UC Law SF Scholarship Repository
Not a member yet
18602 research outputs found
Sort by
Trend Analysis: State Legislation Expanding the Scope and Use of Exclusionary School Discipline (ESD)
Get PDFhttps://repository.uclawsf.edu/crej/1006/thumbnail.jp
Spotlight Research Brief: Exclusionary School Discipline and Student Health and Wellbeing
Get PDFhttps://repository.uclawsf.edu/crej/1005/thumbnail.jp
The Supreme Court and Public Opinion
No full textAlexander Hamilton famously called the Supreme Court the “least dangerous branch” because it was reliant on Congress for funding and the President for enforcement. To manage its relationship with the political branches in a way that affords the Court both independence from them and the necessary assistance from them, the Court must cultivate the affection of the electorate. Several doctrinal tools facilitate that cultivation, and, historically, the Court has used those tools effectively to maintain relatively high public-approval rates. But over the last decade, those rates have fallen significantly to historic lows. This paper interrogates why that is. Tracing the Court’s management of its relationship to the political branches and the public over the course of key moments in history—Marbury v. Madison, the Cherokee crisis, the Switch in Time, Brown v. Board, Bush v. Gore, and Lawrence v. Texas—I show a Court acutely attuned to its precarious position in the governmental structure. I then contrast those moments with the current Court, showing that the Court’s management today is being eroded by a steady barrage of jabs, some of which are the Court’s own making. The result is that, today, the Court’s flagging public support risks leaving it too vulnerable to stand up to the political branches in the country’s greatest moment of need
Religious Freedom & the Fertilized Egg
No full textAnti-abortion activism and litigation have challenged established caselaw on the legality of in vitro fertilization (IVF) and the legal treatment of IVF fertilized eggs. These challenges rely on conservative Christian ideologies that full personhood occurs at fertilization. Litigation has primarily arisen out of wrongful death suits and divorce proceedings, wherein a party either has destroyed or seeks to dispose of frozen blastocysts. Some legislatures now seek to regulate the treatment of IVF fertilized eggs vis-á-vis legislation, as politicians increasingly seek to ban any destruction of human fertilized eggs by legally defining human life as beginning at fertilization. However, the question of when legal life begins is fundamentally an ethical and theological question of belief.
These shifts in the legal treatment of fertilized eggs coincide with recent Supreme Court cases that establish greater religious freedom claims. Notably, these cases have exclusively addressed Christian petitioners’ claims. It remains to be seen whether similar claims brought by adherents of other faiths will receive the same protections. While Jews and Muslims have challenged anti-abortion laws on religious freedom grounds, similar litigation has yet to be brought within the IVF context. This Article argues that Muslims and Jews are well positioned to bring litigation challenging limitations on the disposal of IVF blastocysts.
The media has focused on the potential for IVF restrictions in states like Alabama and Texas. However, little attention has been given to the state of Louisiana, where such restrictions are a reality. This Article concludes by looking at the State of Louisiana as a case study for IVF restrictions, both in terms of the type of legislation anti-abortion activists will likely try to pass in other states, and to describe the religious freedom challenges Jews and Muslims might bring.
Furthermore, the Article argues that fetal personhood legislation that applies to IVF fertilized eggs substantially burdens the religious freedom of peoples with differing beliefs as to when potential and full human life begin. This Article is the first to make a religious freedom argument regarding IVF regulation. It is also the first to bring the jurisprudence of other religions, namely Judaism and Islam, into the legal conversation on IVF, in which conservative Christian perspectives typically dominate
The Forever Fight Against Forever Chemicals: Analyzing Loopholes in California’s PFAS Ban for Consumer Products
No full textPer- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a class of synthetic chemicals used for their unique qualities in manufacturing across numerous industries. PFAS, also known as “forever chemicals,” persist in the environment for long periods of time and cause serious health risks to consumers. Given mounting research on PFAS and their adverse health effects, the California legislature passed four laws banning the chemicals in specific consumer products.
This Note argues that three new California laws requiring manufacturers to replace PFAS with “the least toxic alternative” are inadequate because they are ambiguous. This ambiguity will invite litigation and create business challenges by allowing manufacturers to substitute chemicals that technically comply with statutory requirements but still pose health risks to consumers. This issue both raises environmental justice concerns and obscures manufacturing compliance. Because current statutory language raises more questions than it answers, a more concrete standard specifying which alternatives are permissible would benefit consumers and corporations alike.
While it is impossible to know how this language will play out in practice, California’s existing regulatory scheme needs clarification at a minimum. A one size fits all standard may not exist to judge PFAS alternatives across different sectors. However, further regulatory clarification and a technology-based approach would increase predictability and quell environmental justice concerns
