Hauptman-Woodward Medical Research Institute
Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of LawNot a member yet
8606 research outputs found
Sort by
What Don’t You Know and How Will You Learn It?
Get PDFReviewing Susan Nevelow Mart, The Algorithm as a Human Artifact: Implications for Legal [Re]Search, 109 Law Libr. J. 387
Thank You All the Same, but I’d Rather Not Be Seized Today: The Constitutionality of Ruse Checkpoints under the Fourth Amendment
Get PDFHow the Rise of the Daily Fantasy Sports Industry Can Catalyze the Liberalization of Sports Betting Policies in the United States
Get PDFThe Supreme Court’s Original Jurisdiction Over Disputes Between the United States and a State
Get PDFDoes the Supreme Court have jurisdiction to hear controversies between a state and the United States? Although the Supreme Court has asserted this power, commentators have puzzled over the question for decades. Because Article III does not enumerate controversies between a state and the United States, many scholars have concluded that the Court’s exercise of this power is illegitimate, or at least atextual. This Article argues that the Constitution’s text does give the Supreme Court the power to hear such controversies, but to understand why it is necessary to understand the way that the framers would, for the sake of brevity, combine several concepts into a single phrase, what this Article terms “collapse textualism.” The framers combined two heads of jurisdiction (“controversies between the United States and a State” and “all other controversies involving the United States”) into a single grant of jurisdiction over “Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party.” Thus, because the Court has original jurisdiction over those controversies “in which a State shall be a Party” it therefore has original jurisdiction over “controversies between the United States and a State.
Unforeseen Land Uses: The Effect of Marijuana Legalization on Land Conservation Programs
Get PDFThis Article explores the tension between land conservation and marijuana cultivation in the context of legalization. The legalization of marijuana has the potential to shift the locations of marijuana cultivation. Where cultivation need no longer be surreptitious and clandestine, growers may begin to explore sanctioned growing sites and methods. Thus, the shift to legalization may be accompanied by environmental and land-use implications. Investigating commercial-scale marijuana cultivation, this Article details how, in some ways, legalization can reduce environmental impacts of marijuana cultivation while also examining tricky issues regarding tensions between protected lands and marijuana cultivation. If we treat cultivation of marijuana the same as we treat cultivation of other agricultural crops, we gain stricter regulation of the growing process, including limits on pesticide usage, water pollution, wetland conversion, air pollution, and local land-use laws. Thus, legalization of marijuana should yield environmental benefits. And yet the story is, of course, more complicated than that. The strange status of marijuana as both a federally impermissible use and a stigmatized crop suggests that it will not fall under the same legal regimes as other agricultural products. In the realm of protected agricultural and conservation lands, a particular concern arises for land trusts grappling with proposals for marijuana cultivation. Where landowners receive federal tax benefits or land trusts rely upon federal laws for funding and legitimacy, the decision to grow marijuana on the land could have significant consequences. The Article reaches two main conclusions. First, in the absence of federal regulations, subnational governments should create and implement environmental and land-use regulations governing the cultivation of marijuana to ensure that legal grows do not continue the harmful practices involved with black market marijuana. Second, land trusts and agricultural protection organizations should not become involved with marijuana cultivation in any form while it remains illegal at the federal level. To do so puts both the land and their operations at risk
The Problem of Wage Theft
Get PDFWage theft inflicts serious harm on America\u27s working poor but has received little attention from policymakers seeking to address income inequality in the United States. This Article provides a comprehensive analysis of the causes of the wage theft crisis and the failure of the current enforcement regime to address it. It argues that existing policy reforms will fail, because they misunderstand the nature of the crisis and the incentives that employers face when deciding to steal workers\u27 wages. It then proposes series of reforms that could work, while arguing that changing the economic calculus alone will be unlikely to solve the problem if social norms remain unchanged
