16885 research outputs found
Sort by
Fame, Fakes, and the First Amendment: A Three-State Analysis of the Right of Publicity in Addressing Deepfakes
No full textPart I of this Note will set the scene of current concerns with deepfakes by those in media and pending changes in the right of publicity landscape. Part II discusses the standing of the right of publicity in three states. Parts III and IV address the current balancing tests for the First Amendment and intellectual property statutes. Part V examines the pathway for expansion of the right of publicity federally to combat the threat posed by deepfakes and Part VI analyzes the interplay with intellectual property doctrines and the First Amendment.
This abstract has been taken from the author\u27s introduction
Alemante Gebre-Selassie: IBRL\u27s Winds of Change
No full text“[T]he initial question or the impetus that formed this conference came from me asking Rod Smolla, Why is it that you have the rule of law and we don’t have it in the rest of the world? ... I come from Ethiopia, a developing country where rule of law is not supreme. I was always interested, How is it that the rule of law took root in the Western countries and it does not take root much in the developing countries. Why? Why is that? I’ve always been intrigued by that.” -- Alemante Gebre-Selassie, Professor Emeritus, on the Institute of Bill of Rights Law event, Winds of Change
Winds of Change: International Perspectives on the Evolution of Democracy, Human Rights and the Rule of Law. Program, International Law Society and Institute of Bill of Rights Law event, March 1990. Wolf Law Library Archives, LSA.1982.001
Established in 1982, the Institute of Bill of Rights Law (IBRL) at William & Mary Law School is known for hosting various events related to current issues in law. Speaking with IBRL director Rodney Smolla, Alemante Gebre-Selassie considered his own experiences in Ethiopia and the United States and wondered how the rule of law took hold in the latter but not the former. Professor Selassie’s question inspired this IBRL event, and the symposium articles were later published in the first volume of the William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal.
Listen to Alemante Gebre-Selassie\u27s oral history online.https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/oralhist-exhibit/1007/thumbnail.jp
Statutory Copy-Pasting in the Law of Sovereign Immunity
No full textCongress sometimes copy-pastes language from one statute into another statute. While this can serve the goals of consistency and efficiency, copy-pasting can cause problems when done across disparate legal regimes, such as different sovereign immunity doctrines. When Congress enacted the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) of 1976, it borrowed language from the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) of 1946 that exempts the exercise of “discretionary functions” from tort jurisdiction. Both statutes allow private damages claims against governmental entities in defined circumstances. Despite this superficial similarity, the statutes were enacted in very different contexts and serve fundamentally different purposes. Nonetheless, courts have relied on FTCA decisions to define the contours of tort jurisdiction under the FSIA. The resulting jurisprudence has been conceptually incoherent and doctrinally unsound.
This Article seeks to put FSIA jurisprudence on a firmer footing by disentangling it from the FTCA. In so doing, it clarifies important— and often overlooked—distinctions between domestic sovereign immunity, on the one hand, and foreign sovereign immunity, on the other. Codifying the international law of foreign sovereign immunity should not involve replicating the U.S. law of domestic sovereign immunity. The temptation to conflate different types of immunities can be especially problematic in a common law system based on precedent. Fundamental differences between the jurisdictional immunities of foreign governments and the immunity of the United States warrant eliminating the FSIA’s copy-pasted discretionary function exception. Meanwhile, courts interpreting the FSIA should consider principles of foreign sovereign immunity rather than the domestic separation of powers
Border Decriminalization as a State Project: Lessons from Marijuana and Assisted Suicide Legalization Across the United States
No full textMy prior work argued for the decriminalization of border crossings without proof of specific intent to violate another law (like drug trafficking), which is even less likely to happen now than it was when the piece was published, given the current presidential administration’s zealous deportation strategy and Congress’s seeming acquiescence. As such, I advocate for a second-best solution involving federal-state cooperative agreements wherein border states abutting both Mexico and Canada are given the option by the federal government to pass local legislation decriminalizing border crossings into their states as their communities desire. To the extent that the current presidential administration is trying to shrink the federal government in significant ways, such experimentation among these border states might be both politically and economically desirable as a way to develop a set of best practices for the entire country moving forward
Getting There from Here: Reflecting on Compassionate Migration Policy
No full textHaving written about Latinx issues for more than three decades, with a focus on immigration policy for at least the last two decades, I see no middle ground in this time of Trump. Those who relish hurt and hate, and those scholars who wrote the kindling for that bonfire, must be basking in the glow of their handiwork. Those of us who I claim are on the right side of history must search through the ashes for hope—the where, when, and how to nurture humanity on scorched ground. Counting myself among those searching for hope, I acknowledge the indulgence offered by this Symposium to reflect—more so to self-reflect—on where we stand. And on where I thought we’d be. And whether we can get there from here.
In this self-reflective Article, I sift through my various writings to identify and thread together the themes and theses of my multidecade work on immigration policy. As a set of principles, they offer both a vision of a borderland and a country of compassion, and a roadmap of how to reach that vision. At least when the journey seemed more realistic. I also take stock of the current moment of Trump policy—early in his second term, as informed by his first term of rhetoric and regulation. Finally, I offer suggestions on how to begin the journey to compassion. As well, and as informed both by the passage of time and events and by the acquisition of deeper knowledge, I critique my own work—less to make the journey quicker and more to make the journey more fulfilling and the destination more permanent.
This reflection, as with much of my writing on immigration, is from the 20,000-foot level—especially in mapping the policies that flow from a compassionate view of migrants and their migration. We are too far down the wrong policy road to worry about minor course corrections. Rather than specifying tinkers to reform the current immigration system, we need to imagine a complete reconstruction of the landscape of current immigration law. And a way to get there. As Maya Angelou wrote: “the need for change bulldozed a road down the center of my mind.”
This abstract has been taken from the author\u27s introduction
John G. Kruchko Award in Labor & Employment Law
No full textFor outstanding academic performance and potential in the area of Labor and Employment Law.https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/studentplaques/1136/thumbnail.jp