Touro College: Digital Commons @ Touro Law Center
Not a member yet
3484 research outputs found
Sort by
Discretionary Injustice: Limiting Due Process Rights of Undocumented Immigrants upon Removal after Re-Entry
Get PDFLocking the Golden Door and Throwing Away the Key: An Analysis of Asylum during the Years of the Trump Administration
Get PDFThe years of the Trump Administration have certainly been some of the most divisive in modern American political history. One of the largest divides arose from former President Trump’s brazen, “zero tolerance” immigration policies that relentlessly attacked many forms of immigration coming into the United States. Asylum-based immigration, which allows immigrants to come to this country as a safe haven when they are fleeing persecution in their home countries, was one of former President Trump’s main targets. Former President Trump even came dangerously close to eliminating asylum-based immigration with his “Death to Asylum” policy in December of 2020. President Biden has since reversed many of former President Trump’s detrimental asylum policies and enacted executive orders that facilitate asylum-based immigration. While asylum-based immigration has been saved by President Biden (for now), the actions of the Trump Administration have highlighted the issues regarding lack of consistency and over-delegation to the executive branch that plague immigration law to this day. This Note will examine various sources of asylum law, both prior to and during the Trump Administration, and evaluate the constitutionality of asylum policies between 2016 and 2020. Finally, this Note will give four recommendations future administrations can implement in order to provide fairer and more consistent asylum policies that are not so dependent on which President happens to be in power at the time: (1) creating a direct, fair, and inclusive path to citizenship; (2) decreasing ICE’s role in exchange for increasing the EOIR’s presence; (3) changing the focus in creating available facilities to immigrants; and (4) guaranteeing legal representation in immigration proceedings
The Case Against The Case For Zoning
No full textPower points used in a presentation on a work in progress, responding to Christopher Serkin\u27s Case For Zoning article at 96 Notre Dame L. Rev. 749
Keeping the Lights on through Dark Times: How Subchapter V Bankruptcy Should Protect Small Businesses Decimated by the Pandemic
Get PDFSmall to mid-market, independent businesses are at the heart of our economy and play a pivotal role in job creation. While it’s estimated by the House of Representatives that these companies account for over half of overall U.S. employment, they have been traditionally underserved in bankruptcy law. Historically, the resources necessary to complete a chapter 11 bankruptcy are not within reach for these small to mid-market businesses. Passed in 2019, the Small Business Reorganization Act has modified the Bankruptcy Code to provide new avenues for these small businesses in need. Impactful in its own right, it has emerged as a lifeline to small businesses decimated by the pandemic. This Note will focus on the fundamental changes to the Bankruptcy Code brought by the SBRA and what improvements can still be made
Fixing What’s Broken: The Outdated Guidelines of the SCA and Its Application to Modern Information Platforms
Get PDFIn 1986, Congress enacted the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) to afford privacy protections to electronic communications and it has not changed since its inception. The ECPA has proven problematic as technology has advanced, but Congress has not modified the law to reflect this change. Courts have struggled to apply the law to both old technologies that have been updated and new technologies that have emerged. The ECPA needs to be revised to reflect the new advances in technology or be repealed and replaced with a new approach. This will ensure that consumer data will be safeguarded while in the hands of data provider companies
The Talmudic Prisoner\u27s Dilemma
Get PDFWe argue that there is a stream in the Talmud that attributes the responsibility to one player alone in the case of a joint crime/joint tort and even in dividing the credits for a joint Mitzvah. We used the game theory to investigate which incentives are provided by this approach, which games are created, which games are blocked, and to which results this approach leads. In this paper, we present some Talmudic games.
Although in Jewish law, a sinner cannot be a witness, one Talmudic rabbi proposes a rule that, in the case of a joint crime, one of the criminals may testify against a friend (who is the other criminal), but the court will not recognize the self-incriminating part of the testimony. The testimony of the criminal will also neutralize the friend\u27s capacity to testify against the criminal since the friend will be considered a sinner after the initial testimony. We argue that this rule may lead to maximal deterrence.
We also investigate other Talmudic rules that impose responsibility on (only) one partner in the case of a joint deed: the halachic rule, which imposes responsibility in the case of bribery on the taker only. Another Talmudic rule that imposes the responsibility on the last player and only in the case of a joint murder/tort/mitzvah that was performed sequentially and the rule that imposes responsibility (only) on the agent and not on the sender. We also investigate the different rules about imposing responsibility on the partners who did not cover a pit. Surprisingly, there are rules that impose responsibility on only one partner, and we argue that this prevents a prisoner\u27s dilemma.
This paper is a part of the developing field of the Talmud and Game Theory
