2208 research outputs found
Sort by
Removing the Blindfold and Tipping the Scales: The Unintended Lesson of Ashcroft v. Iqbal is that Frivolous Lawsuits may be Important to Our Nation
Get PDFThis Article questions whether the gain of curbing perceived frivolous litigation is worth the cost of undermining the core civic value of neutrality of justice. In Ashcroft v. Iqbal, the Supreme Court weighed in on the public debate about frivolous litigation. The lqbal opinion is essentially a memorandum by the Supreme Court written to the trial judges of America, encouraging these judges to aggressively, indeed very aggressively, identify and dismiss potentially frivolous civil complaints. That leeway-wrapped mandate comes at a cost. A cornerstone of our civic philosophy is that the judicial branch, as a general proposition, is a neutral and impartial arbiter of disputes, without regard to the identity or relative power of the litigants. It is this very concept that underlies the image of Lady Justice wearing a blindfold and holding a balanced scale. Experience tells us that Iqbal dismissals will not be content neutral. There is strong reason to believe that awareness of this lack of neutrality will percolate broadly into the public consciousness, and thus change the public belief in blind justice
The Complicated Relationship: A Snapshot of the U.S.-Mexico Border
Get PDFThis report will detail some of the major issues concerning the U.S.-Mexico border and the interconnected nature of the problems. It first examines the violence between narcotraficantes, that which has resulted in the crackdown against them by the Mexican Government through mobilization of the military. The resulting violence and kidnappings have brought about minimal confidence in civilian authorities, the administration of justice, and democratic governance. This report discusses the resulting public insecurity that has afflicted Mexico in the last few years. This report explores the economic contours along the U.S. border, and the reactions of the U.S. Government to what is happening in the north part, and at times, the entire country to the south. It then examines the clampdown on illegal immigration, and the border security-homeland defense industries.4 Lastly, this report then explores how, despite all the nastiness, the U.S.-Mexico border remains a place of hope and courage
Drug Testing Students in California – Does it Violate the State Constitution?
Get PDFThe Department of Education has granted federal funds to California school districts for the purpose of initiating and maintaining drug-testing programs for students and volunteers involved in athletics and extracurricular activities, yet no California court has fully examined these programs to determine their validity under the California Constitution. Before any additional California schools adopt drug-testing programs, the legality of these programs should be examined under the California Constitution. This Article seeks to accomplish that task. Part II summarizes the United States Supreme Court decisions on student drug testing. Part III examines state law on student drug testing. Part IV focuses on student drug testing in California. It addresses the state\u27s history of, and current status with respect to, student drug testing. It then examines provisions of the California Constitution that apply to the subject: article I, section 1, the right to privacy; and article 1, section 13, the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The Article discusses California judicial decisions on these provisions and then analyzes whether the drug testing of students engaged in athletics and extracurricular activities is constitutional. Part V offers a conclusion on the constitutionality of student drug testing under the California Constitution
Litigating the Arab-Israeli Conflict in U.S. Courts: Critiquing the Lawfare Critique
Get PDFThe lawfare critique offers a provocative challenge to the use of law and legal process in the context of the Arab-Israeli conflict. It has been used to question the legitimacy of numerous lawsuits filed by individuals harmed in the conflict. The lawfare critique is misguided, however, because it fails to recognize that the purpose of any legal system is to offer a viable alternative to the use of force. In addition, the lawfare critique runs counter to the right to a remedy, a firmly established principle of international law. Legal fora should remain accessible to victims, who should have the right to seek redress for their injuries. The rule of law offers a powerful mechanism for ending violence. We should be wary of any efforts to limit its use