Date of Publication:
Kimberly Y.W. Holst et al., International Legal Developments Year in Review: 2023: Introduction, 58 Year in Review: An Annual Survey of International Legal Developments and Publications of the ABA Section of International Law 1 (2024)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Elizabeth Berenguer, Designing Problems to Enhance Student Learning, 28 Legal Writing 77 (2024)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
A legal writing problem is much more than a mere assignment; it is an interactive learning experience that serves as a primary text for an entire course, facilitates learning, and results in work product that can be assessed to determine what students have learned. As such, professors must thoughtfully consider how the problem will facilitate student learning in light of the outcomes identified for the course. This Article argues that when designing a problem, legal writing professors should design the problem around rule structure because rule structure is what drives the organizational options and rhetorical choices available to the writer—other concerns, like area of law or “fun facts” are secondary considerations that may influence problem details but that should not govern the architecture of the problem itself. Designing a problem around rule structure leads to predictable sophisticated learning of analysis and organization, which makes it the most important consideration in problem design.
Date of Publication:
Darryl Wilson, Keeping Current – Property, 38 Probate and Property 12 (2024)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Jaclyn Lopez, The Climate Is Changing and So Must We: The Need to Prioritize: At-Risk Communities and Ecosystems, 74 Washington University Journal of Law & Policy 44 (2024)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
The climate is changing, and our laws and policies threaten to leave behind vulnerable communities and ecosystems. About half of the people and imperiled plants and animals in the United States are in coastal counties. Coastal communities' ability to cope with the impacts of climate change
will depend on how well local adaptation and resiliency laws and policies work to protect them from rising seas, flooding, saltwater intrusion, intensifying storm activity, and increased heat indices. At the same time, these very same adaptation laws and policies may inadvertently harm vulnerable communities and biodiversity. By 2040 - when today's kindergarteners graduate college - Florida's population will increase by 20% and sea levels will rise an additional foot. With its low elevation and location at the end of Hurricane Alley, Florida is "ground zero" for climate change impacts in the United States. The region's struggles with industrial pollution create additional risk factors. Marginalized communities and imperiled biodiversity are caught amid climate impacts and existing, dangerous infrastructure. Florida is an apt case study for exploring concepts such as managed retreat, social vulnerability, species extinctions, assisted migration, and adaptive management. This Article concludes by making general recommendations for local governments looking to proactively center their resiliency and adaptation efforts on the survival of vulnerable communities and imperiled plants and animals.
Date of Publication:
Angelina M. Vigliotti and Kristen R. Moore, The Electronic Brain: Harnessing the Power of Artificial Intelligence, 66 Florida Libraries 21 (2024)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Will Bunting, Ductile Rights, 112 Ky. L.J. 467 (2024)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
This Article presents two important results. First, depending upon the magnitude of ideological conflict in society, a flexible right, rather than an inflexible right, can produce the socially efficient outcome. In general, if social conflict decreases as a right becomes more flexible, then the right is described as “ductile,” and not weak. Conversely, if social conflict increases as the right becomes more inflexible, then the right is described as “brittle,” and not strong. Second, a negative correlation can exist between ideological conflict in society and personal freedom. That is, the more people are negatively impacted purely by what others do, the less people are free to do what they so choose. This Article terms this result the paradox of ideological incitement and considers the cable news channels as an illustrative example. In addition, this Article contends that the State has, under certain circumstances, an obligation to resolve direct conflict that can arise in the exercise of fundamental rights. As part of this obligation, the State must provide remedial mechanisms that create the separation necessary for the exercise of two otherwise conflicting fundamental rights to coexist, spending public funds to implement a ductile right as defined here.
Date of Publication:
Robyn Powell et al., Child Welfare System Inequities Experienced by Disabled Parents: Towards a Conceptual Framework, 39 Disability & Society 291 (2024)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Parents with disabilities and their families experience pervasive inequities within the child welfare system. However, existing conceptual frameworks do not adequately explain or address the unique needs and experiences of parents with disabilities and their families involved with the child welfare system. Accordingly, we present a conceptual framework that incorporates empirical findings from existing literature while integrating and expanding extant frameworks and models. The conceptual framework, which is aimed at being a starting point from which to investigate child welfare system inequities experienced by disabled parents, includes interrelated factors measured at the contextual, institutional, and individual levels. The paper discusses areas for further research, challenges for researchers, and implications for reducing child welfare system inequities.
Date of Publication:
Robyn Powell, Legal Ableism: A Systematic Review of State Termination of Parental Rights Laws, 101 Wash. U. L. Rev. 423 (2023)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Although the fundamental right to raise a family is among our most cherished, it is not equally afforded to everyone. Indeed, the United States has an appalling and enduring history of policing parenthood among people with disabilities. In recent years, the rights of parents with disabilities and their children have garnered unprecedented attention from activists, scholars, legal professionals, and policymakers. Nevertheless, the number of disabled parents who have their parental rights terminated is substantial and growing. As such, the roots of these ongoing injustices must be investigated. To that end, because the family policing system, including termination of parental rights, is primarily governed by state statutes, such an interrogation must begin there.
In response, this Article presents findings from a systematic examination of the inclusion of parental disability in state termination of parental rights laws. Strikingly, using established methodological practices from the social sciences, it reveals that parents in forty-two states and the District of Columbia are at risk of having their parental rights terminated because they are disabled. Even worse, as this Article demonstrates, these numbers have remained essentially unchanged for over a decade. Thus, ableism remains entrenched in state termination of parental rights laws. Finally, drawing on the findings from this investigation, this Article considers normative legal and policy solutions for challenging ableist termination of parental rights statutes as well as areas warranting further inquiry. Reckoning with these statutes is essential to finally confront the irreparable harm inflicted on disabled parents and their children by the family policing system.
Date of Publication:
Grant Christensen, Using Consent to Expand Tribal Court Jurisdiction, 111 Cal. L. Rev. 1831 (2023)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
In June of 2022 the Supreme Court reversed two-hundred years of precedent and held in a 5-4 opinion that states have concurrent criminal jurisdiction over crimes committed by non-Indians against Indians in Indian country. Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta. In conducting the preemption analysis Justice Kavanaugh’s majority opinion reasoned that while states have a strong interest in prosecuting crimes in Indian country in order to keep the community safe, tribes had functionally no interest because they generally lack criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians. The court then reasoned that the lack of a tribal interest could not preempt the state interest. This article suggests, despite the general prohibition on tribes asserting criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians that was discovered by the Supreme Court in 1978’s Oliphant opinion, tribes can assert criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians who consent to the jurisdiction in tribal court. The argument extends to both affirmative and implied consent and draws its authority from both pre-Oliphant scholarship and precedent as well as from recent development by the Court, Congress, and dicta from the Ninth Circuit. If tribes are able to regularly assert some criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians, then when lower courts apply Castro-Huerta in the future there will be a strong tribal interest to preempt state criminal jurisdiction in Indian country.
Date of Publication:
Rebecca L. Kihslinger et al., Unpacking the Revised WOTUS Rule Dialogue, 53 Envtl. L. Reporter 10887 (2023)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
On August 29, 2023, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued a direct final rule that revised the "waters of the United States" (WOTUS) definition rule. This rule amended the final WOTUS rule, previously published in January 2023, to be consistent with the Supreme Court's May decision in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency. On September 14, the Environmental Law Institute hosted a panel of experts to analyze the new rule and discuss its regulatory and policy consequences. Below, we present a transcript of that discussion, which has been edited for style, clarity, and space considerations.