Emory Law Scholarly Commons
Not a member yet
2100 research outputs found
Sort by
Full Discharge Ahead? An Empirical First Look at the New Student Loan Discharge Process in Bankruptcy
Full text linkThe legal framework for discharging student loan debt held by bankruptcy filers cases changed in November 2022 with the Biden Administration’s Department of Justice issuing its “Guidance for Department Attorneys Regarding Student Loan Bankruptcy Litigation,” fundamentally altering the legal framework for discharging student loan debt in bankruptcy cases. The Guidance aims to enhance consistency and equity by: (1) ensuring transparent and consistent expectations; (2) reducing the burden on debtors; and (3) making it easier for DOJ attorneys to recommend discharging a debtor’s student loans. The DOJ has touted the new Guidance as having “made a real difference in borrowers’ lives,” comprehensive analysis has been lacking.
This Article empirically assesses whether the Guidance has achieved its objectives by analyzing student loan litigation in bankruptcy. Our findings reveal that, 23 months after the Guidance was announced, 2,514 new student loan adversary proceedings (“SLAPs”) were filed—a 330% increase compared to a similar period before the Guidance—with a third of these proceedings stemming from prior bankruptcies. Despite this significant increase, we find that this still means that fewer than 1% of bankruptcy filers with student loans seek to discharge them in bankruptcy. Notably, borrowers with smaller student loan debts are more likely to seek relief, indicating the Guidance may have lowered barriers for this group. Additionally, the increase in SLAP filings is regionally concentrated—Minnesota filings increased 30 times pre-Guidance levels, for example—suggesting that certain courts or consumer bankruptcy attorneys are “early adopters” of the new legal regime. Case processing times were initially slower but are returning to historical levels.
Our data suggests that while the Guidance has positively impacted the willingness of borrowers to seek the discharge of their student loans once in bankruptcy, overall use of this relief remains negligible relative to the total number of bankruptcy cases, indicating that additional efforts are needed to enhance access and awareness. Until Congress amends the Bankruptcy Code by removing section 523(a)(8), the new Guidance serves as a beacon of hope for struggling borrowers seeking relief through bankruptcy
Framing Legal Systems in New and Emerging Statelets: Autonomous Projects of the Zapatistas of Chiapas and the Democratic Autonomous Administration of Northern and Eastern Syria
Full text linkAutonomous movements within states are disruptions in the normal order and control that a state exerts over its territories. While there are some groups that aim to achieve autonomy and recognition while staying within the structure of the existing state, other groups seek to succeed and establish their own autonomous area completely succeeding and divorcing from the state. For a variety of reasons- from mistrust of a corrupt central government to violent repression of ethnic minorities- movements arise offering an alternative to the existing state. As these movements break, sometimes violently, from the state, they also break from the legal institutions of the state. Part of their task in establishing their autonomy is creating new institutions and methods to implement justice and settle disputes.
Traditional methodologies of comparative law such as the legal style framework of Zweigert and Kotz and the legal traditions framework of H. Patrick Glenn do not sufficiently explain the non-traditional legal systems of such statelets. A more appropriate framework to describe these legal systems is the nomos framework of Robert Cover, which explains that legal systems are determined and given meaning from the narratives, histories, and beliefs of the societies they exist in.
This paper examines how two autonomous democratic movements approach creating their justice systems, and how these systems pose particular difficulties for comparative law. The Zapatista movement carved out its territory in 1994, and the Democratic Autonomous Administration of Northern and Eastern Syria (DAANES) claimed its autonomy in 2012. These movements are thus very new compared to the legal systems of the states they are claiming independence from. Because these statelets are so new, it can be quite difficult, if not all together impossible, to find information about their legal systems from traditional academic sources. Looking at the justice system in the Zapatista-controlled area of Chiapas, Mexico, and the community councils of the DAANES, there is much legal anthropology to be done to find data and frameworks to further study these emerging legal systems
In this House, We Pull Ourselves Up By Our Bootstraps : The Foundations of Parliamentary Sovereignty in the United Kingdom, New Zealand, and Sweden
Full text linkThis paper considers the legal foundations of parliamentary sovereignty in three states: the United Kingdom, the Realm of New Zealand, and the Kingdom of Sweden. Two of these countries hail from the common law legal family, while Sweden is a civil law country with Nordic legal characteristics. After initial discussion of parliamentary sovereignty and Carl Schmitt’s theory of sovereignty, I will consider each of these states’ examples of parliamentary sovereignty in turn. We shall see the historical development of these three countries’ parliamentary sovereignties deeply implicates the other four of Zweigert and Kötz’s factors for defining legal styles: legal thinking, institutions, sources of law, and ideology
Two Americas, Across Two Americas: A Comparative Analysis of Indigenous Law in the United States and Guatemala
Full text linkThe United States and Guatemala are home to some of the largest indigenous populations on earth. They are also home to some of the worst transgressions against these peoples. Though superficially distinct, the two states share the same violent colonial history and their differing approaches to modern indigenous rights both miss the mark. The question is why. Is it because US judges routinely misinterpret existing case law? Because the rule of law is weaker in Guatemala? Or is there something far more deeply rooted in each state’s shared history that prevents true recognition of indigenous rights? This paper attempts to diagram the relationship between indigenous communities and the Western legal order in the United States and Guatemala. It ultimately argues that it is universal business interests rather than any specific legal framework which generates the modern oppression of indigenous peoples across the Americas
A Comprehensive Labeling Framework for Artificial Intelligence (AI)/Machine Learning (ML)-Based Medical Devices: From AI Facts Labels to a Front-of-Package AI Labeling System — Lessons Learned from Food Labeling
Full text linkMedical Artificial Intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming healthcare. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has already authorized the marketing of over one thousand AI/Machine Learning (ML)-based medical devices, and many more products are in the development pipeline. However, despite this fast development, the regulatory framework for AI/ML-based medical devices could be improved. This Article focuses on the labeling for AI/ML-based medical devices, a crucial topic that needs to receive more attention in the legal literature and from regulators like the FDA. The current lack of labeling standards tailored explicitly to AI/ML-based medical devices is an obstacle to transparency in the use of such devices. It prevents users from receiving essential information about many AI/ML-based medical devices necessary for their safe use, such as details on their data sets. To ensure transparency and protect patients’ health, the FDA must develop labeling standards for AI/ML-based medical devices as quickly as possible.
This Article suggests a comprehensive labeling framework for AI/ML-based medical devices. It argues that valuable lessons can be learned from food labeling and applied in the context of AI/ML-based medical devices. In particular, it argues that there is not only a need for regulators to develop “nutrition facts labels,” called here “AI Facts labels” for AI/ML-based medical devices, but also a “front-of-package (FOP) nutrition labeling system,” called here “FOP AI labeling system.” The use of FOP AI labels as a complement to AI Facts labels can further users’ literacy by providing at-a-glance, easy-to-understand information about the AI/ML-based medical device and enable them to make better informed decisions about their use. This Article is the first to establish a connection between FOP nutrition labeling systems and their promise for AI/ML-based medical devices and make concrete suggestions on what such a system could look like. It also makes additional concrete proposals on other aspects of labeling for AI/ML-based medical devices, including the development of an innovative, user-friendly app based on the FOP AI labeling system as well as labeling requirements for AI/ML-generated content
Judging Judiciaries: How Sticky Defaults, Status Quo Bias, and the Sovereign Prerogative Influence the Perceived Legitimacy of the New International Commercial Courts
Full text linkForum shopping is routinely criticized as contrary to procedural justice. However, recent years have seen an increasing number of jurisdictions engaged in the process of forum selling, in which countries actively seek to bring lucrative litigation business to their national judicial systems. One of the most common types of forum selling involves the creation of new international commercial courts designed to increase a nation’s competitiveness in the global litigation market.
Most studies of the new international commercial courts have focused on how procedural innovations adopted by different courts are likely to affect party choice. While useful, these analyses assume that litigants evaluate their options rationally, even though empirical research shows that cognitive distortions routinely affect individual and institutional decision-making.
This Article provides a new perspective on the world of international commercial dispute resolution by undertaking an interdisciplinary analysis that evaluates the effect that three phenomena—sticky defaults, status quo bias, and an alleged sovereign prerogative in dispute resolution—have on the perception of legitimacy relating to the new international commercial courts. The focus on perceptions of legitimacy (rather than legitimacy per se) is based on the fact that parties’ and practitioners’ beliefs about the propriety of individual courts drive decision-making processes regardless of whether the underlying beliefs are true.
This Article combines theoretical and empirical studies in law and economics, political science, psychology, and philosophy to generate compelling insights into the nature and future of international commercial dispute resolution. Through this discussion, this Article provides a deeper understanding of a potentially game-changing development in private international law
Eléonore Raoul: Early Years as Women\u27s Suffrage Advocate and Law Student (1916-1920)
No full texthttps://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/er_images/1014/thumbnail.jp
Eléonore Raoul: Early Years as Women\u27s Suffrage Advocate and Law Student (1916-1920)
No full texthttps://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/er_images/1009/thumbnail.jp
Eléonore Raoul: Early Years as Women\u27s Suffrage Advocate and Law Student (1916-1920)
No full texthttps://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/er_images/1006/thumbnail.jp
