46622 research outputs found
Sort by
Dire Straits In The Gulf: Using The Endangered Species Act To Better Protect The World\u27s Rarest Whale From Industrial Threats
Full text linkApplying The Rights Of Nature To The Rights Of Animals: Comparing The Lake Erie Bill Of Rights To Happy The Elephant
Full text linkReducing Pollution from Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations by Enforcing National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Requirements Under the Clean Water Act
Full text linkWhat\u27s the Harm in (Partisan) Gerrymandering? Collective vs. Dyadic Accounts of Representational Disparities
No full textTraditional approaches for documenting the harm of gerrymandering emphasize collective representation by legislatures, minimizing the relationship between individual voters and their respective representatives. Federal courts have struggled to map collective accounts onto cognizable constitutional harms, reflecting a discomfort evaluating a system of representation inescapably rooted in geographic districts using diagnostics that treat districts and their boundaries as an inconvenience rather than an intrinsic feature. A normative account of representation and accountability rooted in the dyadic relationship between voters and their legislators addresses the exact harms that courts have articulated yet struggled to substantiate. We derive a formal model of dyadic representation that yields a measure of disparities among different voters, including those divided by partisanship. We then compare enacted plans in four states against two million simulated counterfactuals, demonstrating how conclusions about the harms from gerrymandering maybe highly sensitive to political factors such as polarization and officeholder motivation
Artificial Intelligence and Law—An Overview of Recent Technological Changes: Keynote Address at the 2024 Ira C. Rothgerber Jr. & Silicon Flatirons Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Constitutional Law
No full text
Tribal Health Self-Determination: The Role of Tribal Health Systems in Actualizing the Highest Attainable Standard of Health for American Indians and Alaska Natives
Full text linkIn this Article, I explore the concept of Tribal self-determination in the context of systems that serve American Indian and Alaska Native communities. I investigate the vast health disparities that exist in Tribal communities, as well as the history and current legal framework for the provision of health care in Indian Country. Part of this discussion also provides information on the federal laws and policies that have fractured the traditional lifeways of Native communities and contributed to the disparate health outcomes that now exist. I also provide background on the fundamental federal laws and policies, particularly the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975, that have facilitated greater Tribal control over programs and services for Tribal communities, including health systems. Tribally managed health systems can, and are, playing a crucial role in closing this health gap.
This Article also positions the status of Native communities in the United States within the global dialogue on the right to health, as Indigenous Peoples in settler colonial states are demonstrably experiencing similar disparate outcomes. This discussion includes background on the international legal framework for the right to the highest attainable standard of health, the rights of Indigenous Peoples, and the social determinants of health, some of which are arguably unique to Indigenous communities. The Article explores these concepts for the lessons that may be garnered for the benefit of Tribal health systems. It also argues that Tribes that are successfully operating healthcare systems have their own lessons to offer the global community in providing quality care and bringing American Indian and Alaska Native communities closer to actualizing the highest attainable standard of health
