bepress Legal Repository
Not a member yet
645042 research outputs found
Sort by
Cardozo Journal of Equal Rights and Social Justice 2024 Symposium: Stop Cop City and the Criminalization of Social Movements
No full textThis symposium is about the repression of Stop Cop City itself, how to situate it in Georgia, in our contemporary moment, and in relation to the permanent crises of criminal courts. The symposium consists of three panels comprised of organizers, legal practitioners, and activist scholars with a keynote speech by Associate Professor Zohra Ahmed, Boston University School of Law.https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/event-invitations-2024/1007/thumbnail.jp
Giving people the words to say no leads them to feel freer to say yes
No full textWe examine how to structure requests to help people feel they can say no (or yes) more voluntarily. Specifically, we examine the effect of having the requester provide the request-target with an explicit phrase they can use to decline requests. Part of the difficulty of saying no is finding the words to do so when put on the spot. Providing individuals with an explicit script they can use to decline a request may help override implicit scripts and norms of politeness that generally dictate compliance. This should make individuals feel more comfortable refusing requests and make agreement feel more voluntary. Hence, we hypothesized that telling people how to say no (by providing them with an explicit script) would make compliance decisions feel more voluntary above and beyond merely telling them they can say no. Across two experimental lab studies (N = 535), we find support for this prediction
A Look Into NAGPRA: Application, Issues, and the Future
No full textDuring Colonization, American Indian tribes lost homes, language, and culture. The Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) was passed to help rebuild the relationship with American Indian tribes after it had been destroyed during colonization. NAGPRA sets forth laws regarding the repatriation of remains and cultural objects which are being held in museums and by federal agencies. The legislative history behind this act shows Congress worked hard to find the best device to help with repatriation. However, NAGPRA’s language left holes in the law which led to different issues argued in litigation. Many American Indians began feeling that NAGPRA was not the answer they were looking for. This Comment analyzes the NAGPRA including its legislative history, issues argued in litigation, and the proposed 2023 implementations to the regulations
Law Faculty Scholarship
No full textExplore Scholarship@Pitt Law faculty publications including briefs, articles, book chapters, books, and testimonies from University at Pittsburgh School of Law faculty members. The complete text or a link to freely accessible full text is provided.
View more: https://scholarship.law.pitt.edu/faculty_scholarship/https://scholarship.law.pitt.edu/homepage-carousel/1004/thumbnail.jp
The Truth Shall Set You Free
No full textThe Center for Law and the Human Person, a program of The Catholic University Columbus School of Law (Catholic Law), held the spring semester’s first Faith in Action lunchtime discussion on Tuesday, February 13. Entitled “The Truth Shall Set You Free,” the event featured the Rev. Dominic Legge, O.P., a professor of dogmatic theology at the Dominican House of Studies who prior to taking his vows practiced constitutional law as a trial attorney for the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ).
This was the first Faith in Action lecture to be introduced by new Center co-director Marc O. De Girolami, St. John Henry Newman Professor of Law, who joined the Catholic Law faculty in January 2024.
The goal of the Faith in Action series, DeGirolami said, is “to expose law students to lawyers in the community, who will discuss living a life of faith.” Fr. Legge opened his remarks with a series of questions emphasizing the intellectual nature of a life of faith—among them, “What is a Catholic lawyer?” He observed that Catholic lawyers should integrate their lives of faith and their professional lives in their allegiance to the truth
Barriers at the Border: The Impact of United States Immigration Policy on Multi-Host Sporting Events
No full textMissing the Mark: How Legislative Adjustments to the Disparagement Clause Could Promote the Revocation of Trademarks for Professional Sporting Teams Referencing Native American Culture
No full textAbortion Disorientation
No full textThe word “abortion” pervades public discourse in the wake of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. But do people know what it means? Not only do law and medicine define it differently, but state legislatures have codified wildly different definitions of abortion across jurisdictions. This Article exposes inherent ambiguities at the boundaries of the term, particularly as it intersects with other categories of reproductive health care often viewed as separate, like pregnancy loss and ectopic pregnancy. By juxtaposing statutory text with real people’s experiences of being denied care in states with abortion bans, this Article reveals how those ambiguities cause tragic results. This Article’s analysis also tracks how antiabortion legislatures have responded to the tragedies of their own making by changing the definition of abortion. Thirteen abortion-hostile states have changed the definition of abortion since Dobbs, eleven of which have added at least one definitional exclusion, most commonly for ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage, or molar pregnancy. States that have expanded abortion rights, on the other hand, have moved in the opposite direction, broadening their abortion definitions as they expand reproductive rights. The findings from this Article have a variety of normative implications. First, they demonstrate that “abortion” is an ambiguous term that lacks a fixed meaning. Given that many abortion bans and the long-unenforced Comstock Act leave the term undefined, courts will need to consider canons of construction, context, and history to resolve the term’s ambiguity. Second, the findings strongly support the conclusion that state abortion definitions and ban exceptions are unconstitutionally vague. This analysis cuts against a predominate antiabortion narrative that the laws are clear, yet doctors are willfully or unintentionally misinterpreting them. Finally, the findings underscore how Dobbs created an unworkable framework that moved the complicated experience of pregnancy from the medical to the legal domain, strengthening calls to overturn the decision
