3320 research outputs found
Sort by
Conditional Spending After \u3ci\u3eNFIB v. Sebelius\u3c/i\u3e: The Example of Federal Education Law
Get PDFIn NFIB v. Sebelius, the Supreme Court’s recent case addressing the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, the Court concluded that the expansion of Medicaid in that Act was unconstitutionally coercive and therefore exceeded the scope of Congress’s authority under the Spending Clause. This was the first time that the Court treated coercion as an issue of more than mere theoretical possibility under the Spending Clause. In the wake of the Court’s decision, commentators have expressed either the concern or the hope that NFIB’s coercion analysis may lead to the undoing of much of the federal regulatory state, which substantially relies on the spending power. This article argues that both this concern and this hope are misplaced. Taking federal education law as a test case for future coercion analysis—since federal funding given to the states for elementary and secondary education is second only to federal funding for Medicaid—the article concludes that NFIB’s coercion inquiry is unlikely to lead to much else being found unconstitutional. The major federal education laws, and by implication other conditional spending laws, will not likely find their demise under the Court’s analysis. Nonetheless, NFIB will likely have some effect on the future of federal education law. It should put a damper on calls to dramatically increase federal education funding; encourage the trend towards smaller grants of limited duration, especially those that bypass the states; result in some structural changes both in funding and enforcement; and, somewhat paradoxically for a decision that found the Medicaid enforcement regime coercive, may lead to greater federal enforcement of conditional spending laws
It Doesn\u27t Pass the \u3ci\u3eSell\u3c/i\u3e Test: Focusing on The Facts of the Individual Case in Involuntary Medication Inquiries
Get PDFCriminal defendants who are incompetent to stand trial have a significant liberty interest in refusing the antipsychotic medication that could restore their competency. The Supreme Court cautioned that instances of intrusion upon that right “may be rare,” and, in Sell v. United States, it laid out what it believed to be stringent criteria for when a defendant could be medicated against his will. Yet, since Sell, trial courts have ordered over sixty-three percent of defendants involuntarily medicated. These individuals did not pose a danger to themselves or others, and they were rarely accused of crimes that involved damage to individuals or property. But the medication of these defendants, once predicted to be “rare,” has instead become routine.
In this article, I argue that the overmedication of non-dangerous defendants is a result of the structure of the Sell test and its tilt in favor of the government. The use of a checklist of four threshold elements favors the issuance of medication orders because the court need not balance the defendant’s liberty interest in avoiding medication against the government’s interest in administering it. In addition, three of the four boxes on the checklist concern medical questions about the efficacy and side effects of antipsychotic medication that will fall in the government’s favor in the vast majority of cases.
However, while the Sell test contains the seeds of the overmedication problem, it also contains the solution. The first factor of the test requires courts to consider whether the government interest at stake is “important,” and it mandates that courts assess the “facts of the individual case” to determine if the government interest crosses that bar. While few courts have delved deeply into this factor, some have looked to the nonviolent nature of the crime or the government’s minimal likelihood of success on the underlying criminal charge in concluding that the government interest in prosecuting the defendant was not important. I argue that more courts can and should follow this path. Such an approach would limit the involuntary medication of defendants to those exceptional cases where it is truly warranted
A Skeptic’s Case for Sovereign Bankruptcy
Get PDFThis essay describes fundamental flaws in the sovereign debt restructuring regime, but questions the prevailing arguments for sovereign bankruptcy. The author concludes that efficient debt outcomes may well come about without bankruptcy, but that a statutory regime is necessary to achieve sovereign autonomy and political legitimacy
Towards a Framework Convention on Global Health
Get PDFA global health treaty, a Framework Convention on Global Health (FCGH)–grounded in the right to health, with the central goal of reducing immense domestic and global health inequities–could serve as a robust global governance instrument to underpin the United Nations post-2015 Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). It would ensure for all people the three essential conditions for a healthy life–public health, health care, and the positive social determinants of health–while advancing good governance, responding to drivers of health disadvantages for marginalized populations, elevating health in other legal regimes, and enhancing people\u27s ability to claim their rights.
The legally binding nature of the FCGH would enhance accountability and compliance through rigorous monitoring and reporting, domestic human rights litigation, and international incentives. It would overcome the collection action problem of global health financing through a health financing framework with clear domestic and international obligations.
Stakeholders have made thoughtful critiques of the FCGH, such as the opportunities costs of advocacy, the time and expense of treaty negotiations, and reporting burdens. Nevertheless, these costs could be turned into opportunities through civil society participation in negotiations, by taking advantage of extensive reporting and monitoring requirements to expand accountability around and strengthen strategies to respond to health inequities, and through non-binding frameworks on the way towards the treaty.
The greatest challenge in achieving an FCGH is the political obstacles it will face. Social justice movements united behind an FCGH, to secure the treaty and to ensure its implementation, are vital to the success of an FCGH–and the right to health. With its aim of securing this right, the FCGH could unite disparate health-related movements, all of which should contribute to developing the treaty and taking ownership of its realization
Towards a Framework Convention on Global Health
Get PDFA global health treaty, a Framework Convention on Global Health (FCGH)–grounded in the right to health, with the central goal of reducing immense domestic and global health inequities–could serve as a robust global governance instrument to underpin the United Nations post-2015 Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). It would ensure for all people the three essential conditions for a healthy life–public health, health care, and the positive social determinants of health–while advancing good governance, responding to drivers of health disadvantages for marginalized populations, elevating health in other legal regimes, and enhancing people\u27s ability to claim their rights.
The legally binding nature of the FCGH would enhance accountability and compliance through rigorous monitoring and reporting, domestic human rights litigation, and international incentives. It would overcome the collection action problem of global health financing through a health financing framework with clear domestic and international obligations.
Stakeholders have made thoughtful critiques of the FCGH, such as the opportunities costs of advocacy, the time and expense of treaty negotiations, and reporting burdens. Nevertheless, these costs could be turned into opportunities through civil society participation in negotiations, by taking advantage of extensive reporting and monitoring requirements to expand accountability around and strengthen strategies to respond to health inequities, and through non-binding frameworks on the way towards the treaty.
The greatest challenge in achieving an FCGH is the political obstacles it will face. Social justice movements united behind an FCGH, to secure the treaty and to ensure its implementation, are vital to the success of an FCGH–and the right to health. With its aim of securing this right, the FCGH could unite disparate health-related movements, all of which should contribute to developing the treaty and taking ownership of its realization
Taxation, Risk, and Portfolio Choice: The Treatment of Returns to Risk Under a Normative Income Tax
Get PDFMany articles in the legal and economic literature claim that a pure Haig-Simons income tax cannot effectively tax investment income. This is because an investor can use leverage to gross up her investments in risky assets such that the increased gain (or loss) exactly offsets any income tax (or deduction) on the returns to risk-taking. This article argues, however, that while it is possible for an investor to make such portfolio shifts, she almost certainly will not because of the increased risk of doing so.
Central to any discussion of the effects of taxation on investment risk-taking is the meaning of risk itself. The central claim of this article is that a better conception of investment risk is the risk of loss and not merely the variance of returns. Applying this notion of risk—one that is well supported in the finance literature but new to the taxation-and-risk literature—to an investor’s portfolio choice question shows that an investor will not increase her investment in risky assets by enough to offset the tax. As a result, there is an effective tax on investment risk-taking under a normative income tax
Continued Oversight of U.S. Government Surveillance Authorities : Hearing Before the S. Committee on the Judiciary, 113th Cong., December 11, 2013 (Statement by Professor Carrie F. Cordero, Geo. U. L. Center)
No full textMy views are informed by this up-front perspective regarding how the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, and later the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, vastly improved the Intelligence Community’s ability to protect the nation from another attack on the scale of September 11th. More recently, I have had the added benefit of having spent the past three years outside of government to reflect, and to engage with the academic community, and to some extent the public, regarding some of the issues this Committee is considering today
National Security Pedagogy: The Role of Simulations
Get PDFThis article challenges the dominant pedagogical assumptions in the legal academy. It begins by briefly considering the state of the field of national security, noting the rapid expansion in employment and the breadth of related positions that have been created post-9/11. It considers, in the process, how the legal academy has, as an institutional matter, responded to the demand.
Part III examines traditional legal pedagogy, grounding the discussion in studies initiated by the American Bar Association, the Carnegie Foundation, and others. It suggests that using the law-writ-large as a starting point for those interested in national security law is a mistake. Instead, it makes more sense to work backwards from the skills most essential in this area of the law.
The article then proposes six pedagogical goals that serve to distinguish national security law: (1) understanding the law as applied, (2) dealing with factual chaos and uncertainty, (3) obtaining critical distance—including, inter alia, when not to give legal advice, (4) developing nontraditional written and oral communication skills, (5) exhibiting leadership, integrity, and good judgment in a high-stakes, highly-charged environment, and (6) creating continued opportunities for self-learning. Equally important to the exercise of each of these skills is the ability to integrate them in the course of performance.
These goals, and the subsidiary points they cover, are neither conclusive nor exclusive. Many of them incorporate skills that all lawyers should have—such as the ability to handle pressure, knowing how to modulate the mode and content of communications depending upon the circumstances, and managing ego, personality, and subordination. To the extent that they are overlooked by mainstream legal education, however, and present in a unique manner in national security law, they underscore the importance of more careful consideration of the skills required in this particular field.
Having proposed a pedagogical approach, the article turns in Part IV to the question of how effective traditional law school teaching is in helping to students reach these goals. Doctrinal and experiential courses both prove important. The problem is that in national security law, the way in which these have become manifest often falls short of accomplishing the six pedagogical aims. Gaps left in doctrinal course are not adequately covered by devices typically adopted in the experiential realm, even as clinics, externships, and moot court competitions are in many ways ill-suited to national security.
The article thus proposes in Part V a new model for national security legal education, based on innovations currently underway at Georgetown Law. NSL Sim 2.0 adapts a doctrinal course to the special needs of national security. Course design is preceded by careful regulatory, statutory, and Constitutional analysis, paired with policy considerations. The course takes advantage of new and emerging technologies to immerse students in a multi-day, real-world exercise, which forces students to deal with an information-rich environment, rapidly changing facts, and abbreviated timelines. It points to a new model of legal education that advances students in the pedagogical goals identified above, while complementing, rather than supplanting, the critical intellectual discourse that underlies the value of higher legal education
Drones and the International Rule of Law
Get PDFThis essay will proceed in four parts. First, it will briefly discuss the concept of the international rule of law. Second, it will offer a short factual background on US drone strikes (to the extent that it is possible to provide factual background on a practice so shrouded in secrecy). Third, it will highlight some of the key ways in which post 9/11 US legal theories relating to the use of force challenge previously accepted concepts and seek to redefine previously well-understood terms. Fourth, it will offer brief concluding thoughts on the future of the international rule of law in light of this challenge
\u3ci\u3eGideon\u3c/i\u3e at Guantánamo
No full textThe right to counsel maintains an uneasy relationship with the demands of trials for war crimes. Drawing on the author’s personal experiences from defending a Guantánamo detainee, the Author explains how Gideon set a baseline for the right to counsel at Guantánamo. Whether constitutionally required or not, Gideon ultimately framed the way defense lawyers represented their clients. Against the expectations of political and military leaders, both civilian and military lawyers vigorously challenged the legality of the military trial system. At the same time, tensions arose because lawyers devoted to a particular cause (such as attacking the Guantánamo trial system) were asked at times to help legitimize the system, particularly when it came to decisions about whether to enter a plea to help legitimize the rickety trial system in operation at Guantánamo