16885 research outputs found
Sort by
Attribution as Architecture in the Digital Age
No full textAs technology changes, one thing remains constant: human creators seem to care about attribution, whether as creators or as audience members. Current U.S. law lacks the means for many creators to effectively address attributional interests, and experience has shown that top-down, imposed technological solutions can fail to gain the necessary buy-in and adoption. The best approach, examples suggest, is for platforms to think of attribution as part of the architecture of their systems, but to take their cues from user-developed, individualized solutions, which will not only be more responsive to user interests but also allow adaptation as interests change and develop
An Interview with David Pugh
No full textI got to develop that, that passion for your job. And William & Mary indirectly helped me with that because I saw professors who had a passion for teaching and I say doggone, they’re here at the law school they have a passion. Well, I should have a passion if I’m going to be a lawyer. -- David Pugh
------------------------------------
Judge David Pugh was interviewed on February 13, 2025, in the William & Mary Media Center’s Production Studio. He begins the interview by describing his first experiences learning about the law as a person of color. Judge Pugh then reflects on his service in the US Army in Vietnam and how it motivated him to pursue law school as soon as he could. He recounts the process of being admitted to William & Mary Law School and his time as a student, including the friends and mentors that he met, but emphasizes that he got the most enjoyment out of practicing and being on the bench. He then highlights a few remarkable moments during his time as a litigator, as well as the tough decision-making he faced as a judge. Finally, he stresses the need for community and passion for your work to make an impact in the legal field.https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/oralhist_all/1023/thumbnail.jp
Not Born a Democracy: Constitutional Preconditions
No full textBeneath growing perceptions of constitutional crisis and democratic fragility in the United States lies a fundamental conundrum. Critical preconditions for effective self-government are either weak or missing in action, and our constitutional system, at least for now, stands in the way of actions to strengthen or build those preconditions. This Article focuses on three essential predicates for constitutional democracy that face jeopardy: education, reliable news, and security against lethal violence. As basic as these elements may be, repeated efforts to secure a federal constitutional right to education have failed in the courts. Because of a confluence of legal, technological, and economic problems, once vibrant newspapers and magazines in the United States are rapidly shrinking or closing. Deaths and injuries due to guns mount yearly, and courts block reform efforts to advance human safety. Why are these meaningful preconditions for self-government? Why are even earnest efforts at fortifying them blocked? And what are promising ways forward
International Bridges to Justice in Kigali, Rwanda
No full textJulie Stanwyck [2L] will work to promote individual rights in Rwanda by assisting in filling gaps in the country\u27s legal aid system and working to create a culture where political leaders and citizens understand and support due process rights
Laboratories of Judicial Ethics: A Comparative Analysis of Judicial Conduct Commissions in Tennessee, Rhode Island, and North Carolina, and Their Implications for Regulating the U.S. Supreme Court
No full textIt is hardly necessary to recite the recent ethics controversies that have embroiled the Supreme Court. In the last several years, several revelations have rocked the Supreme Court and led members of Congress, President Joe Biden, and the public to question the Court’s ethical standards and impartiality. Whether the Court’s partiality and imprudence are real or perceived, recent developments like these have spurred calls for a binding code of ethics to be either adopted voluntarily by the Court or imposed involuntarily by congressional action. Given the fierce debate over ethics regulation of the U.S. Supreme Court, it is noteworthy that state supreme courts have been bound by ethics codes and judicial conduct commissions for decades. Every state and Washington D.C. has a judicial conduct commission (JCC) that is empowered to take disciplinary action against judges and high court justices at the state level.
If JCCs have successfully regulated state supreme court justices and the judges on the lower courts of the state judiciary, one wonders why a similar model could not be established for the U.S. Supreme Court. There are, however, pressing constitutional questions concerning the power of Congress to regulate the Court. Does Congress have the power to impose a binding code of ethics on the Supreme Court or create a judicial conduct commission with jurisdiction over it? Looking to the state commissions and the means of their adoption may provide an answer.
This Note will examine how states and their JCCs have answered those constitutional questions. Part I will recount recent proposals for Supreme Court ethics reform and the reactions of some of the Justices, which are indicative of the constitutional challenges the ethics proposals could attract. Part II will briefly describe how JCCs work in general and the history of their adoption. Part III will analyze the approaches to judicial regulation taken by Tennessee, Rhode Island, and North Carolina. These states have been chosen for two reasons. First, all three of them created JCCs either wholly or partly by statute (North Carolina adopted its JCC through a combination of authorizing constitutional amendment and statute). Second, all three of these states have had to reason through the constitutional issues, such as separation of powers, that are implicated by creating a JCC through legislation rather than by constitutional amendment or state supreme court rule. Accordingly, Part IV will examine the constitutional issues each state’s commission has faced. Finally, Part V will provide evidence that modeling a federal judicial ethics remedy after state approaches makes sense and provide suggestions for drafting a federal statute that would not run afoul of the various constitutional arguments that have been made against state statutes that created JCCs.
This abstract has been taken from the author\u27s introduction
Let\u27s Bee Pragmatic: The Economic Case for Neonicotinoid Regulation in Conservative States
No full textThe importance of bees in our ecosystem and to our food system in the United States cannot be overstated. In fact, 35% of global crop production depends on bees and other pollinating insects. Pollinators not only influence the production of many foods that we hold dear and rely on, such as apples, chocolate, potatoes, and coffee, but also influence the quality of these products.
Currently, the most insidious threat against bees in the United States is neonicotinoid pesticides (neonics). While neonics are effective at killing the target populations of beetles, aphids, and flies, they are equally effective at killing pollinators, particularly bees. The indiscriminate impact of neonics and the abandon with which farmers and home gardeners apply these pesticides to their crops and seeds poses a serious danger to pollinating bees.
Recently, left-leaning states have passed meaningful regulations to stop the pervasive and harmful use of neonics within their states and protect pollinating bees. However, right-leaning states have not made any affirmative steps to regulate neonics, even though the use of neonics will damage the food systems they rely on. The pollinator protection movement, or “Save the Bees,” is rooted in the left, and as the political divide in the United States widens, right-leaning states are unlikely to react positively to the traditional liberal environmental narratives when creating legislation. ‘Save the Bees’ must be reframed in conservative states in order to succeed in protecting pollinators from neonics.
In this Note, I will argue that, in conservative states, lobbying efforts for and the statutory construction of neonic regulation must be based on an economic argument in favor of pollinating bees. First, I will provide background on the economic importance of pollinating bees and the impact of neonics on them. Next, I will provide an overview of the federal regulation of pesticides and explain EPA’s reticence to regulate neonics. Then, I will present historical examples of successful economic arguments in conservative states. Finally, I will detail the specifics of the economic argument for banning neonics and discuss its implementation.
This abstract has been taken from the author\u27s introduction