical comparison of the two existing models of data governance: the American “notice and choice” approach and the European “personal data protection” regime (currently expressed in the General Data Protection Regulation). Tracing their origin to a single report issued in 1973, the Article demonstrates how they developed differently under the influence of different ideologies (market-centered liberalism, and human rights, respectively). It also shows how both ultimately failed at addressing the challenges outlined already forty-five years ago.
To tackle these challenges, this Article argues for three normative shifts. First, it proposes to go beyond “privacy” and towards “social costs of data management” as the framework for conceptualizing and mitigating negative effects of corporations’ data usage. Second, it argues to go beyond the individual interests, to account for collective ones, and to replace contracts with regulation as the means of creating norms governing data management. Third, it argues that the nature of the decisions about these norms is political, and so political means, in place of technocratic solutions, need to be employed
Marie Jauffret-Roustide discusses harm reduction as an effective response to the opioid overdose crisis
Get PDFEpisode 12 features Marie Jauffret-Roustide, PhD, Senior Fellow in Interdisciplinary Legal Studies at The Baldy Center for Law and Social Policy, and, Research Fellow at the French National Institute of Health and Medical Research in Paris, France. Jauffret-Roustide discusses the effectiveness of drug policies that are embedded in human rights and harm reduction, and compares them to repressive drug policies that are ineffective in protecting vulnerable people and the communities in which they live
El dilema democrático de la refrendación directa de los acuerdos de paz [The Democratic Dilemma of the Popular Ratification of Peace Agreements]
Get PDFEn este ensayo se explora el “dilema democrático” que surge en la refrendación directa de los acuerdos de paz, es decir, en las consultas adelantadas para que la ciudadanía apruebe o rechace el convenio alcanzado por las partes para la terminación de un conflicto. El dilema presenta dos cuernos, por un lado, es necesario que la comunidad afectada por el acuerdo lo refrende para su legitimidad y viabilidad, y por el otro lado, que los mecanismos democráticos de consulta directa tienen serias dificultades para adelantar tal refrendación. El objetivo principal de este estudio es proporcionar una caracterización del dilema que presente con claridad la complejidad que esta situación excepcional somete a prueba la teoría normativa de la democracia. Cabe mencionar que no se aspira a proporcionar una respuesta definitiva, pero si tratar de hacer justicia a las diferentes intuiciones morales representadas por cada uno de los retos del dilema y así dar algunos pasos hacia su disolución y resolución.
This paper explores a dilemma that arises from direct, popular consultations to approve or reject a peace agreement. The problem has two horns. On the one hand, it is necessary that a community affected by a peace process approves it for its legitimacy and viability. On the other hand, familiar democratic mechanisms seem inappropriate to discuss technical issues and questions of rights and principle such as those of a peace process. My main objective in this paper is to characterize the dilemma to clarify the complexity of this exceptional situation and the challenges it levies to our normative accounts of democracy. While I do not provide a definitive answer, I will try to make justice to the different moral intuitions represented by each of the dilemma’s horns and make some progress towards its resolution
