8700 research outputs found
Sort by
Fear, Loathing, and the Hemispheric Consequences of Xenophobic Hate
Get PDF“When you have fifteen thousand people marching up . . . how do you stop these people?” “You shoot them” [crowd member shouts] [chuckling, Trump responds:] “[O]nly in the Panhandle can you get away with that thing.”1 President Donald Trump
“Thousands of criminal aliens. They’re pouring into our country.”2 President Donald Trump
“They’re not people, these are animals.”3 President Donald Trump
“Take a look at the death and destruction that’s been caused by people coming into this country caused by people that shouldn’t be here.”4 President Donald Trump
“ [We] have millions and millions of people pouring into our country.”5 President Donald Trump
“We cannot allow our [c]ountry to be overrun by illegal immigrants.”6 President Donald Trump
“We will be overrun with crime and with people that should not be in our country.”7 President Donald Trum
A System for Resilience Learning: Developing a Community-Driven, Multi-Sector Research Approach for Greater Preparedness and Resilience to Long-Term Climate Stressors and Extreme Events in the Miami Metropolitan Region
Get PDFThere is a growing need for integrated approaches that align community priorities with strategies that build resilience to climate hazards, societal shocks, and economic crises to ensure more equitable and sustainable outcomes. We anticipate that adaptive management and resilience learning are central elements for these approaches. In this paper, we describe an approach to build and test a Resilience Learning System to support research and implementation of a resilience strategy developed for the Greater Miami and the Beaches or the Resilient305 Strategy. Elements foundational to the design of this integrated research strategy and replicable Resilience Learning System are: (1) strong partnerships among community members, government and non-government organization leaders, and researchers from multiple academic institutions; (2) contributions of subject matter expertise and local knowledge to identify information and translational gaps, formulate metrics and evaluate outcomes of Resilient305 Strategy actions from the community perspective; and (3) a comprehensive understanding of civic engagement activities, technological tools, and resilience-building capacities, including policy and financial innovations, from which to advance socio-technological, smart and connected regional-to-hyperlocal community translation through co-design/co-production. Initial results on co-produced metrics are provided. This work produces a new, replicable framework for resilience research that includes a comprehensive set of metrics, translation to communities through structured dialogues, a collaborative process involving all stakeholders and researchers, and evaluation of resilience actions to inform new investments and improve understanding and effectiveness over time
The Power of Two Words to Split Circuits
Get PDF28 U.S.C. § 1782 authorizes federal judges to grant assistance to a “foreign or international tribunal” for discovery proceedings. The meaning of the term “foreign or international tribunal” has been the subject of much dispute. In 2019 the Sixth Circuit became the first court of appeals to extend the purview of the statute to private commercial arbitration, creating a circuit split. However, the use of 28 U.S.C. § 1782 in arbitral proceedings raises a number of questions about whether U.S. style discovery would impede the efficiency of arbitration and whether the practice could be extended to international tribunals located within the United States. This Note explores the contours of the statute and the implications of the Sixth Circuit’s decision
Does It Really Matter?: Making the Case for a Materiality Requirement in False Claims to U.S. Citizenship Under the Immigration and Nationality Act
Get PDFMateriality plays an important role in limiting the reach of laws that penalize misrepresentations. Laws that include no materiality element punish any covered misrepresentation regardless of its relevance—like lying about hair color on a loan application. By contrast, laws that include a materiality element withhold punishment for immaterial misrepresentations of that kind—in other words, misrepresentations that have no tendency to affect the ultimate decision.Our immigration laws make it a deportable offense for a noncitizen to “falsely represent” herself as a U.S. citizen for a purpose or benefit under the law. Although this law has been on the books for decades, a key question about its reach remains open: Does it include a materiality element? The Board of Immigration Appeals and three federal circuit courts have said “yes,” holding that misrepresentations of U.S. citizenship must be material to trigger deportability. But in a recent panel decision adopted by the en banc court, the Eleventh Circuit said “no,” holding that the unambiguous statutory text includes no materiality element.This Article examines the history of these immigration statutes and demonstrates why the Eleventh Circuit’s holding was wrong, although mainly for a reason no court has yet addressed: the common-law origins of the relevant statutory text. Under well-established principles of statutory construction, Congress is presumed to legislate with the understanding that common-law phrases carry their common-law meaning. At common law, the phrase “false representation” carried with it an implicit materiality element. Therefore, the immigration statutes at issue presumptively incorporate materiality because they penalize “false representations” of U.S. citizenship. This presumption is confirmed by other contextual clues. And, as this Article explains, ensuring fidelity to the statutes’ implicit materiality element is especially important given the statutes’ breadth and the draconian consequences that follow from the Eleventh Circuit’s contrary holding
The End “Goal” to the U.S. Women’s Soccer Team Equal Pay Lawsuit: Proposing a Resolution for Gender Equality by Examining the Equal Pay Laws for Male and Female Sports
Get PDFIn March 2019, on International Women’s Day, 28 women on the U.S. Women’s Soccer Team filed a lawsuit against The U.S. Soccer Federation claiming gender discrimination, specifically in unequal payment between the men’s team and the women’s team. Players based the lawsuit on two grounds: (1) that U.S. Soccer violated the Equal Pay Act by paying the WNT less than the MNT; and (2) that the federation discriminated against the WNT under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act in regard to workplace conditions. The Federation claims that the men and women are paid equally and the discrepancy in pay lies in the way the payment is broken down for each respective team, since the WNT did not agree to a collective bargaining agreement as the MNT did. Additionally, the Federation points to the language of the Equal Pay Act to show that the men and women are distinctive in accordance with the language in the statute.
On May 1, federal Judge Klausner in California rejected the players claims that the WNT was paid less than the MNT. In his decision, he stated that other unequal working conditions such as travel conditions and medical support were issues that could be presented at trial. Ultimately Judge Klausner concluded that the WNT did not prove wage discrimination under the Equal Pay Act because the women’s team played more games and received more money than the men. Though, the fight has not stopped there. The WNT players have appealed the decision for which the trial has been asked to be pushed back to January 2021 due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
This article will examine whether the WNT can prevail with an equal pay claim under the current lawsuit and propose solutions to deter future pay disparity claims. Part I will discuss the WNT equal pay lawsuit in its entirety. Part II will analyze the WNT’s chance of prevailing under the claims brought. Part III will study both effective and ineffective pay structures in other sports. Part IV will analyze pay structure for both men and women and propose an equal business structure to ensure that there is no discrimination based on gender, specifically in United States professional soccer
The Virtual Law School, 2.0
Get PDFJust over twenty years ago I gave a talk to the AALS called The Virtual Law School? Or, How the Internet Will De-skill the Professoriate, and Turn Your Law School Into a Conference Center. I came to the subject because I had been working on internet law, learning about virtual worlds and e-commerce, and about the power of one-to-many communications, and it struck me that a lot of what I had learned applied to education in general and to legal education in particular. It didn\u27t happen. Or at least, it has not happened yet. In this essay I want to revisit my predictions from twenty years ago in order to see why so little has changed (so far). The massive convulsion forced on law teaching because of the social distancing required to prevent COVID-I9 transmission provided an occasion for us all to rethink how we deliver law teaching. After discussing why my predictions failed to manifest before 2020, I will argue that unless the pandemic can be controlled, the market for legal education may force some radical changes on us-whether we like them or not-and that in the main my earlier predictions were not wrong, just premature
The Continued Relevance of the Contributions of the Sierra Leone Tribunal to International Criminal Law
Get PDF
The Breakdown of the Public-Private Divide in Securities Law: Causes, Consequences, and Reforms
No full textAs a regulatory scheme, U.S. securities law has traditionally been designed around a set of lines-the \u27public-private divide -which separate public companies, public capital, and public markets, from private companies, private capital, and private markets. Until the early 2000s, the lines were successful in establishing two largely coherent legal realms-a highly regulated public realm and a lightly regulated private realm. A series of bold and often-inconsistent reforms between 2002 and 2020, however, have transformed this longstanding regime into a low-friction system wherein public capital flows to both public and private companies, private capital is ever more abundant, and firms can effectively eschew public company status, which is both more costly and much less essential to firm success than ever before. This Article contends that, taken together, these developments have led to the breakdown of the public-private divide: in effect, the boundaries between the regulated and unregulated realms have been removed and the public-private distinction has lost its descriptive and explanatory power as an organizing principle of securities law. The Article contributes to the literature by (1) putting forward a novel and comprehensive analytical account of the breakdown of the public-private divide (up through the completion of the deregulatory cycle), (2) identifying the consequences of these developments with respect to specific firm constituencies and on a systemic level, and (3) investigating possible reforms and their expected effectiveness in returning securities law to a state of conceptual coherence. The scale of the problems suggests that the necessary reforms are likely to be foundational. Given past experience with hasty and crisis-driven legislation enacted by Congress, the Article urges the SEC to commence a broad deliberative process involving multiple stakeholders to rethink the appropriate structure of securities law. The outputs from this process will be particularly valuable whenever the next window of opportunity for change arises