Date of Publication:
Luz Estella Nagle, Trans-border Labor Trafficking and Forced Servitude in Marijuana Growing Operations, 35 Int'l Enforcement L. Reporter 400 (2019)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Robyn Powell, Family Law, Parents with Disabilities, and the Americans with Disabilities Act, 57 Family Court Review 37 (2019)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Parents with disabilities contend with bias within the family law system, often threatening their custody and visitation rights. The overarching goal of this article is to explore the experiences of parents with disabilities involved in custody and visitation disputes and the application of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in these cases. This article begins with an overview of parents with disabilities and their interactions with the family law system. Next, the article examines the ADA and its applicability to custody and visitation disputes. Finally, the article offers thoughts about strategies that can be utilized by attorneys to ensure that the rights of parents with disabilities are protected.
Date of Publication:
Jason S. Palmer and Kimberly Y. W. Holst, International Legal Developments Year in Review: 2018: Introduction, 53 Year in Review: An Annual Survey of International Legal Developments and Publications of the ABA Section of International Law 1 (2019)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Ellen S. Podgor et al., The Mueller Investigation and Beyond (Carolina Academic Press, 2019)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Ellen S. Podgor and J.R. Swanegan (eds.), Overview of U.S. Law (Carolina Academic Press, 2019)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Ellen S. Podgor and Lucian Dervan, Corporations: Stuck with the White Collar Crime Check, 2 Belmont Criminal Law Journal 32 (2019)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Tim Kaye, Webby Books: Interactive Content within a Universal Design, 16 NETWORK: A Journal of Faculty Development (2019)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Ellen S. Podgor, The 2018 Florida Bar Criminal Justice Summit: A First Step in Improving Florida’s Criminal Justice System, 93 The Florida Bar Journal 9 (2019)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Theresa J. Pulley Radwan, Members Only: Can a Trustee Govern an LLC When Its Member Files for Bankruptcy?, 53 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 1 (2019)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Grant Christensen, The Extraterritorial Reach of Tribal Court Criminal Jurisdiction, 46 Hastings Const. L.Q. 293 (2019)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Conflicts over the jurisdiction between tribal, state, and federal courts arise regularly due to the nature of overlapping sovereignty. The Supreme Court accepts an average of almost three Indian law cases a year and has decided more than twenty Indian law cases with a jurisdictional focus since 1978. As tribes become wealthier, they are increasingly acquiring new lands outside of their existing reservations. This expansion of territory generates new border zones where state and tribal interests converge. The Sixth Circuit recently decided the first federal appellate case dealing with the inherent criminal powers of tribal court jurisdiction over the conduct of Indians on tribal land that is located outside of the tribe’s reservation. The unanimous decision of the Sixth Circuit panel upheld the tribe’s inherent right to extraterritorial criminal jurisdiction, but read into the opinion some limiting caveats that originate from civil, and not criminal, jurisdictional principles. This paper reads the Sixth Circuit’s decision in Kelsey v. Pope as the first in what is surely to be a myriad of conflicts over the extraterritorial jurisdiction of tribal courts. It suggests that while the Sixth Circuit’s approach to tribal sovereignty is generally in keeping with Supreme Court precedent, the court erred by conflating criminal with civil authority and thus over limited its discussion of the inherent powers of tribal courts. Instead the paper suggests that a more consistent reading of the inherent extraterritorial criminal powers of Indian tribes should support jurisdiction over both tribal members and tribal territory unless Congress has expressly circumscribed tribal authority. This broader understanding of extraterritorial jurisdiction is not only simpler to apply, but finds better support in Supreme Court precedent than the convoluted reasoning adopted by the Sixth Circuit.