3722 research outputs found
Sort by
Making Deals in Court-Connected Mediation: What’s Justice Got to Do With It?
No full textThis article discusses the disconnect between mediation’s founding principles and how it is practiced in legal settings. Mediation was originally introduced as an alternative to the legal system, allowing disputants to negotiate resolutions based on their interests rather than legal norms. However, as court-connected mediation has become institutionalized, it has grown to resemble traditional legal negotiations, dominated by attorneys, evaluative interventions, and monetary settlements. This evolution raises concerns about whether mediation is fulfilling its broader purpose beyond mere deal-making. This article argues that court-connected mediation should incorporate principles of procedural justice to ensure that disputants experience fairness, dignity, and meaningful participation. Research on procedural justice reveals that disputants value opportunities to tell their stories, influence outcomes, and be treated with respect, which, in turn, affects their perceptions of fairness, compliance with outcomes, and trust in the judicial system. While some changes in mediation, such as attorney participation and evaluative interventions, may enhance procedural justice, others—such as sidelining disputants and bypassing joint sessions—undermine it. The article applies procedural justice theories to mediation’s current trajectory, demonstrating that balancing bargaining efficiency with procedural justice is essential to maintaining public confidence in court-connected mediation. Without deliberate choices to preserve procedural justice, mediation risks devolving into just another legal bargaining session, eroding its legitimacy and effectiveness. The article concludes by recommending strategies for ensuring that mediation serves both dispute resolution and justice, reinforcing its role as a meaningful alternative within the judicial system
WOCC Women\u27s History Month Book Display 13
No full textClose up of book display created by Women of Color Collective in the law library March 2025 highlighting the book The Color Purple by Alice Walker.
Published to unprecedented acclaim, The Color Purple established Alice Walker as a major voice in modern fiction. This is the story of two sisters—one a missionary in Africa and the other a child wife living in the South—who sustain their loyalty to and trust in each other across time, distance, and silence. Beautifully imagined and deeply compassionate, this classic novel of American literature is rich with passion, pain, inspiration, and an indomitable love of life. ISBN: 978-0156028356.https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/womens-history-month-2025-photos/1013/thumbnail.jp
WOCC Women\u27s History Month Poster
No full textPoster created by Women of Color Collective on display 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/1001/thumbnail.jp
The Sovereign Acre
No full textWhat if the next constitutional crisis is not declared from a presidential podium but tyranny forged into a deed? Not a contested election. Not a rogue legislature. Not even a runaway court. This time, it is quieter—with a deed signed and title passed, a new sovereign is crowned in private ink. Across the country, billionaire land grabs are redrawing the map of municipal governance itself. As wealthy elites and corporate oligarchs carve out private enclaves—from the privatized contract city of Sandy Springs, Georgia, to the unsettling governance of The Woodlands, Texas—we bear witness to public sovereignty giving way to oligarchic rule. Slowly. Quietly. Deed by silent deed.
These private states are not simply gated communities policed by overzealous HOA boards. They are full-fledged jurisdictions ruled by those whose power derives not from public consent but from private wealth. Billionaires and corporate oligarchs impose their own rule of law—zoning, taxing, regulating, and even policing—without bearing the constitutional obligations and accountability that once constrained public power. Due process becomes optional, and equal protection descends to little more than a fluid formality. In these private states, ownership no longer secures liberty; it demands allegiance to oligarchic power. As billionaires and corporate elites advance their march against public governance, the judiciary and legislatures continue to turn a blind eye. The public function doctrine lies in tatters, and the nondelegation doctrine is but a whisper of days gone by. Courts and lawmakers, charmed by promises of “efficiency” and “innovation,” have willingly ceded traditional safeguards, allowing constitutional protections to decay under the weight of privatized rule. In the meantime, the American vision of common governance—once indivisible, public, and accountable—is being parceled out, one sovereign acre at a time.
The largest billionaire land grab since the Great Depression adds urgency to this conversation. The acquisition of entire towns and vast rural tracts by the likes of Elon Musk and Marc Cuban makes clear that private sovereignty is no longer a theoretical risk but a reality to be enjoyed by the highest bidder. Let us not be naïve—these projects are not mere anomalies of eccentric titans of industry; they are blueprints for a dystopian future where public governance retreats, constitutional obligations unravel, and democracy survives only beyond the gates of billionaire control.
This Article introduces the concept of deed-based sovereignty, defined here as privatized governance constructed not through elections or public charters, but through property law’s oldest devices—restrictive covenants, easements, and development agreements. Situating these micro-sovereignties within the longer arc of American land power—from feudal manors to company towns—this Article asks what happens when ownership, not citizenship, becomes the defining metric of lawful authority. It argues that legislatures and the judiciary must end the indulgence that wealthy elites and corporate oligarchs are merely private actors engaged in private conduct. Where private hands govern as the state, constitutional limits must follow. Reforging sovereignty in property law demands both a revival of the public function doctrine and a renewed commitment to enforcing nondelegation principles, actions that are necessary to prevent the covert transfer of public power beyond the reach of constitutional accountability. Only by restoring these safeguards can courts fulfill their duty to ensure the principles of public sovereignty—and the democratic principles anchored to it—are not surrendered to the silent ledgers of private deeds
Full Membership, Volume 13
No full texthttps://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/law-review-slideshow/1004/thumbnail.jp
Constitution Day Sept 2025 Book Display 07
No full textClose-Up of the book, The Meaning of the Constitution, 3 ed. on display commemorating the celebration of Constitution & Citizenship Day on display in the law library September 2025.https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/constitution-day-2025-photos/1007/thumbnail.jp
The Marrakesh Treaty
No full textThe Encyclopedia of Intellectual Property Law is quite simply the definitive reference work in the field. Bringing together over 350 authors from across the world, the Encyclopedia sheds light on the current global state of Intellectual Property Law, providing unique insights into the discipline and how it is affected by globalization and increased regional integratio
Black History Month Book Display 05
No full textClose up of book display created by Black Law Students Association in the law library from February through March 2025.https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/black-history-month-2025-photos/1007/thumbnail.jp
A New Legal Standard for Medical Malpractice
No full textImportance Patients in the US have persistent needs for safe, evidence-based care. Physicians in the US report fear of liability risk and the need to practice “defensive medicine.” In 2024, the American Law Institute revised the legal standard for assessing medical negligence. Understanding the implications of this change is crucial for balancing patient safety, physician autonomy, and the legal system’s role in health care.
Observations The updated standard from the American Law Institute shifts away from the traditional reliance on customary practice toward a more patient-centered concept of reasonable medical care. Although this revised standard still includes elements of prevailing medical practice, it defines reasonable care as the skill and knowledge regarded as competent among similar medical clinicians under comparable circumstances and acknowledges that, in some cases, juries can override customary practices if they fall short of contemporary standards. The restatement also embraces evidence-based practice guidelines, while leaving questions open about the variations in the quality of those guidelines. The restatement makes additional recommendations regarding informed consent and other aspects of physician-patient communication.
Conclusions and Relevance The new standard of care from the American Law Institute represents a shift away from strict reliance on medical custom and invites courts to incorporate evidence-based medicine into malpractice law. Although states may adopt the recommendations from the American Law Institute at different times and to varying degrees, the restatement offers health professionals and the organizations in which they practice an opportunity to reconsider how medical negligence will be assessed, and to focus more directly on promoting patient safety and improving care delivery. Nonetheless, physicians should recognize that, at least for now, many courts will continue to rely significantly on prevailing practice in assessing medical liability
Property and Prejudice
Get PDF“Alien land laws”—laws restricting noncitizens from owning real property—are back. A dozen states have enacted such laws during the past year, and over thirty states have considered such bills. These new bills are rooted in xenophobia, much like their predecessors, but they also have unique characteristics. They single out governments, citizens, and corporations of specific countries perceived to pose a threat; they impose ownership restrictions based on arbitrary distances to U.S. military bases and critical infrastructure; they inflict particularly harsh penalties; and they try to ferret out foreign control in complex corporate structures. The purported justifications are national defense, food security, and prevention of absentee ownership. But these laws completely fail to achieve their asserted goals. The poor means-end fit, combined with the availability of far less restrictive alternatives, leaves the new laws vulnerable to legal challenges under the Equal Protection Clause and the Fair Housing Act. But century-old Supreme Court precedents and gaps in legal doctrine may still make it difficult for such challenges to prevail. Preemption arguments based on immigration law, the foreign affairs power, and federal laws governing foreign investment, as well as Dormant Commerce Clause arguments, also involve legal hurdles. This Article analyzes these legal arguments, evaluates potential obstacles, and charts possible paths forward. Regardless of the legal viability of these laws, this Article cautions that they will perpetuate prejudice, open the door to a new form of segregation, and limit who can achieve the American Dream