46622 research outputs found
Sort by
Visions for the International Decade of Indigenous Languages 2022-2032
Get PDFThe United Nations General Assembly recently proclaimed the International Decade of Indigenous Languages ( IDIL ) from 2022-2032 to to draw attention to the critical loss of indigenous languages and the urgent need to preserve, revitalize and promote indigenous languages and to take urgent steps at the national and international levels. The Decade is an opportunity to expose and address the severe loss of Indigenous Peoples\u27 languages locally, regionally, and globally. It is a chance for the entire world community to gather together and commit to bringing Indigenous languages back from the brink of dormancy or extinction
Imperfect Digital Certificates of Provenance: A Categorical Risk Based Approach to Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTS)
Get PDFReversing Privacy Risks: Strict Limitations on the Use of Communications Metadata and Telemetry Information
Get PDFMoney Creation and Bank Clearing
Get PDFLike many other countries, the U.S. money supply consists primarily of deposits created by private commercial banks. How we understand bank money creation matters enormously. We are currently witnessing a debate between two competing understandings. On the one hand, a long-standing conventional view argues that bank money creation originates in individual market transactions. Based on this understanding, the conventional view narrowly limits the scope of banking regulation to market failure correction. On the other hand, authors in a new legal literature emphasize the public aspects of bank money creation, characterizing it as a “public franchise,” a “public-private partnership,” and part of the “social contract.” This new legal literature has a broader vision of banking regulation, and has raised ambitious proposals in areas including financial stability, civil rights, climate action, and financial technology.
This Article bridges a gap in the new literature that has held it back from achieving its full potential. While the new literature recognizes bank money creation as public in important ways, it has dedicated little attention to the question of how banks are able to engage in money creation in the first place, thereby leaving key aspects of the conventional account unchallenged. The Article fills this gap by focusing on the process of clearing, through which banks pay trillions of dollars in obligations they owe each other every day. To assess the conventional account, the Article presents a case study of daily clearing practice in an environment that seems as market driven as possible: the New York Clearing House Association prior to the creation of the Federal Reserve system. Building on novel primary sources, the case study demonstrates that daily clearing presented NYCHA banks with serious challenges. Addressing these challenges required governance both at the level of the state, and through bank cooperation on nonmarket terms. These findings expand our understanding of how bank money creation occurs and how it should be regulated
The Visible Trial: Judicial Assessment as Adjudication
Get PDFOnly a small fraction of lawsuits ends in trial—a phenomenon termed the “vanishing trial.” Critics of the declining trial rate see a remote, increasingly regressive judicial system. Defenders see a system that allows parties to resolve disputes independently. Analyzing criminal and civil filings in federal district court for the forty-year period from 1980 to 2019, we confirm a steady decline in the absolute and relative number of trials. We find, however, this emphasis on trial rate obscures courts’ vital role and ignores parties’ goals. Judges adjudicate disputes directly by ruling or effectively through other assessments of the parties’ cases. Even as their absolute and relative numbers decrease, trials remain the most visible event in trial courts. The visible trial serves effectively as a guide star. Our findings warrant a fundamental reconceptualization of litigation as primarily about educating parties rather than about trying cases. The assessment theory proposed here views adjudication as a continuous, information-disclosing process that is guided by but not destined for trial. Our evaluation and expectations of the modern justice system should be focused on the effectiveness of judges as teachers
The Second Amendment\u27s People Problem
Get PDFThe Second Amendment has a “people” problem. In 2008, District of Columbia v. Heller expanded the scope of the Second Amendment, grounding it in an individualized right of self-protection. At the same time, Heller’s rhetoric limited “the people” of the Second Amendment to “law-abiding citizens.” In 2022, New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen doubled down on the Amendment’s self-defense rationales but, once again, framed the right as one possessed by “citizens.” In between and after the two Supreme Court cases, several lower federal courts, including eight federal courts of appeals, wrestled with the question whether the right to keep and bear arms is a citizen-only right. Although those courts proffered varying perspectives on the meaning of “the people,” they uniformly rejected challenges to the federal criminal ban on possession by unlawfully present persons and nonimmigrants.
In addition to the federal criminal ban, the immigration code allows for deportation of all noncitizens, including permanent residents, for firearms-related violations. In combination, the Supreme Court’s rhetoric, lower federal courts’ decisions, and federal criminal and immigration statutes excise noncitizens from “the people” of the Second Amendment.
This Article is the first to examine the relationship between “the people,” immigration status, and the right to keep and bear arms in the wake of both Heller and Bruen. My analysis argues that courts undertheorize the systemic effects of constricting “the people” to citizens or, more recently, countenance historical inquiries that yield incoherent results. Intratextual comparison of “the people” of the Second Amendment with “the people” of the First and Fourth Amendments fares no better. That appraisal also commands broader inclusiveness for the Second Amendment’s rightsholders than current jurisprudence permits. This Article concludes that a more coherent theory of Second Amendment rightsholders would necessarily include most noncitizens, at least when the right is grounded in self-defense from interpersonal violence. This conclusion casts doubt on current federal law that categorically criminalizes possession by certain groups of noncitizens, as well as deportation rules that banish all noncitizens for firearms violations. More capacious interpretations of the Second Amendment’s “the people,” in turn, help ensure noncitizens’ inclusion under other core constitutional protections
