Date of Publication:
Peter Lake, From Deflection to “Provention”: The Law as an Ally in Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention, in Leading Campus Drug and Alcohol Abuse Prevention: Grounded Approaches for Student Impact (NASPA, 2021)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Louis J. Virelli and Richard W. Murphy, Supreme Court News, 46 Administrative & Regulatory Law News 20 (2021)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Sasha M. Albert et al., Passing State Legislation to Protect the Rights of Parents with Disabilities: Lessons from Interviews with Advocates, Attorneys, and Legislators, 33 Journal of Disability Policy Studies 15 (2021)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Parents with disabilities experience discrimination within the child welfare, family law, and adoption and foster care systems. In response, there have been increasing calls for states to pass legislation prohibiting discrimination against parents with disabilities, and as of 2020, 28 states have passed or are considering such legislation. This qualitative study explored the perspectives of 19 advocates, attorneys, and legislators on barriers and solutions for passing legislation to protect the rights of parents with disabilities. Participants identified three barriers: (a) legislators’ pejorative attitudes toward parents with disabilities, (b) external opposition, and (c) legislative barriers. Participants also identified eight solutions: (a) cross-disability advocacy, (b) education, (c) relationship-building, (d) bipartisanship, (e) support from state and national organizations, (f) strong sponsors, (g) incrementalism, and (h) model legislation. Study findings should help to inform ongoing legislative advocacy to protect the rights of parents with disabilities.
Date of Publication:
Robyn Powell and Joann Nicholson, Addressing Risk Factors Among Parents with Serious Mental Illness: Commentary on Ostrow et al., 72 Psychiatric Services 466 (2021)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Andrew D. Appleby, Subnational Digital Services Taxation, 81 Md. L. Rev. 1 (2021)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Existing tax regimes fail to tax digital services appropriately. Digital services based on extracting and monetizing user data-most notably digital advertising-are particularly problematic because tax regimes do not adequately account for the enormous value derived from user data.
Internationally, taxing jurisdictions have recognized these failures and commenced a controversial push toward new digital services taxes, or DSTs. Subnational taxing jurisdictions in the United States face the same issues and are searching for solutions.
This Article begins by examining the motivations and justifications for digital service taxation at both the international and subnational levels. These justifications center on antiquated tax regimes that do not sufficiently capture profit from new business models, particularly business models that rely on valuable data extracted from users in the taxing jurisdiction.
Next, this Article presents options for subnational digital service taxation. These options range from slightly modified existing tax regimes to novel approaches that may more appropriately tax digital services, specifically those services that extract and monetize user data. This Article also analyzes the constitutional, federal preemption, and sourcing challenges facing subnational digital services taxes.
This Article concludes by examining how subnational taxing jurisdictions may most effectively tax digital services. Although states have started to embrace digital advertising taxes modeled after European digital services taxes, these taxes are narrow and susceptible to challenge. Subnational jurisdictions have several better options, including publicly traded stock-based taxes and data mining taxes.
Date of Publication:
Marco Jimenez, On Measuring Damages Where a Contract Breach Benefits the Promisee: Response to Mark Giancaspro, Quantifying Damages in Cases of Advantageous Breach: The Curious Case of McDonald’s Milkshakes (2021)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Jason Bent, Fairness in Algorithmic Employment Selection: How to Comply with Title VII, 35 A.B.A. J. Lab. & Emp. L. 241 (2021)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Will Bunting, Curbing the Anticompetitive Impact of Commercial Land Use Regulation: An Administrative Approach, 66 Vill. L. Rev. 681 (2021)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
This Article explores how the anticompetitive impact of a zoning ordinance is assessed under the antitrust laws and substantive due process and concludes that neither is likely to satisfactorily curb the anticompetitive impact of commercial land use regulation. The Article highlights the distinction between a local government’s zoning power and its more general police power. For rational basis review to act as a meaningful check on zoning power, as distinguished from more general police powers, this Article contends that such review must require a local government to produce evidence of a causal link between the zoning action and the stated government interest. Rejecting antitrust law as the proper doctrinal vehicle through which to curb the anticompetitive impact of commercial zoning restrictions, this Article proposes a three-part administrative procedure, grounded in notions of due process and the legitimate exercise of a locality’s zoning power, to reduce the frequency with which local governments impose socially inefficient restrictions on commercial land use. The concept of an economic impact statement is introduced.
Date of Publication:
Robyn Powell, Confronting Eugenics Means Finally Confronting Its Ableist Roots, 27 William and Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice 607 (2021)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
In September 2020, a whistleblower complaint was filed alleging that hysterectomies are being performed on women at an immigration detention center in alarmingly high rates. Regrettably, forced sterilizations are part of the nation’s longstanding history of weaponizing reproduction to subjugate socially marginalized communities. While public outrage in response to the whistleblower complaint was swift and relentless, it largely failed to acknowledge how eugenic ideologies and practices, including compulsory sterilizations, are ongoing and deeply entrenched in ableism. Indeed, a conversation that recognizes the ways in which eugenics continues to target people with disabilities is long overdue.
This Article contextualizes how eugenics has targeted people with disabilities over time, the ways in which these ideologies and practices persist, and why analysis and advocacy concerning eugenics—including the current abuses at immigration detention centers—that do not center the experiences of people with disabilities, especially people with disabilities who are also members of other socially marginalized communities, are inadequate. First, the Article explores the evolution of eugenics and its harmful effects on people with disabilities in the United States, including contemporary examples of eugenic policies and practices. Next, it describes ableism and its relation to eugenics, highlighting how eugenics is deeply rooted in ableism. Finally, the Article concludes by suggesting a path forward that addresses the role of ableism in eugenics, specifically discussing normative legal and policy implications. It also considers opportunities for collaboration across communities.
Date of Publication:
Will Bunting and James M. Lammendola, Why Localism is Bad for Business: Land Use Regulation of the Cannabis Industry, 17 N.Y.U. J. L. & Bus. 267 (2021)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
This Article provides a survey of land use restrictions related to cannabis dispensaries and examines how localities have used such restrictions to control where this new land use can locate. Several of these zoning ordinances have been challenged in court as preempted by state or federal law, and this Article examines a few of these cases. The Article considers both policy and legal arguments against the regulation of cannabis dispensaries by local governments, setting forth the legal argument that zoning ordinances that ban, or substantially restrict, activities or operations related to cannabis may, in certain circumstances, constitute an improper application of a locality’s delegated zoning power. This Article also highlights localism in the context of women’s reproductive rights as an important case study in the importance of having state statutes that expressly preempt local government action related to potentially locally unwanted land uses.