bepress Legal Repository
Not a member yet
645042 research outputs found
Sort by
Becoming Steve Bright
No full textThis is a Director\u27s Cut version of material that appears in condensed form in Robert L. Tsai, Demand the Impossible: One Lawyer\u27s Pursuit of Equal Justice for All (Norton 2024). This essay to be published in Kentucky Law Journal was originally Chapter One. Drawing on archival documents and interviews, this essay delves into Stephen Bright\u27s childhood growing up in Kentucky first in segregated Danville and later in Lexington once he emerges as a social activist and student body president. Special attention is paid to the Vietnam era protests that engulfed the University of Kentucky in the wake of the Kent State massacre, the political exploitation of social unrest by the governor and weak leadership by university officials, and the federal court litigation over the governor\u27s emergency measures and the university\u27s disciplinary process afterward
Generations in the Legal Writing Classroom
No full textOn May 22-23, Professor Lucy Jewel participated in the Empire State Legal Writing Conference hosted by Fordham Law School. On May 22, by invitation Professor Jewel served as a commenter on two papers presented as part of the Empire State ALWD Scholars Forum. On May 23, Professor Jewel gave an interactive presentation–– Don\u27t Write a Mid Paper –– about reaching Gen Z students in the legal writing classroom
New Study Shows Legal Research Platform AI Tools Do, In Fact, Hallucinate
No full textFor better or worse, artificial intelligence (AI) is reshaping the legal landscape. But a recent study highlights a critical issue: AI’s tendency to “hallucinate,” or generate false information. This problem raises significant concerns about the reliability of AI in legal practice
2024 Hines Jurist in Residence Lecture:
No full textThe Hines Jurist in Residence Lecture was delivered by Georgia Supreme Court Justice Carla Wong McMillian (J.D. 98) who discussed her path to the bench. Her talk was titled From China to Augusta to the Supreme Court
Representation without Taxation? A Historical Review of Newfoundland and Labrador’s Municipal System and Quasi-Municipal Structures
No full textNewfoundland and Labrador is unique among Canadian provinces in its municipallevel governmental structures, and in particular, its substantial lack thereof. The province does not have a system of counties or an operating form of regional government. Many areas of the province operate without a formal municipal government and avoid property taxation by operating on a limited fee-for-service model of local government, or in some cases a total lack of sub-provincial government. Tens of thousands of residents live within this tax-free model today. This paper explores how this anomalous situation came to be, the issues it creates in modern society and how these issues are dealt with in practice.
Terre-Neuve-et-Labrador est unique parmi les provinces canadiennes en ce qui concerne les structures gouvernementales au niveau municipal, et en particulier leur absence quasi totale. La province ne dispose pas d’un système de comtés ou d’une forme opérationnelle de gouvernement régional. De nombreuses régions de la province fonctionnent sans administration municipale officielle et évitent l’impôt foncier en appliquant un modèle limité de paiement à l’acte de l’administration locale ou, dans certains cas, une absence totale d’administration infraprovinciale. Des dizaines de milliers d’habitants vivent aujourd’hui dans le cadre de ce modèle d’exonération fiscale. Dans présent article, nous explorons la genèse de cette situation anormale, les problèmes qu’elle engendre dans la société moderne et la manière dont ces problèmes sont traités dans la pratique
Two Approaches to Economic Coercion
No full textWestern states have frequently employed the “economic instrument”—“the granting or withholding of [economic] indulgences or deprivations” in order to “induce another actor or a group of actors to change a policy”—and they have long resisted calls for its international regulation. Yet the United States and the EU, and states aligned with them, responding to China’s recent application of its economic leverage, have increasingly questioned economic coercion’s use. In May 2023, at the G7 Summit in Hiroshima, the leaders noted the “disturbing rise in incidents of economic coercion that seek to exploit economic vulnerabilities and dependencies;” “express[ed] serious concern” regarding such coercion; and “call[ed] on all countries to refrain from its use.” Shortly thereafter, the EU-US Trade and Technology Council expressed the “concern” of the EU and the United States “with the continued use of economic coercion.” In early June, the governments of Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, the UK, and the United States endorsed a Joint Declaration Against Trade-Related Economic Coercion and Non-Market Policies and Practices that “express[ed] . . . shared concern [regarding economic coercion] and affirm[ed] [a] commitment to enhance international cooperation in order to effectively deter and address” it. A couple of weeks later, the European Commission and the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs identified “weaponisation of economic dependencies or economic coercion” as one of four “categories of risks to economic security” in the European Economic Security Strategy. In December 2023, an EU regulation on “the protection of the Union and its Member States from economic coercion by third countries”—known as the “Anti-Coercion Instrument” (ACI)—entered into force.
Though the United States and other states have for years expressed concern about Chinese economic coercion, these recent statements, remarkable for those who made them, were all carefully worded to omit direct accusations against China (indeed, China went unnamed), to avoid assertions of legality and illegality, to implicitly delineate Chinese actions (improper) from those of the United States (permissible), and to obscure differences between the EU’s broader understanding of economic coercion (which may in fact implicate U.S. actions as much as China’s) and the United States’s narrower construction. China itself denies the (indirect) accusations leveled against it, and asserts that it is instead U.S. actions that constitute “economic coercion and bullying.”
In light of this recent U.S. and EU practice asserting new claims concerning economic coercion, and the charges of hypocrisy leveled by China against the United States and its allies, this Essay will revisit a topic about which Michael Reisman has given considerable thought. It will seek to identify the content and bounds of these new claims, as well as related ones that appear in recent resolutions of the Security Council and Human Rights Council, and assess and evaluate their contributions. This recent practice reflects different views of the proper role and use of power in international relations, which in the context of economic coercion is manifested in two distinct approaches: regulatory and abolitionist
Alchemizing The Bar: An Examination of Global Ethical Considerations for Using Alternatives to Animals in Research, Testing, and Education
No full textCountries regulate scientific research in various ways. Such structures are the result of input from scientists, attorneys, physicians, advocates, and others. These schemes may also derive from outcomes of the research itself. Some countries do not incorporate or require the ethical use of an animal—or an alternative to the use of an animal—to be considered. Others do incorporate, and even require, the ethical use of animals in research. In alignment with The Three Rs—replacement, reduction, and refinement of animals used in science—technological capabilities now allow scientists to increasingly use alternatives, such as microphysiological systems, rather than animal models. This Article (1) discusses ethical codes and systems for using animals in research, testing, and education, (2) surveys whether any countries incorporate ethical considerations of the use of animals in science, and (3) describes potential ways to advance the law in alignment with The Three Rs. As such, advocates become alchemists who do more than continue to ‘raise the bar’ for animals in science; rather, they alchemize the bar, so that transformational and systemic outcomes for people and animals are realized
De-Myth-Ifying Laboratory Animal Law: The Truth Behind Four Commonly Misunderstood Facts in Laboratory Animal Welfare Law
No full textThe subspeciality of laboratory animal law presents unique difficulties because it requires familiarity with two highly specialized fields: law and science. Consequently, it is not surprising that some aspects of laboratory animal law have been misunderstood. This Article highlights four such misunderstandings surrounding laboratory animal law and provides an explanation of the truth behind each myth. The myths discussed include: (1) the AWA is the only federal law applicable to laboratory animals; (2) states are preempted from regulating the laboratory animal space; (3) birds, rats, and mice are not covered under federal law; and (4) the 3Rs are explicitly required by U.S. federal law
Regulating Energy and Land Management at the Department of the Interior with Kathryn Kovacs
No full textDeputy Assistant Secretary Kati Kovacs, who supervises rulemaking related to energy and land management, will provide a practical explanation of how federal agencies navigate the process for creating regulations. She also will discuss some of the Department of the Interior’s significant regulatory accomplishments related to encouraging renewable energy development both onshore and on the outer continental shelf, continuing responsible conventional energy activities on- and off-shore, and ensuring balanced management of federal lands. Speaker Bio
Kathryn Kovacs is currently serving as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management at the U.S. Department of the Interior. She also is a professor at Rutgers Law School where she teaches Administrative Law, Natural Resources Law, Environmental Law and Property. Before joining the Rutgers faculty in 2011, she spent twelve years in the U.S. Department of Justice’s Environment and Natural Resources Division, Appellate Section. In 2016, Kovacs served as Senior Advisor to the Director of the Bureau of Land Management in the U.S. Department of the Interior. She also spent three years litigating primarily constitutional claims as an attorney in the Baltimore City Law Department, and she clerked for the Honorable Robert C. Murphy, former Chief Judge of the Maryland Court of Appeals. Kovacs is a cum laude graduate of Yale University and the Georgetown University Law Center