Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University
Florida Agricultural & Mechanical University College of LawNot a member yet
884 research outputs found
Sort by
Is the United States Judicial System Failing Transgender Women? A Critical Overview
Get PDFThis paper will discuss the rise of the transgender civil rights movement, the problems in the judicial system, and the rights that should be afforded to transgender women. In part one, I will address the LGBTQA civil rights movement led by transgender women. In part two, I will address the transphobia in the prison system. In part three, I will address the lack of visibility of black transgender issues in the current black civil rights movement. In the fourth part, I will address whether there should be certain fundamental rights given to transgender women. In the fifth part of this paper, I will address the lack of adequate health care for transgender women. Lastly, I will address discriminatory housing practices towards transgender women
From Gorsuch to Gorsuch: Family Reformation on Agency Power
Get PDFAlthough Chevron has drawn extensive scholarship examining its doctrinal origins,17 evolution,18 and impact,19 this is not one of those inquiries. Instead, this Comment seeks to address some of the circumstances and rationale motivating certain people behind Chevron, and therefore the doctrine and its impact will be discussed in short form. Accordingly, Part II of this Comment will use Anne Gorsuch’s service at the EPA as a lens through which to view the conservative revolution that occurred before and during the Reagan years, with an eye toward a subtle change in thinking from previous generations regarding agency regulations. Part III of this Comment will expand on that change, showing how a parallel shift in jurisprudence, led in part by Antonin Scalia, enabled the Reagan administration to execute traditionally conservative policy goals when it would have otherwise been impeded by the Court. Also, in Part III, this Comment will grapple with the rationales of the proponents of interpretational deference, drawing parallels from Roman, English, and American history to better understand the arguments within a broad time frame.
Part IV turns at last to Gorsuch’s view of Chevron deference, probing both his ideological upbringing and his Tenth Circuit jurisprudence to understand how his view of interpretational deference differs from Justice Scalia’s. Finally, Part V draws from Gorsuch’s split with Justice Scalia over Chevron to contemplate reasons for the current trend among many conservatives to disfavor the doctrine, namely its frustration of due process, harm to small business, and disruption of the tripartite balance of power. To close, this Comment argues that, should Chevron fall, strictly de novo judicial review of agency interpretations of law may ultimately force Congress to reconsider the quantum of power delegated to agencies
Winning! 5 Key Strategies for an Effective Conference Presentation
Get PDFWith all of the hard work and thoughtfulness devoted to planning for conference presentations, it is safe to say, everyone wants a winning presentation! The five key strategies for developing an effective presentation are (1) proper planning, (2) work backwards when designing your presentation, (3) diversify your delivery methods, (4) engage your audience, and (5) provide takeaways
Gun Rights and the New Lochnerism
Get PDFThis Article examines the Supreme Court\u27s recent Second Amendment cases as applications of the same libertarian bias that has undermined constitutional law\u27s fundamental rights doctrine. The concept of a libertarian bias that is based in a New Lochnerism was previously introduced in both The Fifth Freedom and The New Due Process. The analysis here demonstrates that the recently revised doctrine regarding the Second Amendment and gun rights is driven by the current Supreme Court ( Court ) hostility towards government regulation in a manner that is akin to what was seen during the Lochner Era. Regrettably, this Article is timely and is expected to continue to be so in light of ongoing gun violence and mass shootings that continue to plague the United States, including the recent mass shooting in Orlando, Florida. The Court\u27s decisions have cast a long legal shadow, which has resulted in states and the federal government becoming justifiably fearful of running afoul of the Court\u27s latest Second Amendment limitations espoused in District of Columbia. v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago. This is a legitimate fear, given that the current Second Amendment limits are grounded in neither the text of the Constitution nor precedent, which makes it difficult for lawmakers to accurately predict what the Court will next deign to be impermissible. Although not the sole cause of regulatory paralysis in the face of widespread gun violence and mass shootings, the Court\u27s gun rights decisions have certainly contributed to the reluctance of state and federal law makers to pass meaningful gun regulations. The Court\u27s decisions to limit the ability of government to regulate firearms has real consequences that cannot be ignored and should not be dismissed as collateral to individual rights or as in tension with those rights. This Article suggests that public safety is a right; a positive right that is fundamental under the Constitution. This discussion begins in Part II by introducing the Lochner Era and its regulatory goals of protecting liberty, limiting government regulation, and protecting federalism and states\u27 rights. Part III examines how the Court has once again privileged liberty over duty through its radical reinterpretation of the Second Amendment in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago. The Court has applied its libertarian bias and lost sight of the constitutional duties of government.! In the specific context of the Second Amendment and gun rights, the Court has lost sight of the duty to protect the public safety. Part IV examines the pre-Heller interpretation of the Second Amendment and suggests that this meaning was more consistent with the text of the Constitution, the intent of the founders, and the constitutional duty of government to protect the public safety
MACRA and Stark: Strange Bedfellows at the Heart of Health Care Reform
Get PDFThe enactment of the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA) was well-received by all as it repealed Medicare’s Sustainable Growth Rate and, in its place, mandates the implementation of a new system for health care delivery and payment. Under MACRA, health care providers are expected to work together and coordinate their efforts with the goal of improving patient outcomes and controlling costs. For the first time ever, federal reimbursements will be tied to quality of care and improved cost efficiencies. However, as a new law, MACRA’s potential for success needs to be measured in terms of its “fit” within the existing legal framework. Specifically, MACRA’s fee-for-value approach needs to be assessed against the Ethics in Patient Referrals Act (Stark). As a strict liability law that encourages health care providers to continue working in silos, Stark has had a chilling effect on the health care industry as multi-million dollar penalties have been assessed for a single prohibited referral made by a physician for certain federally reimbursable health care services. Ironically, the type of conduct Stark prohibits is the very conduct that MACRA needs health care providers to engage in to achieve its goals. This misalignment between the two laws poses a significant impediment to MACRA’s successful implementation.
This Article discusses the inherent misalignment between MACRA and Stark, provides an overview of the original intent behind both laws, and shows which provision of Stark is in direct contravention of MACRA. Specifically, it advocates that the provision of Stark that regulates physician compensation is an impediment to health care reform and unnecessary in light of the modern-day, more robust Anti-Kickback Statute. This Article addresses a cutting-edge issue in health care law and contributes to the ongoing debate on how to best reconcile MACRA and Stark to achieve the goals of health care reform
Chimpanzees in Court: Limited Legal Personhood Recognition for Standing to Challenge Captivity and Abuse
Get PDFAfrican Interventionist States
No full textThis title was first published in 2002: Examining the recent phenomenon in conflicts in Africa, this text addresses situations where African states and African military intervene in conflicts either in neighbouring states or beyond. While this trend has been widely observed, this is the first in-depth research that deals with such issues. It breaks new ground in identifying the key issues, actors and actions, and includes analysis of military capacities of African states and the way in which armies are used, including the increasing role of private security companies and mercenaries. The changing attitudes among members of the OAU are examined, in particular the increasing acceptance of interventionism and the blurring of boundaries. The most significant cases of intervention are examined together with less well-documented examples such as Lesotho and Guinea Bissau. This engaging account makes for a compelling resource for academics and practitioners alike.https://commons.law.famu.edu/faculty-books/1044/thumbnail.jp
2017 Hooding Ceremony Program
Get PDFhttps://commons.law.famu.edu/hooding-ceremony-programs/1012/thumbnail.jp
Winning the Battle but Losing the War: Towards a More Consistent Approach to Prevailing Party Fee Shifting in the Contractural Context
Get PDFAs a general matter, history has not been very kind to losers. In the turmoil of the Middle Ages, loss on the battlefield could also mean the looting of one\u27s property, the sacking of one\u27s home, and potentially even the assault of one\u27s spouse. The nineteenth century was the era of to the victors belong the spoils, meaning that an electoral win allowed the prevailing political party a complete monopoly on political appointments and government contracts to the exclusion of the loyal opposition. Even today, professional athletes would sooner face anonymity than defeat on the playing field, living by the maxim that winning isn\u27t everything; it\u27s the only thing. And no less of an authority than the Swedish pop sensations ABBA have told us that, in matters of love, the winner takes it all. Winners get the best of everything in our culture, often at the expense of the losers. Just ask Gore