Digital Commons @ UDC Law (University of the District of Columbia Law Library)
Not a member yet
840 research outputs found
Sort by
Lessons Unlearned: The Effects of Statutory Ambiguity and The Interpretative Uncertainty It Injects in The Courts
No full textFor centuries, courts have dealt with the challenge of imposing penalties for crimes when governing law changes. Applying the new provisions can be a straightforward exercise for courts, but when legislatures are ambiguous with regard to which law applies-forexample, to pending cases-the courts are forced to interpret what legislatures intended. For some judges, the answer is easily found in the plain meaning of the text. For others, legislative intent can become the deciding factor. Throughout United States history, this has been a manageable yet controversial task, but aside from interpretive differences among judges, creating laws with uncertainty is a dangerous policy that legislatures should end. Because some cases with the most adverse effects involve federal criminal statutes, this paper argues that in light of the high stakes involved for criminal defendants, clear statutory language is required for the efficient administration of justice. It does so by first examining consequences of statutory ambiguity and the Fair Sentencing Act of2010 (FSA),\u27 which was enacted after almost twenty-four years of an unfair law taking effect
A Dry Hate: White Supremacy and Anti-Immigrant Rhetoric in the Humanitarian Crisis on the U.S.-Mexico Border
No full textBeginning with the passage of its anti-immigrant “Show-Me-Your-Papers” law in April 2010, S.B. 1070, much has been written about the hostile political climate toward noncitizens in the State of Arizona specifically and the U.S.-Mexico border generally. However, the recent influx of refugees from Central America to the United States has seen a resurgence in the anti-immigrant rhetoric, which is particularly disturbing since a large percentage of the individuals fleeing violence and poverty are children. In this vein, one aspect of the genesis of S.B. 1070 and other anti-immigrant laws that have not received a great deal of attention is the significant presence – and the startling growth of – white supremacist and Neo-Nazi groups throughout Arizona and the Southwest in the years leading up to the introduction and passage of S.B. 1070 and its predecessor laws. While groups such as the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) have monitored and documented the rise of anti-immigrant hate groups in the Southwest over the past decade, the correlation between the activities of these organizations, anti-immigrant activism, and the passage of state laws designed to intimidate, threaten, and harass noncitizens and other people of color living and working in Arizona and the American Southwest has not been fully explored in the mainstream political and legal media.
This Article examines the growth of the white supremacist movement in Arizona and other Southwestern states, and argues that the influence of these groups plays a significant role in the caustic rhetoric we are currently witnessing in the humanitarian crisis on the U.S.-Mexico border and in the flurry of anti-immigrant laws approved by the state legislature and the electorate since the early 2000s. Part I discusses some of the most prominent white supremacist and Neo-Nazi groups currently operating in Arizona and other states along the U.S.-Mexico border. Part II provides an overview of some of the prominent politicians and citizens in the Southwest who have been linked to extremist and racist groups, and how their affiliations impacted the spread of anti-immigrant rhetoric into the cultural mainstream, as well as the introduction and passage of state anti-immigrant laws and policies. Part III discusses the current humanitarian crisis on the border, and profiles some of the most notorious recent incidents of anti-immigrant sentiment tied to white supremacists – such as the murders of Raul and Brisenia Flores by border vigilantes in 2009 and the murderous rampage of Neo-Nazi J.T. Ready in 2011 – and examines how the anti-immigrant and racist rhetoric of these groups contribute to the ongoing violence against and scapegoating of migrants seeking refuge in the United States. The Article concludes with Part IV, in which I argue that unless and until the white supremacist roots of anti-immigrant rhetoric is acknowledged, the southern border of the United States will continue to be a flashpoint in which hate groups can continue to implement their extremist agenda against noncitizens and people of color
(Re-)Grasping the Opportunity Interest: Lehr v. Robertson and the Terminated Parent
No full textIn 1997, an Ohio court terminated Peggy Fugate’s parental rights to her sixyear-old daughter, Selina. At the time, Ms. Fugate, an incarcerated drug abuser, did not fight the order, believing her daughter would be adopted into a clean, stable home.1 However, Selina was never adopted. For the next seven years, Selina had trouble with the police and ran away from her foster home numerous times. While Selina’s life was going downhill in many respects, her mother was rehabilitating. She entered recovery, married, obtained full-time employment and was living in stable housing with enough room for her daughter. Recognizing the strides that Ms. Fugate had made, the juvenile court allowed Selina to visit her. Wanting some legal recognition of the parent-child relationship that they had now developed, in 2003, Ms. Fugate petitioned the court for custody of Selina. While the lower courts found no bar to Ms. Fugate’s custody petition, the Supreme Court of Ohio held that “a parent who has lost permanent custody of a child does not have standing as a nonparent to file a petition for custody for that child.”2 The judges, in issuing the opinion, empathized with Selina and made it clear that the decision was based solely on the current understanding of the law, stating: “[W]e recognize that Selina’s situation is not ideal . . . . In denying standing to [her mother] . . . we are following the statute as written
Are There Too Many Due Process Cases? An Examination of Jurisdictions With Relatively High Rates of Special Education Hearings
No full textCongress enacted, and President Ford signed, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA) in 1975 to ensure that children with disabilities had access to a free appropriate public education. As the Supreme Court emphasized in Smith v. Robinson:[T]he Act establishes an enforceable substantive right to a free appropriate public education. See Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School Dist. v.Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, (1982). See also 121 Cong. Rec.37417 (1975) (statement of Sen. Schweiker: It can no longer be the policy of the Government to merely establish an unenforceable goal requiring all children to be in school. [The bill] takes positive necessary steps to insure that the rights of children and their families are protected ). Finally, the Act establishes an elaborate procedural mechanism to protect the rights of handicapped children. The procedures not only ensure that hearings conducted by the State are fair and adequate. They also effect Congress\u27 intent that each child\u27s individual educational need be worked out through a process that begins on the local level and includes ongoing parental involvement, detailed procedural safeguards, and a right to judicial review. §§1412(4), 1414(a)(5), 1415. See also S. Rep. No. 94-168, at 11-12 (emphasizing the role of parental involvement in assuring that appropriate services are provided to a handicapped child); id., at 22; Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School Dist. v.Rowley, 458 U.S., at 208-209.
Next Generation TANF: Reconceptualizing Public Assistance As A Vehicle For Financial Inclusion
No full textFifty years into the War on Poverty, the ability to fully participate in American economic life is predicated on access to basic financial services and mechanisms; yet, public programs designed to support the economic advancement of people in poverty often explicitly excludeinte nded beneficiaries from meaningful engagement with financial institutions. To promote economic opportunity for families accessing public assistance, we need policy reforms that both remove access barriers and create entry points to the financial mainstream. Safe and affordable financial products are foundational to financial inclusion. Unbanked and underbanked households-the vast majority of which are low-income---often rely on high-cost credit, predatory loans, check cashing establishments, and other products or processes that drain limited resources; this phenomenon is part of a larger set of financial disadvantages often collectively referred to as the high costs of poverty. \u2
Developments in Family Law in the District of Columbia: Three Significant Legislative Changes for Child Support
No full textOver the last decade, the District\u27s child support law has changed in three significant ways: (1) by the enactment of a statute that requires sentencing judges to notify obligors of their right to modify or suspend their child support order during incarceration; (2) by the passage of a law that requires the District of Columbia government to distribute up to the first $150 of child support collected each month to custodial parents who receive Temporary Assistance for Needy Families(TANF); and (3) by substantial revisions to how child support orders are calculated under the District\u27s Child Support Guideline (the Guideline).1 These developments resulted from collaboration between the bar, the bench, and community advocates. The first two statutes stem from legal services providers and child support advocates working in partnership to lobby for legislation that ensures that noncustodial parents do not accrue child support arrears when they are unable to pay and custodial parents receive the maximum amount of child support paid for their children. The revision of the Child Support Guideline resulted from the work of the District of Columbia Guideline Commission-a committee comprised of family law practitioners, judges, and community advocates convened to solicit and review economic data and feedback from the courts and practitioners-with the goal of determining the efficacy of the existing Guideline and recommending possible changes. All three changes have improved the District\u27s child support system, particularly as it affects low-income families, and have brought the District of Columbia towards the forefront of progressive state policies
Academic Freedom at American Universities: Constitutional Rights, Professional Norms and Contractual Duties
No full textThis book details the legal and historical development of institutional and professorial academic freedoms to better understand the relationship between these concepts. While some judges and scholars have focused on the divergence of these protections, this book articulates an aligned theory that brings both the professorial and institutional theories together. It argues that while constitutionally based academic freedom does its job in protecting both public and private universities from excessive state interference, or at the very least it asks the right questions, it is inadequate because it fails to protect many individual professors in the same way. This solution entails using contract law to fill in the gaps that constitutional law leaves open in regard to protecting individual professors. Contract law is an effective alternative to constitutional law for three reasons. First, unlike constitutional law, it covers professors at both public and private universities. Second, it allows for the consideration of the custom and usage of the academic community as either express or implied contract terms in resolving disputes between universities and professors. Third, contract law enables courts to structure remedies that take into account the specific campus contexts that give rise to various disputes instead of crafting broad remedies that may ill fit certain campus environments. The proposed reconceptualization of academic freedom merges constitutional protection for institutions and contractual protection for individual professors. This combined approach would provide a more comprehensive framework than is currently available under the predominantly constitutional paradigm of academic freedom.https://digitalcommons.law.udc.edu/fac_books/1002/thumbnail.jp
