16885 research outputs found
Sort by
The First Black Professor to (Almost) Join the William & Mary Law Faculty
Get PDFArticle created for this exhibit chronicling the thwarted attempt to hire JeRoyd X. Greene/Sa\u27ad El Amin as a visiting professor in 1974.https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/blackhistorywmls/1036/thumbnail.jp
The Hoosiers Got It Wrong: The Need for States to Enact Stricter Prescribing Regulations Via Telemedicine Services
Get PDFIn 2016 and 2017, Indiana amended its state telemedicine regulations to allow Indiana physicians to prescribe controlled substances to patients without an in-person examination. Although there are many promising benefits of telemedicine, researchers have not yet conducted enough tests or studies to fully know the consequences of prescribing without an in-person examination as well as other concerns with telemedicine services. In light of the ongoing opioid epidemic, lawmakers should be even more hesitant to lower the standards for prescribing regulations.
This Note will propose alternative solutions for legislators regarding telemedicine regulations and explain why other states should not mirror Indiana’s recently enacted amendments.
From Civil Rights to Blackmail: How the Civil Rights Attorney\u27s Fees Awards Act of 1976 (42 U.S.C. § 1988) Has Perverted One of America\u27s Most Historic Civil Rights Statutes
Get PDFFor fourteen years, members of Congress repeatedly introduced legislation directed at a single subject. A key underpinning for the necessity of the legislation was provided by the opinions of two Supreme Court justices. Yet, for the past nine years, Congress has gone silent on the same topic. This Article argues that it is past time for Congress to reconsider this topic, and that if it will not do so, the Supreme Court can rectify the situation without engaging in judicial legislation.
Perhaps the best view of Congress\u27s efforts can be seen by examining the high-water mark of those efforts, which occurred in 2006. In that year, it was the belief of 247 United States representatives that the Establishment Clause [of the United States Constitution] does not secure an individual right. Therefore, they believed attorney\u27s fees should not be available in Establishment Clause cases under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, the federal civil rights and fee shifting statutes that make such awards possible.
Similarly, by 2006, two Supreme Court Justices had indicated that the Establishment Clause did not protect individual rights. Indeed, the 247 Congressmen explicitly relied on the words of one of those justices, Anthony Kennedy, for this proposition; and Justice Thomas had by then made the even more emphatic, unequivocal statement that [t]he Establishment Clause does not purport to protect individual rights.
And yet, here were are, fourteen years later, and attorney\u27s fees are still being awarded in Establishment Clause cases under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. This Article will argue that this practice should stop, either by amendment of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988 or through a pronouncement by the Supreme Court that Establishment Clause claims can no longer be brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Navigating the Blue Economy
Get PDFThe time has come, the Walrus said,
To talk of many things:
Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
Of cabbages—and kings—
And why the sea is boiling hot—
And whether pigs have wings.
And like the conversation of the Walrus and Carpenter walking along the “wet as wet could be” sea, the blue economy offers us the opportunity to talk of many things. Part I of this Article analyzes what the blue economy is and its relevance. Governance mechanisms, including ecosystem-based management and marine spatial planning are introduced and reviewed. The section discusses the benefits associated with such mechanisms, including streamlined decision-making, promoting levels of certainty, and convening stakeholders. Associated challenges also exist, such as emboldening bureaucratic in-fighting, perceptions of sovereignty threats, and implementation hurdles. Part II further reviews public and private law issues which intersect the blue economy within the domestic and international governance context, focusing on topics including seafood fraud; illegal, unreported, and unregulated (“IUU”) fishing; and bioprospecting. This includes analysis of various coordination challenges concerning international enforcement measures, particularly regarding the United States and European Union. Part III examines the Arctic as a blue economy case study where many of these governance-focused concepts intersect. The Article concludes with a discussion of the blue economy’s unique research potential
Breaking up with Dillion: A Practical Call for Virginia State & Local Government Law Reform
Get PDFStates’ long-standing allegiance to the Dillon Rule stems from the theory that it prevents localities from passing unequal and corrupt laws. However, states with strict adherence to the Dillon Rule have stifled localities from addressing their own issues and priorities. Though the debates surrounding the Dillon Rule’s strengths and weaknesses have existed since its inception, the burdensome effects on a locality’s ability to serve and protect its citizens are constantly evolving. In particular, localities in Dillon Rule states have been unable to enact laws that directly address environmental issues, citing the Dillon Rule as their main obstacle.
Although lobbying Virginia lawmakers for change is possible, challenges associated with the lobbying process have kept localities within the Dillon Rule’s restrictive framework. In addition to facing resource-intensive lobbying efforts, localities are hesitant to enact boundary-pushing legislation due to judicial unpredictability. Ultimately, the Dillon Rule disincentivizes localities from seeking innovative solutions that confront some of our generation’s greatest environmental challenges.
This Note is not the first call for Virginia’s General Assembly to consider the adverse effects of this antiquated and ineffective rule. The Commonwealth first contemplated a transition from the Dillon Rule in 1969. The state’s legislators drafted and proposed a new provision to the Virginia Constitution, stating that “[a] charter county or a city may exercise any power or perform any function which is not denied to it by this [C]onstitution, by its charter[,] or by laws enacted by the General Assembly.” Although similar provisions were included in other states’ constitutions, the Virginia legislature opted against it. Recently, there have been calls for the reconsideration of this rule in economic, social justice, and environmental contexts.
As discussed later in this Note, there is a growing consensus that localities are better equipped to address local issues than the state legislature. This argument is championed and frequently cited by those who appreciate federalism’s capacity to allow states to create their own environmental laws and policies. In a similar fashion, those closer to an environmental issue, such as representatives of a coastal community grappling with sea level rise, will presumably understand its particular challenges more intimately than any state government official.
A number of recent environmental efforts have largely failed due to Virginia’s outdated policymaking structure. In Alexandria, for example, the locality’s inability to ban plastic bags and straws has sparked heated debates. All in all, localities routinely point to the Dillon Rule to justify their environmental shortcomings.
Mixed Rule and Home Rule states have surpassed Virginia in the implementation of progressive environmental efforts in a number of ways. Some examples include powerful regional initiatives, such as the South Florida Regional Climate Change Compact and county-led environmental legislation, such as Washtenaw County, Michigan’s net-zero emissions efforts in 2018. Moreover, this Note will discuss recent full or partial transitions in states such as West Virginia, Nevada, and Illinois.
This Note will also contemplate the numerous benefits and challenges that accompany different transition strategies for Virginia. These transition options include opting for full Home Rule status, implementing public health or environmental exceptions, or allowing Home Rule functionality to municipalities based on desire, size, or through the authorization of home rule charters. All in all, this Note will highlight the reasons why a transition is advisable and why it is a crucial moment for the Virginia legislature to act
Family in the Balance: Barton v. Barr and the Systematic Violation of the Right to Family Life in U.S. Immigration Enforcement
Get PDFThe United States systematically violates the international human right to family life in its system of removal of noncitizens. Cancellation of removal provides a means for noncitizens to challenge their removal based on family ties in the United States, but Congress has placed draconian limits on the discretion of immigration courts to cancel removal where noncitizens have committed certain crimes. The recently issued U.S. Supreme Court decision in Barton v. Barr illustrates the troubling trend of affording less discretion for immigration courts to balance family life in removal decisions that involve underlying criminal conduct. At issue was the “stop-time rule” for measuring the requisite seven years of continuous residence for LPR cancellation of removal. A sharply divided court read the relevant statute very differently, and a five-justice majority interpreted the stop-time rule to further limit the discretion of immigration judges to consider noncitizens’ family ties as a defense against removal. However, modern international law doctrine suggests that customary international law is the law of the United States and should be applied to resolve questions of statutory meaning under the Charming Betsy rule of statutory interpretation. This Article lays plain the systematic nature of the violations of the human right to family life in the U.S. system of removal and argues that the U.S. Supreme Court erred when it failed to mitigate this harm in Barton v. Barr
