Search

In chapter 11, Suits elaborates on his previous claim that Utopian games are superior to Luddite games. Suits here discusses a game in which equality of skill and fairness are maximized, and the paradoxes produced by such a game. Bernard Suits is without a doubt one of the most influential scholars in the philosophy of sport. It recalls the nature of Utopia in which there is no need for instrumental actions and that consists fundamentally (if not exclusively) in the playing of games that makes it possible to retain enough effort in Utopia to make life worth living (Suits [2], 182-189). [Extracted from the article]

Protecting personal data is becoming increasingly relevant as technology continues to advance, But many countries fail to meet the urgency of building the necessary legal protection. This Comment analyzes why current data privacy law in the United States is insufficient to shield the data of more than three hundred million citizens. Without comprehensive data privacy law, the sensitive data of Americans are at frequent security risk. Combating this risk is imperative. To do so, as this Comment will explain, the United States needs to learn from European, namely Swiss, advancement and pass comprehensive legislation. The American Data Privacy and Protection Act represents its best chance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This Article provides a snapshot of current climate policy and litigation experiences in a select group of Commonwealth countries: the United Kingdom, Canada, India, Pakistan, Kiribati, and The Bahamas. It traces current domestic climate policies and litigation experiences back to the colonial histories of these countries. These Commonwealth countries enjoy a shared common law tradition, but in the context ofclimate change, levels of climate vulnerabilities, resilience, and historic and current responsibilities for emissions vary tremendously. Levels of climate vulnerability, and climate responsibility, often reflect the colonial histories of these countries. These colonial histories are reflective of racial capitalist trajectories that impact current day emissions, consumptive habits, and elimate vulnerabilities. Political and economic blockages to progressive climate action persist in some Global North countries. Many current carbon major emitting companies are also located in several Global North countries in the Commonwealth, and many of these companies also have colonial histories and climate responsibilities. Additionally, policy and financial constraints in tackling the climate crisis persist in Global South countries. Policy constraints and blockages are not uniform, and they at times cross over the North-South divide, as do emerging legal relationships. Vulnerable populations and sacrifice zones exist within the Global North. Elites in the Global South also replicate racial capitalistic tendencies of oppression and exclusion towards more vulnerable subpopulations. Despite these hurdles, significant opportunities have emerged in many jurisdictions, largely as a result of innovative climate litigation suits, particularly in the Global South. This Article argues that litigants across the Commonwealth can share strategies and best practices in order to move climate policy forward in their jurisdictions, and reduce climate vulnerabilities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Women are more likely than men to perceive institutional sexism. In the present study, we examined the gender gap in perceptions of a legal case in which a female plaintiff claims she was a victim of institutional gender discrimination by an employer. Participants were randomly assigned to receive information about institutional forms of sexism (or not) prior to learning the facts of the case. In addition, participants were randomly assigned to take the female plaintiff's perspective (or remain objective) while reviewing the case. In isolation, sexism awareness and perspective-taking both independently eliminated the gender gap in perceptions of discrimination. However, contrary to expectations, the gender gap reemerged among participants who were made aware of sexism prior to perspective-taking such that women perceived more discrimination than men. Implications for interventions to increase perceptions of institutional sexism are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Access to affordable contraceptive coverage for those who need it is critical. Before full implementation of the Affordable Care Act in 2014, contraceptive care made up upwards of 44% of out of pocket health care spending for women. Taking Matters into Their Own Hands critiques the United States Supreme Court's ruling in Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania, which provides an exemption for employers with moral or religious objections to providing contraceptive coverage to their employees as a part of their employersponsored health plans. This Article will criticize the Supreme Court for failing to properly consider the Women's Health Amendment to the Affordable Care Act, argue that permitting employers to exclude these services is allowing them to illegally discriminate on the basis of sex, and propose that the Court's decision should have more substantially relied on policy considerations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study investigates court rulings in public environmental pollution litigation, analyzing the factors influencing those decisions. We test an environmental judicial outcome model that considers the offense's seriousness and the defendants' resources/capabilities. Using environmental case data from six major cities in Taiwan between 2000 and 2018, we find that 78.2% of defendants were found guilty, 52.9% received probation, 19.0% were fined, and 28.1% faced imprisonment. This pattern differs from Western countries where fines are more prevalent and incarcerations rare. Statistical analyses reveal that the number of environmental offenses the defendant commits influences the court verdict and sentencing decision, defendants from private firms have lower odds of being found guilty but a higher probability of being fined, and the type of legal representation plays a mixed role in court judgments. Over time, there has been an increase in guilty verdicts and stricter punishments for environmental offenders in Taiwan. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The focal point of transitional justice efforts in Cambodia have been recently-completed criminal prosecutions at the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia ("ECCC"). Like other international criminal justice institutions, the ECCC has been framed as not only a criminal court, but also as an institution capable of helping achieve various transitional justice goals such as improving the rule of law and respect for human rights domestically in Cambodia. This Article identifies troubling connections between the ECCC experience and the Cambodian government's increasing use of rule by law tactics in recent years. The Article identifies two related ways in which the ECCC experience may have further damaged, rather than helped mend, the rule of law in Cambodia. First, by providing training to Cambodian legal actors beholden to the autocratic government, the ECCC has engaged in a form of "negative capacity-building" by enhancing the abilities of such actors to weaponize Cambodia's legal system against perceived threats to the dominant Cambodia People's Party ("CPP"). Second, by playing into the dominant social perception in Cambodia that powerful CPP-aligned actors remain the ultimate arbiters of contentious legal cases, even when producing inconsistent, incompatible outcomes, the Court's social messaging has lent some legitimacy to rule by law tactics in Cambodia. These negative rule of law outcomes are especially troubling given the authoritarian backsliding Cambodia has recently experienced. Moreover, the potential negative rule of law legacy of the ECCC should serve as a cautionary tale against the notion that international criminal law prosecutions solely produce positive rule of law effects in post-atrocity States. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper will first review the debate over the definition and recognition of Indigenous peoples with regard to the people of Ryukyu/ Okinawa, focusing on the colonial history, specifically regarding the case of the lawsuit calling for the return of the Ryukyuan ancestral remains. Then, after an overview of the history of the lawsuit calling for the return of the Ryukyuan ancestors, which was instigated in 2018, I will present what has been achieved so far, the challenges that remain, and the prospects for the future. There, the 'colonialism by academic knowledge' nurtured since the colonial period will be exposed, and the recognition by the state of the people of Ryukyu and Okinawa as Indigenous peoples, and the possibility of solidarity among civil society and domestic and international Indigenous and minority peoples will be analyzed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article uncovers the connection between Article II(e) of the Genocide Convention and the Greek Civil War (1946–49). Through archival research and secondary sources, it reconstructs the Greek legal arguments that framed the transfer of children conducted by the communist guerrillas in Northern Greece as an act of genocide and led to the inclusion of this action in the legal definition of genocide. By analyzing the arguments of the Greek government, it presents a new interpretation of Article II(e) of the Convention. It is contended that the historical antecedent of the provision supports a biopolitical understanding of the genocidal act in question. The article concludes with a more general discussion of the continuing importance of Article II(e). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 which allows private individuals and groups to sue to enforce their voting rights under section 2 independently of actions by the Attorney General. It state that Plaintiffs must demonstrate the same elements as those required for a vote dilution or denial claim. It mentions that the provision serves as a crucial tool for plaintiffs and advocates in defending equal voting rights against antidemocratic challenges through litigation in the courts.

The article explores the historical roots of executive clemency in the U.S. and its connection to the concept of mercy. It highlights the decline of clemency, particularly in capital cases, since the revival of the death penalty in 1976. It argue that this decline is linked to the constitutional regulation of capital punishment but suggest that clemency still plays a vital role in addressing deficiencies in the capital system.

The British Medical Association and some Royal Colleges have recently changed their stance on physician-assisted suicide from 'opposed' to forms of 'neutral'. The Royal College of Anaesthetists will poll members soon on whether to follow suit. Elsewhere neutrality amongst professional bodies has preceded legalisation of physician-assisted suicide. We examine the arguments relevant to the anaesthesia community and its potential impact in the UK. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Due to its intrinsic complexity and the principle of collective solidarity that governs it, solid organ transplantation (SOT) seems to have been spared from the increase in litigation related to medical activity. Litigation relating to solid organ transplantation that took place in the 29 units of the Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris and was the subject of a judicial decision between 2015 and 2022 was studied. A total of 52 cases of SOT were recorded, all in adults, representing 1.1% of all cases and increasing from 0.71% to 1.5% over 7 years. The organs transplanted were 25 kidneys (48%), 19 livers (37%), 5 hearts (9%) and 3 lungs (6%). For kidney transplants, 11 complaints (44%) were related to living donor procedures and 6 to donors. The main causes of complaints were early post-operative complications in 31 cases (60%) and late complications in 13 cases (25%). The verdicts were in favour of the institution in 41 cases (79%). Solid organ transplants are increasingly the subject of litigation. Although the medical institution was not held liable in almost 80% of cases, this study makes a strong case for patients, living donors and their relatives to be better informed about SOT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The glaring gap in tort theory is its failure to take adequate account of liability insurance. Much of tort theory fails to recognize the active and central role that liability insurance plays in tort law and litigation, or mentions liability insurance only briefly. Liability insurance is treated as exogenous to tort law itself--as if it were merely a contingent source of outside financing, like a bank that passively guarantees a loan. It is no exaggeration to say that liability insurance played a defining and (in our view) salutary role in creating modern tort liability. Modern tort liability would not look at all as it does today if liability insurance had not existed and influenced tort law's development in the ways that it did. This Article calls upon tort scholars of all theoretical and methodological stripes to address the significance of liability insurance by incorporating consideration of liability insurance into their work. We first lay the groundwork for understanding liability insurance's significance by describing the role that liability insurance plays in the life cycle of a tort claim, sketching the contemporary incidence of liability insurance and commercial self-insurance. We then provide a novel contribution to the tort law literature by identifying a collection of important judicial opinions that have made express reference to the availability (or unavailability) of liability insurance in precedentsetting, liability-expanding, and liability-limiting tort cases. We further identify the ways that liability insurance historically has influenced, and continues to influence, the shape and scope of tort law. We specifically identify a number of significant tort law doctrines and practices, such as the thin-skull rule, that we argue would never have persisted in the absence of liability insurance. Given this evidence, we argue that it is liability insurers who--paradoxically--have fueled the continuing expansion of American tort liability that began more than a century ago. We then examine modern tort theory, much of which fails to take adequate account of liability insurance. We explain how to begin filling the gap in tort theory that results from omitting consideration of or inadequately considering liability insurance, showing how liability insurance can appropriately figure in both deontic and consequentialist theories of tort liability. Only by greater recognition and candid acknowledgment of the role that liability insurance plays in tort cases can tort theory provide an accurate picture of the field that it seeks to describe. Finally, we offer lessons for the courts, calling not only for more open acknowledgment of the significance of liability insurance in judicial opinions but also for a radical change in trial practice by proposing that judges explicitly consider record evidence (including the availability of liability insurance) on the insurability of the risk at issue in tort cases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Neuroimaging and other neurobiological evidences are increasingly introduced in criminal litigation, especially when a neuropsychiatric disorder is suspected. Evaluations of criminal competencies are the most common type of criminal forensic assessment in forensic psychiatry and psychology. Given this, it is critical for forensic evaluators to understand how neuropsychiatric disorders may affect a defendant's criminal competencies and how neurobiological data may be used in competency determinations. This paper reviews the use of neurobiological data, particularly neuroimaging, while considering the limitations and potential misuse of such data in criminal competency evaluations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Terrorism research has gained much traction since the 9/11 attacks, but some sub genres of terrorism, such as right-wing terrorism, have remained under-studied areas. Unsurprisingly data sources to study these phenomena are scarce and frequently face unique data collection obstacles. This paper explores five major, social-scientific terrorism databases in regards to data on right-wing terrorist events. The paper also provides an in-depth examination of the utilization of criminal legal proceedings to research right-wing terrorist acts. Lastly, legal case databases are introduced and discussed to show the lack of available court information and case proceedings in regards to right-wing terrorism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Civil litigation-style deposition practice is preventing commercial arbitration from reaching its full potential as an economical, efficient alternative to a civil lawsuit. Although there is consensus among alternative dispute resolution experts that meaningful limits must be imposed on arbitration discovery to unlock the efficiency benefits of arbitration, depositions continue to feature prominently in commercial arbitrations for at least three reasons. First, civil litigators are addicted to depositions. They reflexively propose overdone deposition practice in arbitrations that replicates their litigation experience. Second, arbitrators may hesitate to disallow deposition discovery out of fear that their awards will be vacated for failure to hear material and pertinent evidence. Third, arbitrators are justifiably concerned that they will be punished in the arbitral marketplace if they deny the deposition requests of the parties and lawyers that select them. These dynamics dictate that consequential change will remain elusive in this area unless the rules regarding deposition practice in commercial arbitrations are amended. While these rules currently are more restrictive in some ways than the rules of civil procedure, they are toothless. They often allow some discovery depositions as a matter of right and grant the arbitrator discretion to permit an unlimited number of discovery depositions upon a modest showing of "cause" or "need." This Article is the first to propose that the rules of federal criminal procedure--which flatly outlaw discovery depositions--be used as a model for modifying arbitration rules concerning the availability of discovery depositions. Doing so will make arbitration more efficient without meaningfully compromising the ability of arbitration parties to pursue and defend their claims. The fact that prosecutors and defense counsel routinely try high-stakes criminal cases without the benefit of discovery depositions provides strong evidence that arbitration parties can effectively represent their interests without the need for discovery depositions. Further support for this proposal can be found in the case law which holds that the crossexamination of prosecution witnesses by criminal defense counsel at trial (without the benefit of a prior deposition) satisfies a criminal defendant's Confrontation Clause rights. If criminal defendants can be deprived of their liberty without deposing the prosecution's witnesses prior to trial, it is fair to require the parties to an arbitration to examine witnesses at a hearing without the added layers of delay and cost associated with discovery depositions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Airports represent a crucial a sector of the US infrastructure, but they were documented to have scored a D+. To mitigate this, governmental authorities have issued initiatives to update the airport infrastructure. With an expected critical junction for a major transformation in the airport sector, it is anticipated that airport projects will increase. This shall result in an escalation in the number of disputes. Previous research analyzed dispute concerns within the construction sector, but none tackled the perspective of airport projects. Accordingly, the goal of this study is to investigate the leading causes of disputes in litigation within US airport projects through data-driven techniques. To achieve this goal, a three-step methodology is adopted, including (1) collecting a comprehensive list of federal and state litigation cases to map the data and identify the causes of disputes; (2) clustering and visualizing the data using k -means and network analysis (NA), respectively; and (3) determining the key associations emanating from the dispute clusters through association rule analysis (ARA). The outcomes of this research revealed a total of 23 dispute causes clustered across four groups. Results of the NA indicated that the most common dispute causes are those involved with ambiguity in contractual interpretation, incurred damages, safety issues, and negligence or lack to duty of care. ARA identified several key associations and risk themes related to (1) financial assurance and operational performance: (2) contractual compliance and execution; (3) business affiliation, methods, and inclusion; (4) integrity and misconduct; (5) regulatory hurdles and area effects; and (6) collaboration and teamwork challenges. By identifying these associations and causes of disputes, airport stakeholders can implement early proactive measures that aim to mitigate dispute risks experienced. Ultimately, this study is of value to stakeholders concerned with the overall support and success of dispute management procedures in US airport projects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Opioids have had a devastating impact on the United States. They have drained governmental agencies' resources, decreased property values, and destroyed families and entire communities. A growing number of individuals, local governments, and states have filed lawsuits, aiming to hold pharmaceutical companies accountable for their negligent contributions to the epidemic.1 Such manufacturers, distributors, and retailers have called upon their insurers, asserting that their commercial general liability policies demand an insurer-backed and -bankrolled defense. Courts are divided in their interpretation of the language contained within the at-issue policies. Some consider the claims made by certain states and local governments to stem from a "bodily injury," as is necessary to trigger coverage. Others disagree. Using a form provided by the Insurance Services Office, this Note construes the at-issue policies in conjunction with the underlying claims and evaluates the holdings reached by the Sixth and Seventh Circuits and the Supreme Courts of Delaware and Ohio. An analysis of the government's claims reveals that they are too vague and attenuated to be covered, especially as they are the result of decades and decades of reckless pill-pushing. Ultimately, this Note concludes that the manufacturers, distributors, and retailers must be left to fend for themselves, given both the plain and unambiguous language of their policies and the ramifications of such a conclusion, socially and otherwise. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Our litigation system is broken. Scholars have long warned that professional litigants, such as debt-collecting firms, insurance companies, and commercial landlords, enjoy immense and unfair advantages over private individuals. What has gone unnoticed is professional litigants' ability to manipulate their litigatory position--that is, to choose whether they will litigate as plaintiffs or defendants. Extant literature assumes that the parties' litigatory positions are determined by the substance of the dispute: the party seeking a remedy is the plaintiff, and the party objecting to the award of a remedy is the defendant. We show that, in reality, professional litigants have both the incentive and the ability to switch between positions at will, assuming whichever litigatory role best serves their interests under given circumstances. These litigants essentially choose which side of the "v." they prefer to be on. This choice allows professional litigants to reshape litigatory interactions, secure easy victories against private individuals, and hinder the fair and equal adjudication of disputes. Based on this observation, this Article makes three novel and important contributions. First, it reconceptualizes our understanding of the litigatory landscape. The Article challenges the existing understanding of the litigation system by deconstructing the traditional plaintiff-defendant dichotomy and highlighting the malleability of the litigatory setting. Second, it draws attention to the implications of professional litigants' manipulation tactics. Finally, it proposes legal reforms designed to balance the scales and update the institutions of litigation to the current reality, in which most legal disputes occur between private individuals on one side and professional adversaries on the other. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Informed litigation is vital to uphold the rights of migrants subject to automated decision-making. This article introduces the NewTech Litigation Database, a tool for anyone seeking to contest the use of automated systems in migration and asylum processes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the Fourth Circuit's decision in K & R Contractors, LLC v. Keene, which examines the constitutionality of removal protections for administrative law judges (ALJs) at the Department of Labor (DOL). It discusses the court's rationale for declining to address the constitutional question due to the lack of injury suffered by the challenging party.

The article centers on the Ninth Circuit's ruling in Lee ex rel. Gap, Inc. v. Fisher, which concerns the enforceability of a forum selection clause in corporate bylaws. It highlights the tension between state corporate law, federal securities regulations, and shareholders' rights to pursue legal action. It delves into the intricacies of forum selection clauses, the interpretation of federal securities laws, and the role of state law in determining the classification of shareholder claims.

The article focuses on the Fourth Circuit's ruling in Kiviti v. Bhatt regarding the application of Article III mootness doctrine to bankruptcy proceedings. It discusses the court's reasoning that bankruptcy courts, not being Article III courts, have the statutory authority to adjudicate cases that would be moot under Article III. It also critiques the decision for potentially allowing Congress to circumvent Article III requirements.

The article delves into the complex terrain of legal battles involving federal agencies, exploring the nuanced dynamics between litigants and regulatory bodies. It scrutinizes the absence of a clear standard set by the Supreme Court for determining whether agency regulations should remain intact during litigation. It juxtaposes the traditional standards for granting stays and injunctions, dissecting their applicability in the context of challenges to agency actions.

Chevron deference is an integral part of administrative law. However, the Supreme Court has not applied Chevron consistently throughout Chevron's nearly forty-year history. While trying to apply what facially appears to be a simple test, the Court has added more steps to the test, contradicted prior cases applying Chevron, and undermined Chevron itself. The Court has been especially unclear in four areas: deciding when a statute is ambiguous and applying the canons of construction, determining if an agency's interpretation has the "force of law," choosing whether prior precedents or an agency's new interpretation control when they conflict, and deciding whether to defer to an agency' s interpretation of the scope of its own authority . This confusion has made Chevron unworkable and undermines its durability as a precedent. Litigants have little confidence in how the Supreme Court will apply Chevron, let alone how the lower courts will apply it. Chevron has outlived its usefulness and should be replaced with de novo review. De novo review frees courts to find the right answer, and although not easy to apply, it is much more straightforward than Chevron. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In February 2022, the International Court of Justice handed down its decision in Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v Uganda) which determined claims against Uganda for its unlawful military activities in the territory of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The decision is significant for the law of reparations, with the Court adopting a controversial 'global sum' methodology in fixing compensation which was guided by equitable considerations. Also at issue (which the Court did not decide) was whether claims for high‐level 'macroeconomic' loss are recoverable in principle under international law. This note argues that the Court's global sum methodology is a permissible (and welcome) use of equity to determine compensation where there are evidential difficulties. It also takes the view that macroeconomic loss should be recoverable in principle: a position which is consistent with the teleological design of compensation, and with the more flexible approach to economic loss which some international tribunals have taken. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The idea that international law is received into the common law to some greater or lesser extent persists in contemporary accounts of the English constitution. In The Law Debenture Trust Corporation plc v Ukraine, however, a majority of the Supreme Court held – in circumstances ripe for its reception – that international law had no place in the English common law of duress and contractual defences. This note explains why, after Law Debenture, international law's reception into English law seems practically impossible. It then sketches an alternative account of how international law can be invoked in English proceedings – never truly received into English law, but instead applied as the lex causae under a choice of law rule for inter‐state issues – which proves more theoretically satisfying and practically meaningful, and which also provides a better path to the outcome reached in Law Debenture. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In Fearn v Board of Trustees of the Tate Gallery the UK Supreme Court unanimously held that visual intrusions are in principle actionable under the tort of private nuisance. On the facts, a narrow 3:2 majority found that the Tate Modern was liable for the operation of its viewing gallery where the public could see into the claimants' flats. This note argues that the court's landmark determination on the scope of nuisance is a welcome one insofar as it decentres physical interference and aligns the operation of the tort with its normative underpinnings. More dubious is the majority's emphasis on the 'common and ordinary use' of land, an uncertain concept which is likely to generate difficulties in future cases. Finally, the note considers some of the broader implications of Fearn, reflecting on the public reaction to the decision and considering what the case means for privacy protection in particular. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We apply network science principles to analyse the coalitions formed by European Union nations and institutions during litigation proceedings at the European Court of Justice. By constructing Friends and Foes networks, we explore their characteristics and dynamics through the application of cluster detection, motif analysis and duplex analysis. Our findings demonstrate that the Friends and Foes networks exhibit disassortative behaviour, highlighting the inclination of nodes to connect with dissimilar nodes. Furthermore, there is a correlation among centrality measures, indicating that member states and institutions with a larger number of connections play a prominent role in bridging the network. An examination of the modularity of the networks reveals that coalitions tend to align along regional and institutional lines, rather than national government divisions. Additionally, an analysis of triadic binary motifs uncovers a greater level of reciprocity within the Foes network compared to the Friends network. This article is part of the theme issue 'A complexity science approach to law and governance'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The sustainability of the global economy, particularly in response to the concerns of climate change, is an issue which impacts many different aspects of life and work around the world. It raises particular questions concerning globalised industries or markets which depend on long distance transportation for their function. This article takes as its focus international civil litigation – the judicial resolution of cross-border disputes – as a particular example of a globalised market in which sustainability considerations are presently neglected, and examines how this omission ought to be addressed. It proposes a modification to English law which aims to ensure that jurisdictional decisions by the English courts take into account their environmental impact – that is to say, the environmental impact of the selection of a particular forum. The article also considers the implications of adopting this change on the position of the English courts in the global litigation marketplace, arguing that the effects are likely to be limited, and it could have an incidental benefit in promoting the development and adoption of communications technologies in judicial dispute resolution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The issue of restitution for sexual and physical abuse of survivors of Indian residential schools has gained litigative traction, leaving the issue of reparations for cultural loss in the shadows. This Comment explores the idea of a new tort of cultural loss to more holistically address the systematized harm experienced by Aboriginal children forced into residential schools in Canada. Based on the qualitative experiences of survivors of residential schools, this Comment suggests a taxonomy of cultural loss that may further inform efforts to use tort law as a vehicle for reparative justice. Ultimately, this tort theory demands further inquiry and scholarship, particularly from Aboriginal stakeholders, but may serve as a starting point for future reparations innovations in the face of systematic cultural violence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For decades, legal academics have complained about a conflict between history and the doctrine of Article III standing. First in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins (2016) and then notably in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez (2021), Justice Clarence Thomas presented a halfway resolution. Justice Thomas grounded Article III standing in a historical distinction between private and public rights. Suits for violations of private rights would require no showing of concrete injury in fact. Suits for violations of public rights would require the injury in fact showing of special damage, a term borrowed from the public nuisance tort. This Article questions the Thomas retention of injury in fact for public rights. Part I explains Justice Thomas's nuanced approach to Article III standing. Part II investigates old English and early American materials on special damage to flesh out the meaning of Justice Thomas's requirement for public rights standing. The upshot is a lack of historical consensus on the content of the special damage standard. The materials do not align on a precise standard, making it difficult, either as a matter of 1788 original meaning or later liquidation, to operationalize Justice Thomas's special damage requirement. Part III argues that there are good reasons to doubt that the requirement of special damage is constitutionally relevant to the original meaning of Article III. The Framers did not discuss special damage in connection to Article III. Most of the relevant cases are from state courts, which are not bound by Article III. The traditional rationale for the special damage requirement does not have constitutional significance. And it seems implausible that the Constitution incorporated a legal doctrine in such flux without textual indication. The Article concludes with a critique of the current Supreme Court's lack of concern for originalism in standing doctrine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents the text of the remarks given by Governor Greg Abbott of Texas to the 2023 Federalist Society National Student Symposium. He discussed the categories of people involved in the battle for the soul of the future of the U.S., a tip for those preparing for the bar exam, and the ultimate place to litigate if one wants to be a litigator.

Over the past twenty years, patent cases have become a major component of the Supreme Court's shrinking docket. The Court's return to patent law after a long absence has inspired a rich literature theorizing about the Court's agenda and critiquing its decisions. Those analyses, though differing in their particulars, have given rise to numerous conventional wisdoms about the Supreme Court and patent law: that the Supreme Court distrusts the Federal Circuit (the specialized appellate court that has exclusive jurisdiction over patent cases), that the Court places far more trust in the Solicitor General (who represents the executive branch in Supreme Court litigation), and that, for better or worse, the Supreme Court is now a major institutional player in the patent system. But are those conventional wisdoms true? In this Article, we separate myth from reality by presenting a novel quantitative and qualitative study of all patent-related Supreme Court cases since 1982, the year the Federal Circuit began operating. Our study questions whether many of the patent cases decided by the Court have actually been important. Instead, we show that most of the Court's patent-related cases have involved issues far from the substantive core of patent law and are rarely cited by the Federal Circuit. Assessing the Court's impact on patent law, we argue, requires focusing on a small subset of decisions involving the core doctrines of patent validity and infringement. In those decisions, the Supreme Court has been surprisingly deferential to the Federal Circuit. The cases in which the Federal Circuit has performed poorly (at least in the eyes of the Supreme Court) cluster around issues of jurisdiction, procedure, and remedies. We also identify specific types of patent-related cases in which the Solicitor General wins far less frequently than usual. Testing other patent "myths," we find support for the notions that the Supreme Court prefers malleable standards over bright-line rules and that the Supreme Court is less favorable for patent owners than the Federal Circuit. But we also find that Justice Breyer, often cited as the force behind the Court's growing patent docket, did not have an abnormally large influence over patent law. Similarly, specialist Supreme Court litigators, though increasingly involved in patent cases, don't seem to fare any better (or worse) than other lawyers in patent cases. In brief, our findings confirm some conventional wisdoms about the Supreme Court and patent law, disprove others, and offer a glimpse of patent law's future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Redistricting litigation has entered a new era. In 2020, for the first time, state legislatures completed post-census redistricting without preclearance under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA). After Shelby County v. Holder, plaintiffs challenging unlawful maps must rely upon private litigation alone. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has resuscitated the Purcell Principle, an equitable election law doctrine that prohibits federal courts from changing election rules on the eve of a political contest. Both Shelby County and Purcell present independent problems for voting rights. But at their intersection lies perhaps the most important change in redistricting jurisprudence in half a century: redistricting immunity. By extending Purcell to redistricting, the Supreme Court has invented a new blanket immunity for state legislatures to enact discriminatory districts. Without Section 5 preclearance, Purcell places litigants in an impossible temporal bind by denying them sufficient time to challenge illegal maps before the next election. As a result, state legislatures are incentivized to enact discriminatory redistricting schemes because legislators know those maps will be immune for at least the first election following decennial redistricting—accounting for no less than one in five federal elections. This Article introduces the concept of redistricting immunity to the election law literature. New litigation data demonstrate how redistricting immunity works, what causes it, and why it poses a threat to multiracial democracy in the United States. Ultimately, redistricting immunity inverts two core institutional arrangements in our federal structure. It elevates state law over federal law, posing a basic threat to federal supremacy, and it empowers courts over Congress, raising concerns about democratic legitimacy. This Article concludes by offering solutions for courts, legislatures, and litigants. Only with the consequences of redistricting immunity in clear view can courts, legislatures, and litigants remedy this new immunity that has dangerously eroded the voting rights protections the “Court once knew to buttress all of American democracy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the article, the author discusses website accessibility law issues under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 and how to address them. ADA aims to eliminate discrimination based on disabilities. Also cited are the rapid rise of federal lawsuits due to violations of ADA's Title III and the efforts by foreign governments and standard-setting organizations like the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) to ensure internet accessibilityfor all users.

In the article, the author discusses legal challenges in human rights claims in climate litigation and international environmental law. Among the challenges are causality challenge, extraterritorial challenge, and cross-temporal challenge. Also cited are some high-profile cases like Urgenda Foundation v. State of the Netherlands, and some claims like youth-based claims, Indigenous-based claims, and claims based upon future wellbeing concerns.

The COVID-19 pandemic provided uncertain and challenging circumstances under which to lead a nation and the military that protects it. Those in charge and in command faced unique challenges--scientific, ethical, and legal--at our various levels of government to both keep people safe while keeping government and society functioning. While there were many successes to celebrate, there are also many criticisms for how this "whole-ofgovernment approach" may have degraded some of our most cherished liberties along the way. The authors focus on the U.S. military's vaccine mandate and propose military leaders may have failed to fully consider the evolving science, weigh the prevailing ethics, and appropriately apply the relevant law regarding exemptions, and instead adopted a more uniform approach that aligned with other federal agencies and not to the military's unique population. And along the way, military leaders lost some of the trust and the faith of those they were seeking to protect, prompting the other two branches of government, the Judiciary and Congress, to intervene. Drawing from our diverse experiences as both practitioners and academics, this Article not only seeks to document the past but also provides some suggestions for the future should we face another such pandemic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the evolution of the mandamus jurisprudence and summary judgment procedure in the U.S. in the past 30 years as of April 2024 by analyzing the denial of summary judgment in the case In re Prudential. Other topics include appellate remedies, appellate rights, and the evidence to warrant a trial.

The article delves into the case of Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections & Public Safety, focusing on the Fifth Circuit's decision to bar individual capacity money damages under the U.S., RLUIPA (Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act). It states that despite invoking the Spending Clause, the court denied Damon Landor the right to sue prison officials for damages after his religious rights were violated.

The article focuses on a Fourth Circuit case, Appalachian Voices v. United States Department of the Interior, regarding jurisdiction stripping concerning challenges to the Mountain Valley Pipeline. It mentions that the court ruled that Congress, through the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023, had effectively stripped jurisdiction from federal courts and vested exclusive jurisdiction in the D.C. Circuit for challenges related to the pipeline.