Touro College: Digital Commons @ Touro Law Center
Not a member yet
3484 research outputs found
Sort by
Mental Health in Prison: The Unintended but Catastrophic Effects of Deinstitutionalization
Full text linkPrisons and jails are not adequately equipped to manage the ever-growing population of mentally ill inmates. Despite deinstitutionalization efforts, prisons have steadily become the new psychiatric hospitals and unfortunately, because of the lack of treatment and the ability to properly supervise this population of inmates, these individuals are dying by their own hands at an alarming rate. This Note argues that the lack of proper care for mentally ill inmates is a violation of their constitutional right, despite their incarcerated status. The Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) should incorporate more concrete and universal rules and regulations for the care and treatment of these inmates to ensure that their constitutional rights are not being violated. Changes are necessary to protect their rights and more importantly, to keep them alive
Merging the Bench, Bar, and Law Schools: How a Student Scholars Program Achieves Professional Identity Through Scholarly Writing, Mentorship, and Presentation
Full text linkThis Article describes an innovative co-curricular program, the Student Scholars Program, that provides law students with an opportunity to present their scholarly papers before the bench, bar, and law school community. The Program aids law schools in meeting accreditation standards, such as the ABA Standards 302 and 303. Standard 302 requires law schools to achieve specific learning outcomes. Standard 303(b)(3) requires law schools to provide substantial opportunities for students to develop a professional identity. This program aids schools in achieving these standards. Furthermore, this program increases interaction between students and the legal profession by creating episodic mentoring opportunities. Launched in April 2021, the Student Scholars Program is hosted annually by the Federal Bar Association\u27s EDNY chapter; and the FBA law student divisions at the schools of St. John\u27s University School of Law and Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law School
The Crypto Revolution: A Comparative Analysis of Crypto Regulation in the United States and the European Union
Full text linkCryptocurrency is something that many people have heard of, but few truly understand the totality of it. From its emergence to the present form, cryptocurrency has become an innovative technology which has changed the way in which we use money. As seen time and time again, where there comes new technology comes governmental authorities introducing new laws to regulate these emerging industries. The aim of these laws and regulations is to protect consumers, but it is imperative not to overregulate the industry. The goal of regulation is to allow consumers to enjoy the benefits of the industry; however, one cannot enjoy an industry which has been stifled with laws which hinder a chance for innovation and growth. It is imperative for the United States to adopt a regulatory structure which allows for the continued growth of this industry. When comparing the United States and European Union in terms of regulation, we see how the European Union takes a friendlier, more proactive approach which the United States may be able to mirror for future success
Leandro v. State: The Challenges of Litigating School Funding Equity in Hyper-Partisan Times
Full text linkThe Leandro case serves as a critical case study highlighting the limitations of litigation in addressing educational inequities, particularly in states committed to undermining public education. Despite the judiciary\u27s constitutional role as an independent check on legislative actions, the politicization of state supreme courts has transformed them into partisan entities. This shift erodes public trust in the legal process and disproportionately harms marginalized groups, many of whom have historically relied on the courts to safeguard their constitutional rights, including equitable access to public education. The Leandro case underscores the challenges of achieving meaningful educational reform through litigation in a highly politicized environment
West Virginia v. EPA: Maybe a Big Deal, but Maybe Not
Full text linkIn West Virginia v. EPA, the Supreme Court ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) lacked the statutory authority to implement the Clean Power Plan, a regulation designed to reduce coal-fired power plant emissions by encouraging the use of non-coal energy sources. The Court’s decision was primarily grounded in the major questions doctrine, which asserts that courts may reject agency actions that involve significant and consequential powers not reasonably inferred from Congressional intent, even if a statute is unclear. This decision raised concerns among commentators that it might severely restrict environmental regulations and the broader administrative state. However, the Court\u27s majority opinion is written in narrow terms, emphasizing the unique facts of the case and suggesting that the ruling could be distinguished in future contexts. Thus, the decision should not be seen as a definitive blow to greenhouse gas regulation or environmental protections. This Essay is structured in three parts: Part I provides a summary of the West Virginia v. EPA case; Part II examines the majority opinion, focusing on its reliance on the unique facts of the case; and Part III draws an analogy between this decision and federal jurisprudence under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, offering a broader perspective on administrative authority
Mental Hygiene Law Article 81 Proceedings in New York State and the Associated Deprivation of One’s Civil Rights and Autonomy: Are We Really Helping?
Full text linkNew York State Mental Hygiene Law Article 81 affords a population that is vulnerable to abuse and exploitation an opportunity to have their personal and/or property management needs met by the least restrictive means available, often entailing a severe deprivation of their rights.1 But what is meant by the term “least restrictive means available,” how is this determined, and how are these “means” implemented and monitored? Is this deprivation of an individual’s rights the only way they can be helped, or is this unnecessarily harmful? Are there other ways to protect the vulnerable in our society without taking away these rights, and what changes can be made? This article will discuss New York State Mental Hygiene Law Article 81 proceedings and how they impact the civil rights of the vulnerable population they were enacted to serve. This article will first discuss a brief legislative history of New York State Mental Hygiene Law Article 81 and the “least restrictive means” standard, followed by a more detailed description of Article 81 proceedings and its associated procedures in New York State. This article will then address specific civil rights that are comprised in New York State Mental Hygiene Law Article 81 proceedings and the repercussions that are incurred as a result. Finally, this article will discuss ideas for limiting the deprivation of rights, and introduce programs and current legislation that exist with the goal to reform the New York State Mental Hygiene Law Article 81 proceeding to better serve our vulnerable population
