bepress Legal Repository
Not a member yet
645042 research outputs found
Sort by
Different Sides of the Same Coin: How the Eleventh Circuit Deepened the Circuit Split for an Americans with Disabilities Act Failure-to-Accommodate Claim in \u3ci\u3eBeasley v. O’Reilly Auto Parts\u3c/i\u3e
No full textThrough its decision in Beasley v. O’Reilly Auto Parts, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit deepened the split among the circuit courts nationwide by explicitly requiring an adverse employment action in failure-to-accommodate claims under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Through this opinion, the Eleventh Circuit joined the minority of circuits and suggested that the Supreme Court of the United States may soon need to revisit this issue to resolve the uncertainty stemming from this fundamental disagreement among the circuits
Labeling Energy Drinks: Tackling a Monster of a Problem
No full textEnergy drinks first rose to popularity in the 1980s. Red Bull energy drinks were the first of its kind, opening the door to a new consumer and regulatory landscape. Since Red Bull first launched, multiple companies have released countless new energy drink products. Some energy drinks, like Red Bull, contain less than 100 mg of caffeine per 8 oz can. However, other energy drinks contain much higher amounts of caffeine. A 12 oz can of Celsius contains 200 mg of caffeine, and up until recently, Celsius offered a product called Celsius Heat, a 12 oz can containing 300 mg of caffeine. In addition to high caffeine amounts, energy drinks often contain herbal stimulant additives, vitamin and mineral mixtures, and sugar. There is very little information available on the long-term effects of these stimulant mixtures on the body.
Although many consumers purchase energy drinks because of their caffeine content, many are left in the dark when it comes to labeling transparency and are unaware of their true contents. Energy drinks are classified as dietary supplements, meaning they are not directly regulated by the FDA before hitting store shelves. Instead, energy drink labels follow standards promulgated under the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA). DSHEA imposes lax labeling regulations on energy drinks, which leaves consumers unaware of the dangers of high caffeine content, stimulant additives, proprietary blends, and excessive sugar. In this article, we discuss the dangers of energy drinks, the current regulatory framework and the problems it causes, the need for correcting these problems, and potential policy changes
Personal Data and Vaccination Hesitancy: COVID-19’s Lessons for Public Health Federalism
No full textDuring the COVID-19 vaccination campaign, the federal government adopted a more centralized approach to the collection of public health data. Although the states previously had controlled the storage of vaccination information, the federal government’s Operation Warp Speed plan required the reporting of recipients’ personal information on the grounds that it was needed to monitor the safety of novel vaccines and ensure correct administration of their multi-dose regimens.
Over the course of the pandemic response, this more centralized federal approach to data collection added a new dimension to pre-existing vaccination hesitancy. Requirements that recipients furnish individual information deterred vaccination among undocumented immigrants already fearful about the Trump Administration’s data-driven immigration enforcement policies—even as undocumented essential workers faced enhanced risks of COVID-19 exposure. Disputes with some states over the federal government’s proposed terms of governance for individual vaccination information compounded delays in the reporting of necessary public health information. Moreover, as the pandemic response evolved, the Biden Administration was obliged to counter apprehension among the broader public that federally-stored information might be used to enforce vaccination mandates or adoption of digital “vaccination passports.”
Notwithstanding calls for greater federal authority to directly gather data in future epidemics, I argue that the goal of achieving broad public vaccination uptake will be better served by preserving and improving a federalist approach that generally leaves the states to control the collection and storage of individually identifiable vaccination information. I contend that the lessons of COVID-19 suggest that more robust governance and technological controls for federal access to state public health data—coupled with improved transparency about the limits of federal data use—can both ameliorate public hesitancy and improve inter-governmental exchange
The Government Doesn\u27t Take the Gay Community Seriously : The Failure of FEMA to Account For LGBTQ+ Individuals in Disaster Mitigation and Recovery
No full textInternational Administrative Tribunals and Cross-Fertilization: Evidence of a Nascent Common Jurisprudence?
No full textThe present work concerns International Administrative Tribunals (IATs), the dispute-resolution bodies between staff members and the administration of international organizations, existing at the cross-roads of international law, institutional law, and administrative law. It argues that, contrary to popular belief, the some twenty-five different IATs currently in existence are no longer functioning individually but rather citing to each other with increasing frequency and, in so doing, developing a common jurisprudence of international administrative law.
Over fifty years ago, when only a handful of IATs existed, M.B. Akehurst, a commentator in the field, made the observation that “[i]nternational administrative tribunals behave as if the internal laws of different organizations formed part of a single system of law” and that it was “clear that the internal laws of different organizations bear a remarkable resemblance to each other, and can therefore establish strong precedents for each other” (Akehurst, The Law Governing Employment in International Organizations 263 (1967)).
The present work aims to take stock of whether Akehurst’s statement remains true today, or if the proliferation of tribunals has instead led to divergences in jurisprudence. Much like the debate in international law writ large, the question to be answered is one between fragmentation and universalization. Engaging in a thorough review of all IAT jurisprudence the first comprehensive study of its kind the present work argues that indeed Akehurst’s statement has proven correct, perhaps beyond what he could have ever imagined. Far from the divergence and fractures that some have warned against as the number of IATs has grown, there has been a convergence, as IATs have increasingly cited each other in an exercise of reciprocal growth, sharing the task of creating and developing an ever more universal international administrative law
Environmental Enrichment for Farmed Animals
No full textEnvironmental enrichment standards are set in many animal welfare laws, but such protections are generally withheld from farmed animals. Instead, farmed animals are subject to substandard enclosures that are under-stimulating and inappropriate for their species-specific behavioral needs. Scientific studies have shown that the inclusion of environmental enrichment in an animal’s enclosure balances their production of stress hormones, which has beneficial implications for the overall health and wellbeing of the animal. Establishing enclosure standards for farmed animals that include provisions relating to environmental enrichment would improve farmed animal well-being and, subsequently, the health of the humans who consume products deriving from farmed animals
Striking a Balance: Why Federal and State Laws Should be Revised to Effectively Deter Puppy Mills
No full textThe Animal Welfare Act (AWA) was passed in 1966 with the purpose of ensuring the humane care and treatment of animals. The AWA delegates licensing responsibilities to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Animal Plant and Health Inspection Services (APHIS), who have the authority to investigate violations of the AWA and penalize relevant organizations, such as puppy mills, when necessary. Unfortunately, the AWA sets forth minimum standards for the humane care and treatment of these animals and the USDA has exercised its own discretion in penalizing violations of the AWA. The AWA establishes standards for compliance, but such standards are minimal and inadequately enforced. The USDA has exercised its own discretion in penalizing violations of these minimal AWA standards, which has led to the continued licensing of puppy mills. This dynamic perpetuates the abuse and inhumane treatment of dogs and puppies. In response to the weak enforcement of the AWA by the USDA, many states have recently passed laws banning the sale of dogs from pet stores in hopes of eliminating the influx of dogs from puppy mills into the state. The disparity between these federal and state laws has resulted in minimal deterrence of puppy mill operations. Instead of taking polarized stances toward eliminating puppy mills, both federal and state legislation should meet in the middle and focus on better deterring the operation of puppy mills. This Article will analyze how the minimum standards and lackluster enforcement of the AWA has led to an extreme response from certain states who have taken action through their own legislative solutions. This Article will then propose legislation, on both the federal and state level, suggesting stronger regulations and more effective enforcement procedures to bridge the gap between the AWA and state laws in hopes of deterring and eliminating the operation of puppy mills
AI in the Courts: How Worried Should We Be?
No full textScholars and technologists see both benefits and dangers for AI in the courts. One thing they agree on: AI is here to stay
