UC Law SF Scholarship Repository
Not a member yet
18602 research outputs found
Sort by
AI Governance in China: A Tale of Three Digital Empires
Get PDFSince 2021, China has strategically expedited artificial intelligence (AI) legislation and refined algorithmic governance to compete with the US and the EU. The rapid growth of algorithm filing cases is a direct result of the “Made in China 2025” Initiative which prioritizes AI development driven by domestic leading tech companies like DeepSeek. As world-class digital powers, China, the US, and the EU diverge in their categorization of AI risks and adoption of regulatory measures. China’s centralized single-agency regulatory infrastructure differs from the multi-agency and decentralized governance models in the US and the EU, respectively. China does not impose the same level of obligations on AI deployers as on service providers, rarely punishes digital platforms, and prefers local laws and judges in dispute resolution. We argue that China should learn from the EU and the US and encourage the AI industry to self-regulate and delegate more powers to local regulators and entities. Regarding transparency, China’s AI filing system focuses on AI systems with public opinion influence, while the US and the EU require high-risk systems to meet reporting and certification obligations in a non-ideological manner. All three jurisdictions have employed sophisticated AI detection and labeling systems, but user notification and stakeholder protection in China are not as mature. Regarding law enforcement, China focuses on regulating AI operators instead of protecting users. China could benefit from the EU’s approach by refining rules to include a broader range of stakeholders, such as deployers and their employees. Regarding security assessment, the US and the EU emphasize continuous risk management post-deployment, while China integrates ex-ante assessments with national security considerations. Their security assessments have formal and functional divergences in mandatory nature, effect, and methods due to different legal traditions and sociopolitical contexts. AI has been widely applied in specific fields like content moderation and judicial reasoning. All three jurisdictions have strikingly different regulatory philosophies, focuses, and methods for AI content moderation. We argue that China should learn from the EU to avoid the unacceptable risks of judicial AI
Personal Jurisdiction and the Fifth Amendment
No full textThe Supreme Court has avoided clarifying the relationship between federal-court personal jurisdiction, congressional statutes, and the Fifth Amendment. Until June 2025, that is. In that month, the Court decided two important cases involving constraints on a federal court\u27s exercise of personal jurisdiction outside of Rule 4(k)(1)(A), which typically ties federal-court personal jurisdiction to state-court personal jurisdiction. This brief essay explains and analyzes those cases, situating them in the Court\u27s larger agenda for personal jurisdiction. It also discusses some open questions raised by the decisions and the role that personal jurisdiction in the United States may now play on the global stage
Minimax Under Pressure: The Case of Tennis
No full textA series of articles has tested von Neumann’s minimax theory against behavioral evidence based on field data from professional sports. The evidence has been viewed and collectively cited as positive evidence that elite athletes in their familiar sports contexts mix well and behave in line with minimax. In this paper, based on open state-of-the-art tennis data and analytics, we shall uncover new and significant evidence against minimax at the very top of the game, where previously, such results had not been obtained. The kinds of behavioral deviations from minimax that we find become apparent, because we enrich the test strategy to take into account whether or not players face ‘pressure’ situations like break points and other decisive points. Our paper highlights that the prior literature’s failure to reject minimax does not constitute positive behavioral evidence, as some of that literature argued, because it is not robust to data aggregations and separations that are psychologically natural given the relevant real-world context. In this case, this means separating serves into the serve types that players actually consider and separating situations by pressure levels, which leads to clear and sound rejection of minimax
June 30, 2023: Resurrections and Bad Omens of a Nadir Court
No full textJune 29, 2023 was monumental for racial justice advocates and scholars; the U.S. Supreme Court issued a major decision that eviscerated affirmative action while declaring itself a vanguard of racial equality. The Court’s race-related juridical activities on the following day, June 30th, received far less attention. On June 30, 2023, the Court denied certiorari in five cases directly implicating race. Those denials of certiorari generated five opinions, two concurring in the denial and three dissenting from denial. These five opinions should have created as much buzz as the Court’s affirmative action decision the day prior; examined together, they tell a frightening story of raging anti-Blackness in twenty-first century America.
Through careful analysis of these five non-majority opinions, this article reveals two important and original insights. First, it establishes the post- 2020 Roberts Court as a resurrection of the two most racist postbellum Supreme Courts: the Waite Court, which lasted from 1874-1888, and the Fuller Court, which ruled from 1888-1910. These opinions expose the post-2020 Roberts Court as exhibiting a gross indifference to the lives and rights of Black people reminiscent of the Old Jim Crow Courts. Second, this article reveals “bad omens,” projecting the direction the current Court is leading the country in with respect to racial justice: the nation’s highest tribunal will likely invalidate all forms of antiracism, race conscious or otherwise. This article sounds the alarm on these non-majority opinions; racial justice advocates should acknowledge them as warning signs of things to come.
This article makes other important contributions. It wades into the academic debate regarding the utility of non-majority opinions with a hyperfocus on certiorari-stage writings; the scholarship on this aspect of the debate is almost non-existent. In fact, this article is the first to formally extol the value of certiorari-stage juridical writings, particularly in cases implicating race. Through these opinions, the justices give warnings as to where the law is headed. Racial advocates would do well to heed those warnings.
Most importantly, it situates America in a second nadir, at least on the legal front. The similarities between the 1890s and the 2020s that this article unearths do not begin and end with the Supreme Court; the federal government, then as now, is either indifferent or harmful to racial justice endeavors. In fact, the years 1892 and 2024 have much in common: each year produced both the election of a racist president to a second nonconsecutive term and the capture of majorities in both houses of Congress by the more openly racist political party. Racial justice advocates would do well to study history as they battle white supremacy’s “newest” iterations and manifestations
Beyond Comprehension: Why Tax Code Complexity Necessitates IRS Deference
No full textThis Article argues that deference to Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) interpretations is essential for the effective interpretation of U.S. federal income tax law due to the technical demands inherent in this uniquely complex area. The U.S. federal income tax code, often considered one of the most intricate legal systems, consists of dense, specialized language, nuanced policy considerations, economic theories, and frequently updated provisions. Judges, as generalists, face a daunting challenge in interpreting this complex, ever-evolving body of law without the specialized expertise that the IRS professionals bring. Frequent amendments further add to this complexity, layering additional provisions that require in-depth knowledge beyond typical judicial training. To demonstrate the persistent complexity of the Internal Revenue Code (“Code”), even in the wake of significant reform, this Article incorporates an original empirical analysis comparing the 2017 and 2018 versions of the Code using advanced natural language processing techniques. This study confirms that structural and semantic complexity remains deeply embedded in the Code, as evidenced by the lack of a significant reduction following the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (“TCJA”). This Article contends that deferring to the IRS’s interpretations is not merely prudent but necessary, as it enables courts to benefit from the agency’s specialized insights, resulting in a more accurate and consistent application of tax law
