17616 research outputs found
Sort by
HUMAN TRAFFICKING IN IDAHO: A GROWING ISSUE AND HOW IDAHO LAW CAN BE MORE EFFECTIVE
Full text linkHuman trafficking has been a national problem since the beginning of the nation’s history and has created millions of victims and threatened the safety and freedom of our country. Since 2000, when the first comprehensive federal law to address human trafficking was passed, states have followed suit and passed their own versions of trafficking statutes. Many states have also recognized the growth of the problem and reformed their legislation to respond and provide resources for victims more effectively. This article discusses the importance of state legislation against human trafficking and analyzes Idaho’s own statute in comparison to other states. The article concludes that Idaho legislation has many areas which need to be improved to more successfully bring justice for victims of human trafficking within the state. This article recognizes recent advances that have been made and suggests recommendations for future improvement
Immigration Federalism in the Second Trump Administration
No full textThis Article explores the ongoing transformation of state and local engagement in immigration-related rulemaking in the United States during the Second Trump Administration. The Article examines the myriad ways in which federal executive actions and state responses to those actions, alongside independent state actions and the federal government’s responses to those actions, are upending longestablished immigration law doctrines and shifting the borders of American federalism. The Article discusses legal scholars’ previous understanding of immigration federalism, embodied in United States v. Arizona, and the prior distinctions between permissible “alienage” laws and impermissible “immigration” laws, which could not be introduced by state and local governments. It then turns to the resurgence of lawmaking in the immigration arena during the first few months of the Trump Administration, which could be categorized as “cooperative” and/or “uncooperative” federalism. The Article analyzes the doctrinal, constitutional and practical implications of these recent developments, and proposes that increasingly punitive state legislation, coupled with the federal government’s aggressive enforcement operational mandate, poses a significant challenge to both individual immigrants’ fundamental rights and freedoms, and, of equal import, to the structural guarantees of our federal system and to our continued adherence to the rule of law
Executive Clemency and Immigration Federalism: Reconsidering Presidential Power Over Deportation
No full textSTRESS AND PUBLIC CRIMINAL DEFENSE: COMPARING MALE AND FEMALE DEFENDER EXPERIENCES AND COPING STRATEGIES
Full text linkLittle research has focused on stress and coping strategies among public defenders, and none compares the experiences of male and female defenders. As frontline workers, critical to the due process of law, understanding and eradicating stress is essential to their well-being and the fair treatment of defendants. Employing thematic analysis of public defenders’ responses to open-ended questions, this study found gendered differences in how male and female defenders described their work motivations, challenges, and strategies for dealing with stress. Both male and female public defenders confront the stresses of injustice and heavy workloads. Female defenders, however, are more likely to experience gender discrimination and disrespect and the added stress of family and parenting responsibilities. Emotion-focused and recovery coping strategies were adopted far more often by public defenders than problem-focused approaches, but male defenders expressed psychologically detaching from work far more often than female defenders. The differences in male-female defender experiences and coping strategies, directions for future research, and the need for nuanced and distinct solutions for public defender stress are discussed
WE CAN PROTECT THE “WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES” AS LONG AS THEY STAY OUT OF THE HYDROLOGICAL CYCLE
Full text linkThe water cycle, including its oceans, surface water, wetlands, water vapor, clouds and groundwater, has resulted in a patchwork of statutes and regulations that fail to comprehensively protect the “waters of the United States.” This is not a simple fix, and requires Congressional positivism rather than decades of relying on the judicial branch to resolve statutes that are ultimately not designed for true water protection. It is Congress’s role to resolve the wetlands protection issue, and it has avoided the responsibility probably for lack of a good solution. It would likely take a Constitutional amendment to bring the hydrologic cycle of the United States into the protection of the Clean Water Act
THE POTENTIAL INTERCONTINENTAL RAILWAY BETWEEN SIBERIA AND ALASKA AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR ALASKA NATIVE CORPORATIONS AND FEDERALLY RECOGNIZED TRIBES
Full text linkThis article argues that if the U.S. government wished to construct an intercontinental railway between Siberia and Alaska, then the directly impacted Alaska Native Corporations (ANCs) and federally recognized Tribes nearby would need to first consent to and authorize the construction. After the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act in 1971, ANCs own Native land in Alaska, while federally recognized Tribes have no reservations in Alaska (with one exception) and almost no legal claims to the title of the land. ANCs and federally recognized Tribes are also distinct entities with occasionally differing interests. Construction managers might be tempted to receive consent from ANCs (the landowners) for the tracks and conduct minimal consultation with the federally recognized Tribes. But the railway could harm the Tribes’ means of subsistence and way of life through increased traffic, human populations, and pollution. The U.S. government has a long history of taking Native land for railway construction projects, and this scenario could become history repeating itself. This article examines the needed authorization from federally recognized Tribes for the railway in the interest of respecting Tribal sovereignty and self-determination and upholding the federal Indian trust responsibility and relationship
Episode 26: Robert L. Tsai (BU Law) Talks About Teaching Election Law & Politics
No full textRobert L. Tsai (Professor of Law, Boston University) joins us to talk about his teaching, election law, & the current trajectory of things in the United States
Episode 25: Michael Allen (U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims) Talks About Teaching, Judging, & Being a Law Nerd
No full textChief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims Michael Allen joins us to talk about teaching, becoming a judge, and being a law nerd
What\u27s the Matter with Lozada: How the Board of Immigration Appeals Coerces Immigration Lawyers to Breach Legal Ethics
No full textIn general, if an attorney makes a mistake, they can cure it by notifying the forum and filing the appropriate remedy. Immigration law, by contrast, stands alone by requiring the client (or a new attorney) to corroborate any mistake by filing a bar complaint against the first attorney. This requirement was established in a 1988 case, called Matter of Lozada. Much has been written on how the Lozada rule is unnecessary (a mistake does not need to be corroborated by a bar complaint and state bars are complaining about a deluge of unnecessary complaints for negligence) and harms the immigration practitioner (immigration law is difficult enough without the added possibility of having a bar complaint filed against a lawyer who had been helping a client to the best of their ability). As much as this is true, this article adds to the conversation by illustrating how the Lozada requirement is an egregious violation of legal ethics. Lozada requires an attorney to turn against their former client and reveal (and weaponize) secrets, confidences, and communications in an adversarial forum that the Board of Immigration Appeals, and government attorneys themselves, use against the non-citizen. The Lozada rule is a chimera of justice, a means not to cure attorneys’ mistakes but to weaponize attorneys against their clients and separate lawyers from a population who critically need representation. Whether intended or not, these consequences of the Lozada rule are compelling reasons to abandon the bar complaint requirement to determine if a former attorney made a mistake