7078 research outputs found
Sort by
The War on Drugs or the War on Drug Users? Supervised Consumption Site in the United States as a Harm Reduction Strategy to Fight the Opioid Epidemic
Get PDFExploring the U.S. response to the opioid crisis, this study critically examines supervised consumption sites (SCSs) as a pragmatic approach. The historical framework of the war on drugs is scrutinized, highlighting its limitations and the necessity to shift from punitive measures towards more effective harm reduction strategies. Due to escalating opioid-related fatalities and inadequate harm reduction methods, the potential of SCSs is evaluated for short-term intervention. The Department of Justice\u27s (DOJ) role in facilitating temporary measures to enable SCS operations is assessed, underscoring the urgency for a stable legislative framework to comprehensively address the crisis.
This research advocates for embracing supervised consumption sites within a legal structure as a transformative response to the opioid crisis. By offering an alternative paradigm to the current drug policy, SCSs hold promise in reducing opioid-related deaths and reshaping the trajectory of substance abuse interventions
All Along the New Watchtower: Artificial Intelligence, Workplace Monitoring, Automation, and the National Labor Relations Act
Get PDFRecent technological advances have dramatically expanded employers’ ability to electronically monitor and manage employees within the workplace. New technologies, including tools powered by artificial intelligence, are being used in the workplace for a wide range of purposes such as measuring employee work rates, preventing theft, and monitoring drivers with GPS tracking devices. These technologies offer potential solutions for many companies that may increase efficiencies and support operations, dramatically reduce human bias, prevent discrimination and harassment, and improve worker health and safety. Despite these potential benefits, the use of these technologies may raise concerns under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the federal law that protects employees who engage in concerted activities for purposes of mutual aid or protection, if the tools interfere, impair, or negate employees’ ability to engage in protected activity.
This Article examines the interaction between new workplace technologies and the NLRA. It begins by exploring the widespread uses of these technologies for monitoring and surveilling employees. Against this backdrop, the Article then discusses how recent activity by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the federal agency that enforces the NLRA, portends significant implications for both unionized and non-unionized workplaces. More specifically, this Article criticizes a recent regulatory framework that was proposed by the NLRB’s General Counsel in 2022. Finally, this Article provides other positive suggestions to help ensure compliance with the NLRA
\u3ci\u3eOklahoma v. Castro-Huerta\u3c/i\u3e, Jurisdictional Overlap, Competitive Sovereign Erosion, and the Fundamental Freedom of Sovereign Nations
Get PDFIn addition to its stunning internal flaws, the United States Supreme Court’s opinion in Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta exemplifies Indian law’s broader flaws as a jurisprudence. Castro-Huerta holds that states have concurrent criminal jurisdiction with federal and tribal governments over crimes by non-Indians against Indians on reservation lands. Justice Gorsuch deftly addresses many of the glaring internal flaws in Kavanaugh’s majority opinion, but not all. He does not dissect the hollow assertion that reservations are part of the surrounding state both geographically and politically. This cannot go unaddressed, particularly given its weak analysis, misguided use of precedent, and broader consequences
Disregarding \u3ci\u3eBrentwood\u3c/i\u3e: State Courts Ignoring the Supreme Court\u27s Decision on State Action
Get PDFCounting to Four: The History and Future of Wisconsin\u27s Fractured Supreme Court
Get PDFOver the past decade, the Wisconsin Supreme Court has issued “fractured” opinions—decisions without majority support for any one legal rationale supporting the outcome—at an alarming clip. These opinions have confounded legal analysts, attorneys, and government officials due to their lack of majority reasoning, but also due to their length and the court’s particular procedures for assigning, drafting, and labelling opinions. This has become especially problematic where the court has issued fractured opinions in areas core to the basic functioning of state and local government, leaving the state without clear precedential guidance on what the law is. Yet, virtually no one has analyzed the deeper issues animating this predicament: how fractured opinions in Wisconsin have been handled in the past, what norms surround those choices, and why this problem has become so pronounced.
This Article details the history of fractured opinions at the Wisconsin Supreme Court, from the state’s founding to the present, with a particular focus on the past twenty years and the development of the court’s current crisis. With this history in mind, along with (i) foundational principles of state judicial practice and (ii) the shortcomings of the United States Supreme Court’s approach to fractured opinions in Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188 (1977), a series of potential reforms are proposed. In particular, this Article suggests that the Wisconsin Supreme Court clearly define and explain what this Articl
