STU Scholarly Works (St. Thomas University)
Not a member yet
1001 research outputs found
Sort by
The President\u27s Welcome Address (2022 Intercultural Human Rights Law Review Symposium)
No full textPresident David A. Armstrong\u27s welcome address for the 2022 Intercultural Human Rights Law Review Annual Symposium
Welcoming Address
No full textSiegfried Wiessner\u27s (Professor and Intercultural Human Rights Program Director) welcoming address for the 2022 Intercultural Human Rights Law Review Annual Symposium
Pyrrhic Defeat Theory: The Lucrative Failure of Prison Privatization
No full textThis paper examines the present criminal justice system in the United States and specifically the privatization of the prison system by using Professor Jeffery Reiman\u27s Pyrrhic Defeat Theory to decipher and dissect the privatization of the prison system. Further, this theory will be used to explain such severe social control measures for not only the purposes of profit maximization on behalf of private corporations building, managing, and writing prison policy, but to concretize the existing racial and class structure in the U.S. Using Pyrrhic defeat theory (success through failure), one could expound the intentions and consequences of American privatization of the prison system. Through examining these policies, a clear pattern emerges. Examination of this pattern demonstrates that the criminal justice system in general-and the process of privatization of prisons in particular-has revolved around a policy of failure for decades. Such failure, although may have been originally unintended, works out to maintain the sociopolitical status quo, ensuring a lasting economic and political structure in the form of prison industrial complex Keynesianism
Combating Fraud Under the False Claims Act: Not-Protecting Against Post-Employment Retaliation is A Self-Defeating Policy
No full textEvery year, fraudulent activity against the United States government costs taxpayers billions of dollars. The majority of these losses result from acts of fraud against federal health care programs like Medicare and Medicaid, and to a lesser extent, from matters involving contracts with the government for the purchase of goods and services. However, the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) fights back to regain lost taxpayer dollars by taking action under the False Claims Act (“FCA”), which imposes liability on such types of government fraud. Since 1986, actions taken by the DOJ resulted in the recovery of over 2.2 billion, and saw even more success in the prior year when it recovered over $3 billion. The DOJ does not achieve such victories and recover billions of dollars stolen from taxpayers all on its own—whistleblowers lead the charge and prove to be vital to the Department\u27s success. Under the FCA, any private individual or whistleblower may sue other individuals and corporations for perpetrating fraud against the government. The role these private suits played in combating fraud compounded with every passing year, and in fact, the number of cases filed in a single year peaked in 2020. Often times, at the cost of great sacrifices, these suits are brought by brave employees against their employers on behalf of the government. To encourage employees to actually utilize this statute, the FCA contains an anti-retaliation provision that provides relief to employees when their employers retaliate against them for exposing fraudulent activity. Nonetheless, a pressing issue lies with whether the anti-retaliation provision’s protections extend to former employees. Since November 6, 2018, only the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals addressed this issue in Potts v. Ctr. for Excellence in Higher Educ., Inc. The Tenth Circuit held the FCA’s anti-retaliation provision only extended protections to employees who were current employees at the time of retaliation. However, on March 31, 2021, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reached an opposite conclusion in United States ex rel. Felten v. William Beaumont Hosp. when it held that the term “employee” under the FCA provided anti-retaliation protections to victims of post-employment retaliation. This Comment addresses the Sixth Circuit’s decision to interpret the term “employee” more broadly than the Tenth Circuit and the effect it has on FCA claims across the nation. Part II provides background on the history of the FCA, its anti-retaliation provision, and the legislative intent supporting the provision. Part II also explains how individuals who learn of fraudulent conduct can bring claims under the FCA, as well as the types of protections the FCA provides to whistleblowers. Further, Part II explains how the Tenth and Sixth Circuits reached opposite conclusions on whether the term “employee” under the FCA was broad enough to provide protections to former employees. Next, Part III addresses the United States Supreme Court’s analysis when it interpreted the term “employee” in the anti-retaliation provision of Title VII, which was the basis upon which the Sixth Circuit interpreted the term “employee” in its own analysis. Part III also explores how a narrow interpretation of the term “employee” undermines the purpose of the FCA when former employees are excluded from receiving the same protections. Finally, Part III illustrates how a narrow interpretation of the term “employee” perpetuates and exacerbates the gross injustices that result from employer retaliation. Part IV proposes a legislative and judicial solution to the circuit split. Congress should revisit the FCA, and make a statutory amendment that clarifies the definition of the term “employee” to include protections for former employees. Alternatively, if Congress is unable to reach a consensus to amend the FCA, the United States Supreme Court should grant certiorari on appeal and apply the same reasoning used when it held that an “employee” in Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision includes former employees—thus, the Supreme Court should similarly hold that the FCA’s anti-retaliation provision extends protection to former employees
Front Matter
No full textFront Matter includes Title Page, Masthead, advisors, and Table of Contents for St. Thomas Law Review Volume 35, Issue 1, Fall 2022
Front Matter
No full textFront Matter includes Masthead, advisors, and Table of Contents for the Intercultural Human Rights Law Review Volume 17 (2022
Interview of Sister Helen Prejean by Symposium Editor Andres Lopez
No full textInterview of Sister Helen Prejean, member of the Roman Catholic religious order of the Sisters of St. Joseph of Medaille, by Symposium Editor Andres Lopez
Journalism in the Age of Clickbait
No full textMartha Minow’s Saving the News lays bare a dramatic shift in American news reporting—the decline of local, in-depth, and investigative journalism in favor of attention-grabbing and politically divisive stories that circulate wildly on social media. Her book proceeds to navigate potential constitutional obstacles to reform by showing how, although the First Amendment prohibits Congress from abridging the freedom of speech, it is no bar where Congress acts instead to strengthen speech. This Book Review extends Minow’s analysis by considering the human and technological roots of the social-media phenomenon: The Americans who choose to read vapid, misleading news stories and the algorithms that circulate them. Sensationalist journalism thrives not by force-feeding us rotten content, but by employing algorithms to plumb the depths of our minds and feed us the very salacious content we love most. A deeper Big Tech battle thus rages within each one of us, between what we want and what we know is good for us. Social-media reform can succeed by empowering us to choose well
The Armenian Genocide, Customary International Law, and U.S. Recognition
No full textThis article asserts that President Biden\u27s statement recognizing the Armenian Genocide of 1915 illustrates that genocide was prohibited by customary international law when the genocide started. It examines possible legal theories to explain U.S. recognition as well as historical evidence and statements made by other states to establish that there is a strong case for genocide already outlawed by customary international law in 1915. This provides a foundation for the article\u27s assertion and subsequent legal analysis of the United States\u27 statements of recognition under a customary international law theory, concluding that this is the most likely legal theory the U.S. would be supporting with its recognition. It then illustrates the real-world implications of this finding for international law generally and the Armenian people
Stop the Steal: The History of Voter Suppression in America, and Who Is Really Stealing Votes?
No full textPresident Barack Obama once quipped, elections have consequences. It is clear that 245 years later, the Founding Fathers understood the implications of voting and the weight it carries. These men knew that to maintain power, they would have to limit the people that would have the ability to vote. These fifty-six men who represented the new thirteen colonies met on July 4, 1776, to sign what would be called the Declaration of Independence. In part are the words: [w]e hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. The irony is not lost on the fact that these men were declaring freedom from British rule and control as they sought to rule and control others. In the words penned by these freedom seekers, they deliberately excluded from these rights the nation\u27s African and African American residents. These same drafters of the Declaration of Independence classified Black people as less than human and, thus, undeserving of basic human rights and dignities