43674 research outputs found
Sort by
Political Partisanship and Sincere Religious Conviction
Get PDFIn order for a religious conviction to receive protection under the First Amendment or the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), it must be a sincere religious conviction. Some critics of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby have suggested that the plaintiffs in that case and in related cases were motivated more by political ideology than by sincere religious conviction. The remedy, they argue, is for courts to be quicker to scrutinize claims of religious sincerity. In this Article, I consider another possibility—namely, that current sociopolitical partisanship in the United States has eroded a clear distinction between political ideology and religious conviction for plaintiffs in cases like Hobby Lobby. If this theory is correct, it is far less obvious what the proper remedy is. I consider and reject the view that newly formed religious convictions with political origins should be treated as less than sincere on those grounds. However, I do argue that whether a religious conviction seems to have been newly generated by political circumstances should be taken into account when deciding religious free exercise cases. I suggest that this could best be accounted for if the courts adopted a balanced interests approach instead of the winner-takes-all “checklist” approaches that have developed under Employment Division v. Smith and RFRA
Dissent and the Rule of Law
Get PDFBoth the right to dissent and the “rule of law” are celebrated and frequently invoked values. Yet widespread popular dissent, such as that seen in the recent Black Lives Matter protests sparked by the police killing of George Floyd and others and a strong backlash against protestors by some political leaders, has deeply challenged the compatibility of those values. This tension raises deep theoretical questions about the essential concept of the rule of law, questions that have not yet been addressed by legal theorists. Consensus is greatest with respect to some of the formal characteristics of the rule of law, and formal definitions of the rule of law focus on formal properties of governance by law, primarily properties associated with the legality principle. Yet many reject the formal definition as overly neutered, contending instead that if it is to mean anything, the concept of the rule of law must not merely restate formal principles of legality, but instead must also include some substantive content, such as a minimum respect for private property or basic human rights. While both sides of this debate make important points, I contend in this Essay that there is a critical middle ground between the two positions. While the concept of the rule of law may not necessarily incorporate the entire spectrum of civil and political rights, the very logic of the rule of law demands respect for and adherence to a core set of substantive values beyond the merely formalistic properties of legality identified by legal philosophers like Joseph Raz. At the same time, the concept of the rule of law is not, as the formalists correctly argue, infinitely pliable. It cannot be made to stand for all things thought desirable by critics and interlocutors in political debate. But the parameters of the rule of law concept need not be arbitrarily drawn. Rather, they are inherent in the concept itself. What we discover when we examine what lies at the intersection of the formalist and substantivist approaches is a core set of overlapping rule of law project. This key substantive component is toleration of and respect for the practice of dissent
Public Lands in Public Hands: Analysis of the Underpinnings of Utah’s Public Trust Doctrine
Get PDFUtah Lake, the largest freshwater lake in the third driest state, is a vital, yet underappreciated natural resource. In 2018, the Utah State Legislature passed the Utah Lake Restoration Act in an attempt to restore and enhance the lake’s ecological and recreational value. Yet the new law has been met with strong public resistance because it leaves the lake vulnerable to exploitation and further ecological degradation, a concern made real by a proposed development plan that would build a city of islands on top of the lake. Community members cite specific concerns about threats to native species, disruption of water rights, and burdens on local taxpayers. But such a plan also presents potential legal issues as the scheme likely violates the public trust doctrine. A legal doctrine with historic roots, the public trust doctrine asserts that the public has a right to the beneficial use of lands underlying navigable waters. The state, as trustee, has an inalienable responsibility to preserve this public benefit. Utah’s Constitution, statutes, and common law all support continued adherence to the public trust doctrine, suggesting that the state legislature has written an illegal law. Amending the Utah Lake Restoration Act to comply with the public trust doctrine, or repealing it altogether, will provide notice to would-be developers to construct their plans accordingly and safeguard against potential lawsuits against the state
Software\u27s Legal Future
No full textThe software industry’s history is also its future. Its history has been defined by both abundance and scarcity, and its future will be, too. In the 1970s and 80s, perceived software scarcity led U.S. legislators to formally grant intellectual property protections to software creators. Later, a different kind of scarcity—a lack of access to source code—led the founders of the free and open source software movement to flip intellectual property protections on their head in an effort to better promote abundance. That movement proved wildly successful, with today’s software industry based on vast amounts of freely available open source software resources that both organizations and individuals collaboratively build.Abundance and scarcity will also define software’s future, but in different ways. The abundance that the open source software movement spawned is in the midst of a significant commercial phase. That sometimes means that commercial competitors bring to the table a scarcity mindset that conflicts with the norms that made that movement so successful. Intellectual property concerns at times derail what may otherwise be even greater software abundance. And because so much software is moving into the Cloud, trade secrecy may become the software industry’s most important form of intellectual property to the extent the industry abandons open models of innovation.The software industry’s growing dependence on artificial intelligence (AI) is likely to contribute to these trends. The software industry is increasingly becoming synonymous with the AI industry, as more and more software companies either rely on AI in running their services or provide AI products to the public. As with all software, these AI technologies are increasingly provided from the Cloud, where trade secrecy is not only possible, but often preferable. But trade secrecy may be even more likely in the AI context because much of the magic in implementing AI systems lies in the know-how to piece them together from available open source software resources, decades-old AI techniques, and data. Hence, to the extent that software and AI technologists spurn open innovation in favor of a scarcity mindset, trade secrecy is likely to become its dominant form of legal protection. The advent of web3 technologies may eventually change some of these trends. But for now, increasing secrecy seems the most likely outcome. I conclude by arguing that this shift to secrecy is likely preferable to other forms of intellectual property
Abolishing the Evidence-Based Paradigm
Get PDFThe belief that policies and procedures should be data-driven and “evidence-based” has become criminal law’s leading paradigm for reform. This evidence-based paradigm, which promotes quantitative data collection and empirical analysis to shape and assess reforms, has been widely embraced for its potential to cure the emotional and political pathologies that led to mass incarceration. It has influenced reforms across the criminal procedure spectrum, from predictive policing through actuarial sentencing. The paradigm’s appeal is clear: it promises an objective approach that lets data – not politics – lead the way and purports to have no agenda beyond identifying effective, efficient reforms.
This Article challenges the paradigm’s core claims. It shows that the evidence-based paradigm’s objectives, its methodology, and its epistemology advance conventional assumptions about what the criminal legal system should strive to achieve, whom it should target, and whose voices and interests matter. In other words, the evidence-based paradigm is political, and it does have an agenda. And that agenda, informed by neoliberalism and the enduring legacy of white supremacy in the criminal legal system, strengthens – rather than challenges – the existing system.
The Article argues that, if left unchallenged, the evidencebased paradigm will continue to reproduce the system’s disparities and dysfunctions, under the veneer of scientific objectivity. Thus, it must be abolished and replaced with a new approach that advances a true paradigm shift about the aims of criminal legal reform and the role and definition of data and empiricism in advancing that vision
On Criminalizing Violent Speech
Get PDFThere is an increasingly high number of threats to kill, made by citizens against each other, and against public officials. These threats terrorize people, force them to take protective measures, make them reluctant to assume public office, and, when they do, make them feel as though they have to act cautiously. State and federal laws currently exist that prohibit such threats. This article examines the ways the courts have affected how these laws function. It concludes by suggesting ways these laws can be rendered more effective. Drawing on liberal communitarianism, this article seeks to offer practical recommendations for how the U.S. can adequately respond to our current historical circumstance—namely, one where public officials and lay people are receiving an increasing number of violent threats