3722 research outputs found
Sort by
WOCC Women\u27s History Month Book Display 02
No full textDisplay & Poster created by Women of Color Collective in the law library March 2025.
In celebration of women’s history month, our display honors the voices of women who defied convention and sparked transformative change, paving the way for future generations of powerful women.https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/womens-history-month-2025-photos/1002/thumbnail.jp
Pro Bono Week Oct 2025 Book Display 01
No full textCollection of books on display commemorating the celebration of National Pro Bono Week in the law library October 2025.https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/pro-bono-week-2025-photos/1000/thumbnail.jp
Indigenous Women Book Display 2025 09
No full textClose up of book display created by Women of Color Collective in the law library October 2025 highlighting the book Indigenous Justice & Gender by Marianne O. Nielsen and Karen Jarratt-Snider .https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/indigenous-women-2025-photos/1006/thumbnail.jp
Addressing Perceived Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Attorney Discipline
Get PDFPerceived racial and ethnic disparities in attorney discipline threaten public confidence in the legal profession’s fairness and equity. This Article explores whether lawyers of color are subject to a disproportionate number of disciplinary actions. It draws on studies that reveal patterns of disparate outcomes tied to factors such as practice setting, representation during proceedings, and decision-maker bias. The authors assess how systemic issues may contribute to these disparities and highlights gaps in research and transparency. To address these challenges, the Article recommends a multi-faceted approach. This includes better collection and analysis of demographic data, procedural reforms to ensure equitable treatment, and the adoption of proactive measures to support attorneys most at risk of complaints. These reforms aim to enhance the consistency and impartiality of disciplinary systems while fostering trust and accountability among all stakeholders in the legal profession
Original Discontent
Get PDFThere are many theories of constitutional interpretation. Most, but not all, of them assert that, in interpreting the Constitution’s provisions, we should start by taking seriously the intentions of the enactors, meaning, roughly speaking, its drafters, defenders and ratifiers. This Article argues that, in doing so, judges, scholars and policymakers have underestimated an important feature of the process of constitution-making: the discontent of the enactors themselves with the Constitution they were enacting. Time and again, during the Philadelphia Convention of 1787, during the penning of the Federalist Papers, and during the state ratifying conventions, the enactors expressed deep reservations about the structure and substance of the draft Constitution. They worried that it would lead to anarchy and tyranny. They worried that it would enshrine injustice into the policies of the new nation. And they worried that it would foment civil conflict and violence. These were not mere quibbles, the ordinary outcome of the messy process of compromise and negotiation. Their discontent went to the very foundation of the constitution. In short, many founders believed that the Constitution they created was not, in fact, good law. This Article argues that “original discontent,” that is, the discontent of the enactors with the Constitution they were creating, is both underestimated and essential for understanding our constitution. Original discontent carries important implications for a wide range of the most common methods of constitutional interpretation. For originalists, it suggests that we should take the public statements of proponents of the constitution for what they were: more propaganda than heart-felt statement of belief. For living constitutionalists, it suggests that, even if we accept that judges should interpret the Constitution as laying down broad principles subject to evolving norms and moral beliefs, we must recognize that the founders were skeptical of those basic principles. For common good constitutionalists, it provides essential context about the original understanding of the constitution and its effects on the nature of the political community. More fundamentally, this Article argues that original discontent calls for a broader reconceptualization of the nature of constitutions. One of the basic tenets of constitutional interpretation has always been that a constitution is something like a social contract: it lets our past selves rule our future selves. But nothing about that formulation tells us which views should matter: is it the views of the most rabid proponent, or of the average citizen, or of the coalition that voted in favor? What about the views of dissenters, or the disenfranchised, or the enslaved? By uncovering the hidden history of discontent at the center of the constitution’s creation, this Article highlights the importance of incorporating a wider range of perspectives into modern constitutional interpretation. It also provides a powerful reason for judicial restraint. If the Constitution was not thought to be a wise document even by those who drafted it, judges must exercise caution before using it to strike down democratically-enacted laws
Get in the Flow: Policy Changes That Can Increase Texas\u27s Surface Water Transfers
Get PDFThe prior appropriation or “first in time” system of surface water allocation was initially adopted during the California Gold Rush and later implemented throughout the western U.S. to distribute water rights. Those same states are now experiencing massive population increases, often with over-appropriated rivers exacerbated by climate change. Although water is scarcer, it is often not put to its highest value or most efficient use because prior appropriation protects inefficient and wasteful uses.
Because water rights are property rights, one way to move water to new users is through water market transfers; unfortunately, prior appropriation rules create high transaction costs, which inhibit markets. Although senior users are protected in times of shortage, when a water right is being transferred, the transferor must demonstrate that the change will not injure existing users or the public interest. Vesting veto rights in third parties leads to an underutilization of the resource. Use it or lose it provisions also create unintended consequences by encouraging inefficient applications.
Policy changes could accelerate markets while maintaining state priorities related to type of use, water efficiency, and managing shortage. Although many economists have advocated for market solutions, their arguments often do not respect property law. Using Texas as an example, this Article evaluates various economic proposals for water markets through a property rights lens and proposes policy changes that encourage markets while protecting vested rights. Solutions include exempting conserved water from nonuse provisions, creating marketplaces, and opportunities to fast-track transfers that protect the public trust and ecosystems
Rising Tides And Shifting Sands: Inadequacies In American Climate Responses And An Urgent Call For A Federal Climate Adaptation Policy
Get PDFClimate change is an increasingly prevalent issue in policy discussions across the United States. Its effects can be observed and measured across ecosystems, industries, and legal jurisdictions, and it is felt in the homes of the people who live and work at the forefront of its impacts. Yet, the federal government’s current policies incentivize states, localities, and private citizens to make poor climate decisions and to put themselves at risk, leading to population growth and property development in some of the most at-risk areas of the country. At the same time, the federal government operates on an outdated disaster response system and lacks a unified climate-mitigation policy framework. This Comment analyzes the deficiencies of the historical approaches to climate impacts in two contrasting contexts: coastal sea-level rise in Florida and water scarcity in Arizona. It analyzes the successes and failures of the policies in those two respective states, then offers proposals for two complementary goals: (a) updates to the current United States federal disaster response and mitigation approach and (b) policy changes that the federal government can make to incentivize states, localities, and private citizens to avoid or move out of high-risk areas or, in the alternative, adjust their behavior to for long-term sustainability
Volume 11 All Staff
No full texthttps://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/property-law-slideshow/1032/thumbnail.jp
