13203 research outputs found
Sort by
Bicentennial Alumni Research Project
Get PDFIn summer 2020, eighteen incoming law students (0Ls) were chosen as IU Maurer School of Law Bicentennial Research Scholars to work with Dean Austen Parrish and Libby Steinbach (Executive Assistant in the Dean\u27s Office) over a two-month period in June and July 2020. The scholars were asked to interview a range of alumni who volunteered to be interviewed and who have played an important role in the life of law school. Scholars were tasked with writing an alumni profile for each alumnus interviewed. This report is the result of those efforts and a compilation of the alumni profiles.https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/histdocs/1022/thumbnail.jp
Program Review: Empowering Foreign LLM Students to Learn and Thrive
Get PDFA review of the program, “Empowering Foreign LLM Students to Learn and Thrive,” presented by Jennifer Allison, in the RIPS-SIS Instructional Design for Law Librarians Workshop, July 28-30, 2020
Upskirting, BitCoin, and Crime, Oh My: Judicial Resistance to Applying Old Laws to New Crimes – What is a Legislature to Do?
Get PDFAs technology continues to advance at a break-neck speed, legislatures often find themselves scrambling to write laws to keep up with these advances. Prosecutors are frequently faced with the prospect of charging a defendant with a crime based on an existing law that does not quite fit the circumstances of the defendant’s actions. Judges, cognizant of the fact that legislatures, and not the judiciary, have the primary responsibility for creating crimes, have pushed back. Judges routinely refuse to convict a defendant if the statute does not fairly criminalize the defendant’s actions. To determine if a defendant’s actions fit within a criminal statute, judges look to the plain meaning of the statute, often relying on dictionaries and other interpretive tools, because legislative histories are scant at the state level, in an attempt to discern if the law covers the defendant’s actions. If the plain meaning will not encompass the “new” crime, judges often send a message to the legislature: by refusing to convict, that message is that it is time to draft a new law. This Article through an analysis of some recent cases, reviews the current state of affairs, looking at how the judiciary attempts to address “new” crimes when defendants are charged under “old” laws. It is hoped that this Article will encourage legislatures to act to curb “new tech” criminal behavior without relying on the courts to try and fit new crimes into old laws
Reevaluating Politicized Identity & Notions of an American Political Community in the Legal & Political Process
Get PDFConstitutionally Unaccountable: Privatized Immigration Detention
Get PDFFor-profit, civil immigration detention is one of this nation’s fastest growing industries. About two-thirds of the more than 50,000 people in the civil custody of federal immigration authorities find themselves at one point or another in a private, corporate-run prison that contracts with the federal government. Conditions of confinement in many of these facilities are dismal. Detainees have suffered from untreated medical conditions and endured months, in some cases years, of detention in environments that are unsafe and, at times, violent. Some have died. Yet, the spaces are largely unregulated. This Article exposes and examines the absence of a constitutional tort remedy for the people behind the walls of for-profit immigration prisons. Two Supreme Court decisions are relevant: Correctional Services Corporation v. Malesko and Minneci v. Pollard. These cases focus on the availability of constitutional tort remedies against private prison operators and their employees for people incarcerated pursuant to the government’s criminal law authority, not civil immigrationenforcement authority. Yet, on the federal level, the growth of for-profit civil detention is far outpacing that of for-profit criminal incarceration. And the conditions in today’s immigration detention facilities—and the experience of the people in custody—are inherently carceral; there is no meaningful difference between criminal incarceration and civil immigration confinement. This Article asserts that the same values that underpin constitutional jurisprudence regulating criminal incarceration—namely, the constitutional principle of dignity and the inherently governmental function of incarceration, as well as values of transparency and accountability—must allow for a constitutional tort remedy for people whose rights are violated in for-profit immigration prisons. Otherwise, for many thousands of people—the majority of whom are people of color—the Constitution and federal courts are out of reach, leaving some of the most egregious rights violations inflicted on the federal government’s watch unremedied
Reproductive Contracts: An Analysis of Reproductive Treatments, a Critique of Forms of Informed Consent, and Prevention of Circumvention of Medical Tourism
Get PDFThe goal of the dissertation is to analyze reproductive medicine, criticize informed consent forms for receiving reproductive treatments, and imply prevention of circumvention of medical tourism. Most of all, the dissertation considers a theoretical approach regarding how we understand reproductive treatments. The dissertation divides reproductive treatments into sustainable and disruptive ones. Reproductive treatments referred to as sustainable ones have legally become pervasive after regulatory evaluations concerning safety, ethical, and legal concerns. However, a few reproductive treatments that are referred to as disruptive ones still have led to disputes regarding whether infertility couples can require and receive them for treatment. The dissertation focuses on safety, ethical, and legal issues caused by the application of reproductive treatments in the United Kingdom, the United States, and South Korea.
Moreover, the dissertation raises questions regarding whether informed consent forms contribute to protecting infertility couples receiving reproductive treatments and preventing circumvention of medical tourism. Across countries in the world, the dissertation demonstrates the informed consent forms established by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority of the United Kingdom. The dissertation criticizes problems of the informed consent forms with a comparative analysis of these forms between the United Kingdom and South Korea. It implies how informed consent forms can be improved effectively
Access to Justice and Legal Clinics: Developing a Reflective Lawyering Space Some Insights from the Italian Experience
Get PDFThis paper first provides a brief description of the genesis of legal clinics in Italy, and highlights the motivations and expectations lying behind the emergence of the legal clinic movement in this context. Second, the paper gives a brief description of the institutional context of legal aid in Italy, and assesses its effectiveness in terms of granting legal assistance to those unable to afford a lawyer. The third and fourth parts then offer an account of court enforcement mechanisms that aim to ensure effective access to justice. Part three gives this account through the lens of court enforcement of the Workers\u27 Statute, and part four gives this account through the lens of court enforcement of antidiscrimination law provisions concerning race, ethnic origin and nationality.
This paper then explores these experiences described in the first few sections, going beyond their success or failure in enforcing rights in court, to then enlarge the field of inquiry to the relation between legal strategies and political mobilization. Part five discusses the danger that institutions and strategies, designed to strengthen access to justice, might disempower rather than empower individuals and communities that they aim to serve, and that these individual and collective needs may be forced/fit into pre-established frameworks and strategies. Part six provides a context-sensitive assessment of the type of contribution legal clinics can provide in addressing the limits of the national system of access to justice, and in moving forward a critical reflection on public interest law practices in the Italian and, more broadly, in the European context.
We conclude that the coexistence of educational and social justice aims provide clinics with a number of comparative advantages over other actors of public interest law. Clinics embody a unique forum to better understand the nature of legal knowledge and legal practice, and to reflect critically on how the right to access to justice is actually enforced. Clinicians are not only a community of practice, but also a worldwide epistemic community. Legal clinics are, therefore, a space to both practice public interest law, and to rethink such practices, and to influence public policies on access to justice. Providing a reflective space on existing practices and promoting alternative practices of public interest law might thus, we argue, represent the major contribution of legal clinics in making access to justice more effective
Public Law, Precarity, and Access to Justice
Get PDFIn the first part, I examine Thomas Hobbes\u27 theory of commonwealth to see how it situates subjects in relation to justice. Hobbes famously founds his commonwealth on the equal subjection of all to the Leviathan, which is the equal subjection of all to law. We need to understand why he nevertheless needs to accommodate the diversity of society-the basic fact that some are weak while others are not-into the operation of the public law machine. As we shall see, the accommodation of social diversity is tied to a proto-liberal distinction between social spheres that relegates much of human life to a sphere beyond the reach of law where domination is unchecked. What this suggests is that, by bridging the divide between theory and reality, between the ideal of equality and the reality of domination, the domination of the weak by the strong is a condition of equality for all.
The second part deals with John Locke\u27s theory of government. Most scholarship focuses on the differences between Hobbes and Locke. I shall read them as complementary moments in the elaboration of public law theory. As I hope to show, Locke\u27s theory of government works through different strategies for how to calibrate Hobbes\u27 public law machine of equal subjection so as to give it more purchase in a social reality where inequality is the norm. Consequently, we shall not focus on Locke\u27s critique of sovereignty, but on the way Locke tweaks the operation of the machine from within, without changing its basic setup. I show how he embeds the political relation between sovereign and subject within non-political relations: those obtaining within the family and property relations. In and through this dual operation, Locke overlays the skeletal order of subjection that Hobbes laid down by a mesh of effective and material relations that facilitate interaction between government and subjects. If the introduction of property entrenches-and renders more determinate-the social exclusion of some, paternalism provides a conduit for reaching out to those so exposed in order to tie them closer to the society of which they are full members only in law.
In the third and final part, I consider how we should think about the relationship between the political struggles that have been the traditional object of political theory and the absolute deprivation millions outside the western world suffer. I briefly contrast the approach I am taking with recent developments in global justice theory, and I argue that studying the operation of public law might give us new insights into how liberal order generates precarity
Do Founders Control Start-up Firms that Go Public?
Get PDFBlack & Gilson (1998) argue that an IPO-welcoming stock market stimulates venture deals by enabling VCs to give founders a valuable call option on control. We study 18,000 startups to investigate the value of this option. Among firms that reach IPO, 60% of founders are no longer CEO. With little voting power, only half of the others survive three years as CEO. At initial VC financing, the probability of getting real control of a public firm for three years is 0.4%. Our results shed light on control evolution in startups, and cast doubt on the plausibility of the call-option theory linking stock and VC markets
Gerrymandering & Justiciability: The Political Question Doctrine After Rucho v. Common Cause
Get PDFThis Article deconstructs Rucho’s articulation and application of the political question doctrine and makes two contributions. First, the Article disentangles the political question doctrine from neighboring justiciability doctrines. The result is a set of substantive principles that should guide federal courts as they exercise a range of routine judicial functions—remedial, adjudicative, and interpretive. Rather than unrealistically attempting to draw crisp jurisdictional boundaries between exercises of “political” and “judicial” power, the political question doctrine should seek to moderate their inevitable (and frequent) clash. Standing doctrine should continue to guide courts in determining whether they have authority over a case involving a political question. But the political question doctrine should guide courts in determining how to navigate areas of overlapping constitutional authority covered by the question.
Second, the Article challenges the assumption that manageability can and should provide a standalone test of jurisdiction. Rucho’s “manageability exception” to Article III actively undermines the separation of powers principles it purports to protect. Treating manageability as an independent test of jurisdiction invites federal courts to opine about abstract questions not presented by the case or controversy before them and to abdicate their duty to decide cases properly before them without any constitutional command to the contrary. Rucho offers a profound illustration. Chief Justice Roberts asserts that partisan-gerrymandering claims are not “resolvable according to legal principles,” but his opinion fails to set out any legal standard rooted in the Constitution for deciding when a claim is or is not “manageable.” The result is a decision as hollow as it is hypocritical.
This Article proposes a new approach to the political question doctrine, explains where the Court went wrong in Rucho, and explores what it could mean for the future of partisan-gerrymandering claims and justiciability doctrine alike