Alabama Law Scholarly Commons - The University of Alabama
Not a member yet
1539 research outputs found
Sort by
The Association of Nurse Practitioner Scope-of-Practice Laws with Emergency Department Use: Evidence from Medicaid Expansion
No full textOveruse and inappropriate use of emergency departments (EDs) remains an important issue in health policy. After implementation of Medicaid expansion, many states experienced an increase in ED use, but the magnitude varied. Differential access to primary care might explain such variation
The Clear and Present Dangers of the Clear and Present Danger Test: Schenck and Abrams Revisited
Get PDFFrom March 3 1919 to November 10 1919 Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes\u27s understanding of the First Amendment underwent a transformation In Schenck Debs and Frohwerk all decided in March 1919 Justice Holmes authored majority opinions that embraced a bad tendencies test as the constitutional standard required to regulate “ or even proscribe entirely “ political speech that includes a call to unlawful action Although Holmes used the language of a clear and present danger these decisions applied a very deferential standard of review and did not require the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the probability of political speech actually inciting unlawful conduct By way of contrast however by November 1919 and his iconic dissent in Abrams Holmes had experienced a serious change of heart His Abrams dissent uses the same general test “ a clear and present danger of speech causing unlawful conduct “ but requires that the harm be both serious and imminent Absent an imminent risk of serious harm the government must tolerate hyperbolic political speech that includes exhortations to engage in unlawful even criminal conduct such as calling for the violent overthrow of the federal governmentbrbrThis Essay part of a symposium marking the 100th anniversary of Schenk and Abrams traces and explains how Justice Holmes came to change his mind and embrace a robust vision of the First Amendment\u27s protection of core political speech At the same time however it also critiques the more robust iteration of the clear and present danger test because it does not effectively bar the door to government censorship of unpopular speech on a pretextual basis a point made with great force by Justices Black and Douglas in Brandenburg The AbramsBrandenburg articulation of the clear and present danger test permits judges to sustain government speech bans when the stakes seem sufficiently high “ and despite the absence of convincing evidence that the harms sought to be avoided would actually occur in the absence of a speech banbrbrDrawing on the iconic work of Professor Vince Blasi The Clear and Present Dangers of the Clear and Present Danger Test argues that judges should be most vigilant in protecting speech during pathological periods but posits that these are precisely the periods when judges are the least likely to exhibit civic courage At the end of the day however the Abrams dissent\u27s version of the clear and present danger test may be the best we can hope to do “ federal judges read the newspapers too and when social panic sweeps the nation it is unrealistic to expect them to wager the nation\u27s survival to protect speech ˜fraught with death even absent a compelling showing that an immediate check is required to save the country Absolute protection of even core political speech is probably too much to ask of federal judges “ as recent Supreme Court cases adopting and applying a bad tendencies approach demonstrate eg Humanitarian Law Project and Morse Nevertheless our experiment in democratic selfgovernment will be more vibrant and better capable of securing government accountability reliably if over the longer term the Holmes of Abrams prevails over the Holmes of Schenck in the federal courts and also in our national constitutional etho
The Satapur moonstone
No full textIndia, 1922: It is rainy season in the lush, remote Satara mountains southeast of Bombay, where the kingdom of Satapur is tucked away. A curse seems to have fallen upon Satapur\u27s royal family, whose maharaja died of a sudden illness shortly before his teenage son was struck down in a tragic accident. The kingdom is now ruled by an agent of the British Raj on behalf of Satapur\u27s two maharanis, the dowager queen and the maharaja\u27s widow. The royal ladies are in dispute over the education of the young crown prince, and a lawyer\u27s council is required--but the maharanis live in purdah and do not speak to men. Just one person can help them: Perveen Mistry, India\u27s only female lawyer. Perveen is determined to bring peace to the royal house and make a sound recommendation for the young prince\u27s future, but knows she is breaking a rule by traveling alone as a woman into the remote countryside. And she arrives to find that the Satapur palace is full of cold-blooded power plays and ancient vendettas. Too late, she realizes she has walked into a trap. But whose? And how can she protect the royal children from the palace\u27s deadly curse? -- Provided by publisherhttps://scholarship.law.ua.edu/harper_lee_prize_books_2020/1013/thumbnail.jp
Acts of omission
No full textDown on his luck after a string of lost cases and a recent divorce, personal injury lawyer Matt Taylor hopes his next trial will be an easy win. But when he meets a devastatingly injured young man desperate for help, Matt finds himself embroiled in an impossible lawsuit against Salvatore Conte, a powerful lawyer with sinister connections. Despite all warnings, Matt courageously pulls out all the stops to uncover the truth and right a horrific legal wrong. What follows is an epic multi-million-dollar battle of wills, intrigue, and outright violence that could cost Matt everything he cares about--his career, his family, his heart ... and his life. -- Provided by publisherhttps://scholarship.law.ua.edu/harper_lee_prize_books_2020/1004/thumbnail.jp
Children as Bargaining Chips
Get PDFThe parent- child relationship is one of the most valued and protected relationships in constitutional and family law. At the same time, the state has custodial power over children: a power that is necessary in some cases to protect vulnerable children from danger, neglect, and abandonment. But because the parent-child bond is so powerful, state actors can be tempted to exploit it for their own purposes. Custodial power over children provides state actors with the means to put pressure on the parent by threatening to remove the child. In these circumstances, the state uses the child as a bargaining chip to be traded for other rights, irrespective of the child\u27s wellbeing. Misuse of the state\u27s custodial power is harmful for two main reasons. First, children are harmed when separated from their parents. Second, parents are harmed by the separation because they are forced to choose between the exercise of two fundamental rights: custody of their children and individual liberty. This Article focuses on the question of how the law should distinguish between the state\u27s exercise of its custodial powers for permissible grounds, such as to protect the child, and its exercise of custodial powers for impermissible grounds, such as to induce the parent to give up another right. To answer this question, this Article first demonstrates that the state is, in fact, putting pressure on parents by deploying its custodial power. The Article identifies three areas of law-immigration, criminal confessions, and child welfare-in which this occurs. In each of these situations, I argue that consideration of the child\u27s wellbeing should be a formal legal requirement. The Article then proposes a constitutional test for scrutinizing a state\u27s separation, or threat of separation, of the parent and child. This test is designed to reveal what I term impermissible leverage. The principles articulated in the impermissible leverage test can be incorporated into state and federal statutes, as well as into the regulation of agencies tasked with child removal. The Article concludes with possible remedies when acts of impermissible leverage do occur
Post-Panel Commentary Symposium: Barnette at 75: The Past, Present, and Future of the Fixed Star in Our Constitutional Constellation : Commentary
Get PDFThe Devil Is in the Details : On the Central Importance of Distinguishing the Truly Public from the Truly Private in Reconciling Equality and Religious Liberty
No full textThe rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender persons (LGBT) are strongly contested by certain faith communities, and this confrontation has become increasingly pronounced following the adjudication of a number of legal cases. As the strident arguments of both sides enter a heated political arena, it brings forward the deeply contested question of whether there is any possibility of both communities\u27 contested positions being reconciled under the same law. This volume assembles impactful voices from the faith, LGBT advocacy, legal, and academic communities - from the Human Rights Campaign and ACLU to the National Association of Evangelicals and Catholic and LDS churches. The contributors offer a 360-degree view of culture-war conflicts around faith and sexuality - from Obergefell to Masterpiece Cakeshop - and explore whether communities with such profound differences in belief are able to reach mutually acceptable solutions in order to both live with integrity.https://scholarship.law.ua.edu/fac_bookchapter/1014/thumbnail.jp
Rodrigo\u27s Rebuke: Originary Violence and U.S. Border Policy
Get PDFOffers a new way to see immigration laws and policies namely as instances of originary violence Notes that recent official actions including travel bans family separation and cutbacks in asylum are examples of both originary violence and the ordinary kind Shows how the two are connected and proposes a number of means to attack the
Innovation Agents
Get PDFThe standard narrative of entrepreneurship is one of self-employed creative individuals working out of their garage or independently owned start-up companies. Intrapreneurship--where employees are responsible for being alert to new opportunities inside firms--is another model for developing innovations. Relatively little is known, however, about the latter process through which large, complex firms engage in groundbreaking corporate entrepreneurship. This Article\u27s focus is on these types of innovation agents. It provides a thorough account of the positive and negative spillovers of intrapreneurial firms while making the following key points: First, intrapreneurial companies utilize their economies of scale, scope, and age to deliver innovations to the masses. They transform ideas, labor, and raw materials into tangible assets that can be traded in the market. Second, in doing so they offer individual entrepreneurs opportunities to capitalize their knowledge. Sustaining entrepreneurs\u27 prospects for supra-competitive profits is the main engine that motivates the latter to invest in discoveries in the first place. Lastly, intrapreneurial firms also serve as greenhouses for entrepreneurship through the migration of their own talented labor in the market. While these spillovers have tremendous societal benefits, they can also introduce harms. First, the race for the next breakthrough might result in anticompetitive behavior by rivals who conspire with employees-intrapreneurs to leave their firms and take with them confidential information. Second, intrapreneurs often aspire to undertake their own independent journey. In so doing, they leave secure positions and high salaries while carrying valuable knowledge and expertise. This, in return, often prompts intrapreneurial firms to act opportunistically and lock-in or lock-out intrapreneurs in restrictive and wasteful arrangements. As a solution, this Article proposes ways law can balance the positive and negative spillovers of intrapreneurship and ways the tax system can help achieve such result
Without precedent
No full textMatthew Daley is a Manhattan corporate lawyer at the top of his game. As the first defense attorney on call to get pharmaceutical companies out of trouble, Matt is rising in the judicial system exactly as he planned. Until his sister dies of a heroin overdose. Now, torn between conscience and career, the newly minted law partner faces a critical choice: defend the very companies that manufactured the addictive drugs, or give up his fiancé and his hard-won dream job to fight for justice in his sister\u27s name. Returning to his blue-collar hometown with a ragtag band of law-school misfits by his side, Matt squares off against a team of New York corporate attorneys in a high-stakes courtroom battle. If he wins, the case could have national implications, bringing down the Big Pharma industry. If he loses, he\u27ll become collateral damage in the greatest fall of his career and his life. --Publisher descriptionhttps://scholarship.law.ua.edu/harper_lee_prize_books_2020/1018/thumbnail.jp