8353 research outputs found
Sort by
Migrant Workers in The United States: Connecting Domestic Law with International Labor Standards
Get PDFIndustry and trade associations say that the United States needs more immigrant workers to meet labor shortages and keep the economy growing. Labor advocates counter that the alleged labor shortage is a myth, and that employers’ real goal is to replace American workers and put downward pressure on wages of U.S. workers. The United States needs a new immigration policy that balances the needs of companies and the overall economy with needs for high labor standards and protection of workers’ rights. International labor and human rights instruments address several migrant labor issues, but U.S. law and practice fall short of meeting international standards in several key respects. A human rights argument creates space for advocacy on behalf of migrant workers. International human rights and labor standards should inform policy makers and advocacy groups’ work in crafting immigration law and policy changes
\u3cem\u3eMadden v. Midland Funding LLC\u3c/em\u3e: Uprooting the National Bank Act’s Power of Preemption
Get PDF
The Cessation of Innovation: An Inquiry into Whether Congress Can and Should Strip the Supreme Court of Its Appellate Jurisdiction to Entertain Patent Cases
Get PDF
Married on Saturday, Fired on Monday: The Seventh Circuit Attempts to Navigate LGBT Rights After \u3ci\u3eObergefell\u3c/i\u3e
Get PDFTitle VII of the Civil Rights Act was not enacted to protect the LGBT community and has never been consistently enforced to prohibit sexual orientation discrimination. Although some courts have stretched to include protections for the LGBT community under this statute, that federal law fails to protect the LGBT community from workplace discrimination has largely been taken for granted.
But last summer the Supreme Court of the United States held that persons cannot be denied the fundamental right to marry merely because they are not heterosexual. And so the tension occurred: a same-sex couple may marry on Saturday, but their employer has the right to fire them for that very act on Monday. The Seventh Circuit in Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College agreed: despite Obergefell v. Hodges, Title VII still does not prohibit sexual orientation discrimination. This note explores whether and how this inequity can be resolved. So long as members of the LGBT community must hide their identities in order to protect their jobs, the fundamental right to marry will come with an asterisk
Storming the Persian Gates: The Seventh Circuit Denies Attachment to Iranian Antiquities
Get PDFWhen an American citizen is injured in a terrorist attack on foreign soil, the victim has a limited ability to sue a foreign state in the United States. Even more limited is the victim\u27s ability to execute a judgment against the foreign state. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act permits plaintiffs to execute a judgment against a foreign state only in limited and explicitly stated circumstances.
In Rubin v. Islamic Republic of Iran, the Seventh Circuit considered such a claim. The plaintiffs, seven American victims of a Hamas terrorist attack in Israel, sought to attach Iranian antiquities located in the Seventh Circuit in order to satisfy their $71.5 million judgment against Iran. The court rejected the plaintiff\u27s arguments, and ruled that the plaintiffs may not attach their judgment to the Iranian antiquities in the Seventh Circuit. Most notably, the Court held that, contrary to the plaintiff\u27s arguments, the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act § 1610(g) does not offer a freestanding basis to execute judgments against state sponsors of terrorism. In so holding, the Court overruled Wyatt v. Syrian Arab Republic and Gates v. Syrian Arab Republic, in part, and rejected the Ninth Circuit\u27s decision in Bennett v. Islamic Republic of Iran.
From a statutory interpretation perspective, the Seventh Circuit reached the correct result in denying the plaintiffs execution on the Iranian antiquities. Auctioning cultural property raises policy concerns that further buttress the Seventh Circuit\u27s outcome. However, the Rubin plaintiffs are deserving victims who have been denied execution of their judgment despite repeated attempts to do so. The Rubin victims are not alone; many other victims of state-sponsored terrorism have been unsuccessful at receiving compensation for their grievous injuries. This Note argues that, in lieu of a judicial remedy of the kind the plaintiffs sought, the executive branch should establish a comprehensive victim\u27s compensation fund, paid for by the United States government, to compensate the victims of state-sponsored terrorism
Social Cost of Carbon: Can We Afford It?
Get PDFEnvironmental regulations that are passed by governmental agencies must ensure that the benefit of the regulation outweighs the burden. The failure for the benefit to outweigh the burden will result in the nullification of environmentally beneficial regulations. The methodology to measure the environmental impact of a regulation is difficult to understand and in some cases highly controversial. One example of this is the use of the social cost of carbon. The social cost of carbon is used to measure carbon reduction. The use of the social cost of carbon can help regulations succeed cost-benefit scrutiny, which would invalidate the regulation. The Department of Energy used the social cost of carbon when it created its new regulations for energy efficiency standards regarding commercialized refrigerators.
In Zero Zone, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Energy, the Seventh Circuit upheld the Department of Energy\u27s new energy efficiency standards for commercialized refrigerators. The Seventh Circuit also upheld that the Department of Energy has the requisite authority to implement the standards. The most noteworthy part of the opinion is the Seventh Circuit upholding the use of the social cost of carbon in the cost-benefit analysis performed by the Department of Energy.
The Seventh Circuit was correct in upholding the Department of Energy\u27s commercial refrigeration regulations, the Department\u27s authority to do so, and the use of the social cost of carbon in the Department\u27s cost-benefit analysis. The Department of Energy has clear authority from Congress to implement these regulations. Additionally, a Chevron analysis further supports the Department\u27s authority to do so. The standards proposed and implemented by the Department are neither arbitrary nor capricious. Also, the social cost of carbon may be controversial, but it is a necessary tool for agencies to use while implementing standards that will further environmental and energy policy goals. The social cost of carbon may not be perfect in its present state, but it will continue to evolve and perfect itself into being a perfect tool for agencies to use in the future.
Reasonable Response: The Achilles\u27 Heel of the Seventh Circuit\u27s Deliberate Indifference Analysis
Get PDFPrisoners who believe their constitutional rights were violated through deficient medical care can pursue a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. To prevail on this claim, the prisoner must show that a medical provider acted with deliberate indifference towards a serious medical condition. Ordinary medical negligence is not a constitutional claim simply because the victim is a prisoner. Yet, circuits are split on exactly what physician behavior constitutes deliberate indifference. Courts have given varying degrees of deference to a physician\u27s case-specific medical determination. Courts debate whether palliative care—relieving pain without an effort to cure—is enough; and whether constitutionalizing medical malpractice may have negative consequences on prison health care systems.
In Petties v. Carter, the Seventh Circuit considered whether a physician\u27s rationale for medical treatment created a triable issue as to whether or not he acted with deliberate indifference. The plaintiff suffered from a ruptured Achilles\u27 tendon. Standard treatment protocol for this injury includes, among other things, receiving a splint, which serves to immobilize the foot. The plaintiff alleged that, in not prescribing a splint, the defendants exacerbated his injury. However, the defendants contended that they were not deliberately indifferent; rather than using a splint, they decided to immobilize Petties\u27 foot through use of crutches, lay-in meals, and a lower bunk assignment.
The Seventh Circuit, in a 6-3 decision, reversed the district court\u27s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants. This Note argues that the Seventh Circuit\u27s reversal failed to adequately defer to: 1) precedent precluding from liability actors who demonstrate a reasonable response to risk of injury, 2) public policy support for respecting case-specific medical judgment, and 3) state medical malpractice laws, which are more equitable and efficient in addressing claims of deficient medical care