bepress Legal Repository
Not a member yet
645042 research outputs found
Sort by
Dobbs v. Jackson Women\u27s Health Organization: Reckoning with its Impact and Charting a Path Forward
No full textDobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization undid 50 years of precedent guaranteeing the constitutional right to abortion in the United States. At the one-year anniversary of the decision, and as the devastating consequences continue to play out across the country, this article analyzes Dobbs and its impact. It also charts a way forward for rebuilding a more robust Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence. It draws on the authors’ individual perspective and expertise, and the Center for Reproductive Rights’ role as lead counsel in the case and as a global human rights organization advancing reproductive rights in the United States and around the world
360-362 Lafayette, LLC v. Brown
No full textTenant brought a non-payment proceeding challenging the regulatory status of the apartment, alleging it was part of a horizontal multiple dwelling and therefore rent-stabilized. Landlord claimed it was a four-family house and not subject to rent stabilization. Court granted tenant\u27s motion for discovery to allow inspection of the buildings to gather evidence about shared facilities, but denied requests for copies of leases and a deposition of landlord. Key Legal Points: Court found inspection necessary to determine if buildings shared enough common facilities to be considered a horizontal multiple dwelling
An Icy Invasion: Russia\u27s Seizure of the Norwegian Waters in the Arctic
No full textRussia is aiming to expand its power in the Arctic Circle by acquiring unrestricted access to hydrocarbon reserves off the coast of the Norwegian Archipelago of Svalbard. Two bodies of international law govern Svalbard. The Svalbard Treaty of 1920 ascertains Norway’s sovereignty over the archipelago and permits the signatory nations, including Russia, to conduct commercial activities on the land and in the “territorial waters”. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea establishes maritime zones that allow coastal states to claim exclusive rights to their territorial seas and continental shelf. Norway holds that “territorial waters” in the Svalbard Treaty is the twelve-nautical mile territorial seas and limits Russia’s access to hydrocarbon resources there. Russia contends that “territorial waters” includes the 200-nautical mile continental shelf beyond the territorial seas. After analyzing both interpretations of the Treaty under the Vienna Convention on Law of Treaties, the Russian interpretation of “territorial waters” falters in many respects. This comment argues Russia’s aim for unrestricted access to Svalbard’s resources is a violation of UNCLOS. The international community must forge a uniform interpretation: The Arctic Counsel or NATO should demonstrate regional support, Norway should bring a case against Russia before the ICJ for encroachment, and Norway should place additional economic sanctions on Russia
TAMALES & BOLLOS-PATRIMONIO DE LA HUMANIDAD / WORLD HERITAGE: CHALLENGES FACED BY RESTORATION EFFORTS IN PANAMA CITY\u27S SAN FELIPE HISTORIC DISTRICT
No full text
Robots as Pirates
No full textGenerative AI has created much excitement over its potential to create new works of authorship in the literary and graphical realms. Its underling machine-learning technology works by analyzing the relations among elements of preexisting material in enormous databases assembled from publicly available and licensed sources. Its algorithms “learn” to predict “what comes next” in different types of expression. A complete system thus can become glib in creating new factual summaries, essays, fictional stories and images.
A number of authors of the raw material used by Generative AI engines claim that the machine learning process infringes their copyrights. Careful evaluation of actual and likely claims shows that such plaintiffs claiming infringement will have a hard time proving reproduction, distribution, display, or preparation of derivative works and thus are unlikely to be able to establish copyright infringement under established doctrines. Fears of uncompensated appropriation, however, are likely to fuel the erection of more pay walls around original content and more licensing collectives
Payne v. Signature Mgt. Assoc. Inc.
No full textTenant, a residential superintendent, was terminated and then evicted by landlord. Tenant brought this action alleging a violation of the labor law and seeking reinstatement, back wages, compensatory damages, and liquidated damages. Landlord brought a motion to dismiss the tenant’s action and to enforce a purported settlement agreement. The court denied landlord’s motion to dismiss and to enforce the settlement agreement, finding that the parties had not agreed to all of the material terms of the settlement. The court granted tenant’s motion to stay the eviction proceeding pending a resolution of this action, conditioned on tenant paying use and occupancy. KEY LEGAL POINTS: 1) A settlement agreement must be in writing and subscribed by the parties to be enforceable. 2) Email correspondence may satisfy the writing requirement of CPLR 2104, but only if it contains all of the material terms of the settlement. 3) A stay of a summary proceeding may be granted where an issue essential to the resolution of the summary proceeding is pending in another forum
Intraparty Conflict and the Separation of Powers
No full textIntent on reconciling constitutional theory to political reality, public law scholars have in recent decades dismissed as naïve both the logic of the Constitution’s design set forth in The Federalist and the Framers’ dismal view of political parties. They argue that, contrary to the Madisonian vision, competition between our two national political parties undergirds the horizontal and vertical separation of powers. But, in calling attention to the fights that take place between political parties, they underestimate the constitutional significance of the conflicts that persist within them. Reconsidering the law and theory of the separation of powers with attention to intraparty conflict, the Article explains why neither the traditional Madisonian—nor the contemporary party-based—model of the separation of powers accurately characterizes how political parties structure our constitutional framework.
The Article makes several contributions. Descriptively, it argues that intraparty conflict can immunize our constitutional system from the pathologies that arise when partisan warfare is overlayed on the Madisonian model of separated institutions sharing power. Analytically, it argues that public law scholars are wrong to treat partisanship as an identity—a fixed psychological state characteristic of individual officeholders. As the Article makes clear, partisanship is better understood as the product of institutional rules and procedures that empower partisans to join forces or go their own way. Likewise, it argues that there are analytic gains from categorizing decisions on campaign finance, candidate selection, and voter suppression as part of our separation of powers and federalism jurisprudence and explains how doing so might bear on traditional questions of constitutional law. Today, as was true at the Founding, Americans have no great love for intraparty conflict or party factionalism. But fear of the mischiefs of faction have blinded us to their merits. Preoccupied as we are by the pathologies of political polarization, we have failed to understand that the relative porousness of our parties—the very feature that drives internal party conflict—has helped to safeguard our republic and ensure the representativeness of our institutions