Pub Date : 2019-01-01DOI: 10.36646/mjlr.52.4.policing
Leonard M. Niehoff
Hate speech and extremist association do real and substantial harm to individuals, groups, and our society as a whole. Our common sense, experience, and empathy for the targets of extremism tell us that our laws should do more to address this issue. Current reform efforts have therefore sought to revise our laws to do a better job at policing, prohibiting, and punishing hate speech and extremist association. Efforts to do so, however, encounter numerous and substantial challenges. We can divide them into three general categories: definitional problems, operational problems, and conscientious problems. An informed understanding of these three categories of arguments is indispensable to any effort that seeks to reform the law in ways that will survive constitutional scrutiny. This Article provides a detailed legal and normative analysis of those arguments and common objections raised to them. It contends that the arguments raised in opposition to more expansive regulation of hate speech and extremist association largely get things right. And it concludes that more expansive regulation could have dire and unintended consequences that would disserve the interests of all, including the groups who advocate for such regulation.
{"title":"Policing Hate Speech and Extremism: A Taxonomy of Arguments in Opposition","authors":"Leonard M. Niehoff","doi":"10.36646/mjlr.52.4.policing","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36646/mjlr.52.4.policing","url":null,"abstract":"Hate speech and extremist association do real and substantial harm to individuals, groups, and our society as a whole. Our common sense, experience, and empathy for the targets of extremism tell us that our laws should do more to address this issue. Current reform efforts have therefore sought to revise our laws to do a better job at policing, prohibiting, and punishing hate speech and extremist association. Efforts to do so, however, encounter numerous and substantial challenges. We can divide them into three general categories: definitional problems, operational problems, and conscientious problems. An informed understanding of these three categories of arguments is indispensable to any effort that seeks to reform the law in ways that will survive constitutional scrutiny. This Article provides a detailed legal and normative analysis of those arguments and common objections raised to them. It contends that the arguments raised in opposition to more expansive regulation of hate speech and extremist association largely get things right. And it concludes that more expansive regulation could have dire and unintended consequences that would disserve the interests of all, including the groups who advocate for such regulation.","PeriodicalId":83420,"journal":{"name":"University of Michigan journal of law reform. University of Michigan. Law School","volume":"105 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80684465","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-01-01DOI: 10.36646/MJLR.53.2.WORLD
M. Perlin, T. Harmon, S. Chatt
First, we discuss the background of the development of counsel adequacy in death penalty cases. Next, we look carefully at Strickland, and the subsequent Supreme Court cases that appear—on the surface—to bolster it in this context. We then consider multiple jurisprudential filters that we believe must be taken seriously if this area of the law is to be given any authentic meaning. Next, we will examine and interpret the data that we have developed. Finally, we will look at this entire area of law through the filter of therapeutic jurisprudence, and then explain why and how the charade of “adequacy of counsel law” fails miserably to meet the standards of this important school of thought. Our title comes, in part, from Bob Dylan’s song, Shelter from the Storm. As one of the authors (MLP) has previously noted in another article drawing on that song’s lyrics, “[i]n a full-length book about that album, the critics Andy Gill and Kevin Odegard characterize the song as depicting a ‘mythic image of torment.’” The defendants in the cases we write about—by and large, defendants with profound mental disabilities who face the death penalty in large part because of the inadequacy of their legal representation— confront (and are defeated by) a world of ‘steel-eyed death.’ We hope that this Article helps change these realities.
{"title":"“A World of Steel-Eyed Death”: An Empirical Evaluation of the Failure of the Strickland Standard to Ensure Adequate Counsel to Defendants with Mental Disabilities Facing the Death Penalty","authors":"M. Perlin, T. Harmon, S. Chatt","doi":"10.36646/MJLR.53.2.WORLD","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36646/MJLR.53.2.WORLD","url":null,"abstract":"First, we discuss the background of the development of counsel adequacy in death penalty cases. Next, we look carefully at Strickland, and the subsequent Supreme Court cases that appear—on the surface—to bolster it in this context. We then consider multiple jurisprudential filters that we believe must be taken seriously if this area of the law is to be given any authentic meaning. Next, we will examine and interpret the data that we have developed. Finally, we will look at this entire area of law through the filter of therapeutic jurisprudence, and then explain why and how the charade of “adequacy of counsel law” fails miserably to meet the standards of this important school of thought. Our title comes, in part, from Bob Dylan’s song, Shelter from the Storm. As one of the authors (MLP) has previously noted in another article drawing on that song’s lyrics, “[i]n a full-length book about that album, the critics Andy Gill and Kevin Odegard characterize the song as depicting a ‘mythic image of torment.’” The defendants in the cases we write about—by and large, defendants with profound mental disabilities who face the death penalty in large part because of the inadequacy of their legal representation— confront (and are defeated by) a world of ‘steel-eyed death.’ We hope that this Article helps change these realities.","PeriodicalId":83420,"journal":{"name":"University of Michigan journal of law reform. University of Michigan. Law School","volume":"985 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77117026","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-01-01DOI: 10.36646/mjlr.52.2.switching
J. Aust
A current tension in U.S. employment immigration law involves the notice requirements for prospective permanent residency—”green card”—applicants. Foreign workers oftentimes do not receive their green cards for more than ten years after beginning the permanent residency process. For almost four decades after the first major employment immigration legislation was passed in 1965, green card applicants were unable to change employers during this extremely long process without abandoning their applications. In 2000, Congress sought to remedy the problem by passing legislation allowing foreign workers to change employers without sacrificing progress on their green cards. This legislation, however, created a massive gap in the process which remains to this day: currently, if a foreign worker changes employers after beginning her green card application, neither the worker nor her new employer is legally entitled to notice if anything goes wrong with the underlying petition. More specifically, if the government finds error in the green card petition and seeks to revoke it, the government is not obligated to provide revocation notice to the foreign national or to her new employer. Revoking a green card petition does not merely jeopardize a worker’s permanent residency application; it could also jeopardize her entire underlying status and could force her to abruptly leave the country. The immigration agency issued a policy memo in 2017 partially addressing the problem by granting the worker temporary standing during her proceedings. The memo is an insufficient solution to the problem, however, because it may be withdrawn or superseded at any time. Because the revocation notice problem presents an immediate and dire threat to the immigration status of potentially every foreign worker who switches jobs during her green card process, this Note advocates for both immediate administrative—as well as long-term congressional—permanent reforms to the relevant statutes and regulations governing this system.
{"title":"Switching Employers in a Working World: American Immigrants and the Revocation Notice Problem","authors":"J. Aust","doi":"10.36646/mjlr.52.2.switching","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36646/mjlr.52.2.switching","url":null,"abstract":"A current tension in U.S. employment immigration law involves the notice requirements for prospective permanent residency—”green card”—applicants. Foreign workers oftentimes do not receive their green cards for more than ten years after beginning the permanent residency process. For almost four decades after the first major employment immigration legislation was passed in 1965, green card applicants were unable to change employers during this extremely long process without abandoning their applications. In 2000, Congress sought to remedy the problem by passing legislation allowing foreign workers to change employers without sacrificing progress on their green cards. This legislation, however, created a massive gap in the process which remains to this day: currently, if a foreign worker changes employers after beginning her green card application, neither the worker nor her new employer is legally entitled to notice if anything goes wrong with the underlying petition. More specifically, if the government finds error in the green card petition and seeks to revoke it, the government is not obligated to provide revocation notice to the foreign national or to her new employer. Revoking a green card petition does not merely jeopardize a worker’s permanent residency application; it could also jeopardize her entire underlying status and could force her to abruptly leave the country. The immigration agency issued a policy memo in 2017 partially addressing the problem by granting the worker temporary standing during her proceedings. The memo is an insufficient solution to the problem, however, because it may be withdrawn or superseded at any time. Because the revocation notice problem presents an immediate and dire threat to the immigration status of potentially every foreign worker who switches jobs during her green card process, this Note advocates for both immediate administrative—as well as long-term congressional—permanent reforms to the relevant statutes and regulations governing this system.","PeriodicalId":83420,"journal":{"name":"University of Michigan journal of law reform. University of Michigan. Law School","volume":"118 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77287292","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-01-01DOI: 10.36646/mjlr.52.4.protecting
Emily S. P. Baxter
In recent years, state legislatures have increasingly passed laws that prohibit or preempt local action on a variety of issues, including fracking, LGBTQIA nondiscrimination, and workplace protections, among others. Often, these preemption laws are a direct response to action at the local level. States pass preemption laws either directly before or directly after a locality passes an ordinance on the same subject. Scholars have seen these preemptive moves as the outcome of the urban disadvantage in state and national government due to partisan gerrymandering. Preemption may be a feature of our governing system, but it has also become a problematic political tool state legislatures use to block the will of local governments. This Note discusses the role of cities and localities within the American republican system and proposes new ways to address preemption based on a commitment to local governing autonomy, also known as home rule. State constitutions and the guidelines courts use to interpret state constitutions offer an opportunity to improve and secure the relationship between state and local governments. The first Part of this Note addresses theories of local power, the second Part surveys a broad range of sources and examples to understand the scope of state preemption of local action, and the third Part critiques proposals to address preemption while offering new ideas to further that effort focused on amending state constitutions. Finally, the Appendix contains an original qualitative analysis of states’ constitutional home rule provisions and statutes.
{"title":"Protecting Local Authority in State Constitutions and Challenging Intrastate Preemption","authors":"Emily S. P. Baxter","doi":"10.36646/mjlr.52.4.protecting","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36646/mjlr.52.4.protecting","url":null,"abstract":"In recent years, state legislatures have increasingly passed laws that prohibit or preempt local action on a variety of issues, including fracking, LGBTQIA nondiscrimination, and workplace protections, among others. Often, these preemption laws are a direct response to action at the local level. States pass preemption laws either directly before or directly after a locality passes an ordinance on the same subject. Scholars have seen these preemptive moves as the outcome of the urban disadvantage in state and national government due to partisan gerrymandering. Preemption may be a feature of our governing system, but it has also become a problematic political tool state legislatures use to block the will of local governments. This Note discusses the role of cities and localities within the American republican system and proposes new ways to address preemption based on a commitment to local governing autonomy, also known as home rule. State constitutions and the guidelines courts use to interpret state constitutions offer an opportunity to improve and secure the relationship between state and local governments. The first Part of this Note addresses theories of local power, the second Part surveys a broad range of sources and examples to understand the scope of state preemption of local action, and the third Part critiques proposals to address preemption while offering new ideas to further that effort focused on amending state constitutions. Finally, the Appendix contains an original qualitative analysis of states’ constitutional home rule provisions and statutes.","PeriodicalId":83420,"journal":{"name":"University of Michigan journal of law reform. University of Michigan. Law School","volume":"35 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90250046","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This Note recommends federal policy reform and local implementation in order to decrease the immigration backlog and protect the rights of non-citizens in immigration proceedings. Although non-citizens hold many of the fundamental rights and freedoms enumerated in the Constitution, several core rights— including due process and the right to counsel—are not rigorously upheld in the context of immigration proceeding. By carefully regulating expanded access to representation and ending unnecessary immigration detention, the Executive Office of Immigration Review and Congress will ensure the swift administration of justice and protect non-citizens under the federal government’s jurisdiction.
{"title":"How to Decrease the Immigration Backlog: Expand Representation and End Unnecessary Detention","authors":"Kara A. Naseef","doi":"10.36646/mjlr.52.3.how","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36646/mjlr.52.3.how","url":null,"abstract":"This Note recommends federal policy reform and local implementation in order to decrease the immigration backlog and protect the rights of non-citizens in immigration proceedings. Although non-citizens hold many of the fundamental rights and freedoms enumerated in the Constitution, several core rights— including due process and the right to counsel—are not rigorously upheld in the context of immigration proceeding. By carefully regulating expanded access to representation and ending unnecessary immigration detention, the Executive Office of Immigration Review and Congress will ensure the swift administration of justice and protect non-citizens under the federal government’s jurisdiction.","PeriodicalId":83420,"journal":{"name":"University of Michigan journal of law reform. University of Michigan. Law School","volume":"2 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74482410","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-01-01DOI: 10.36646/mjlr.52.4.keynote
Sammy Rangel
The following is a transcription of Mr. Rangel’s keynote address presented at the University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform Symposium, Alt Association: The Role of Law in Combating Extremism on November 17, 2018, at the University of Michigan School of Law. The transcript has been lightly edited for clarity.
{"title":"Keynote Address","authors":"Sammy Rangel","doi":"10.36646/mjlr.52.4.keynote","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36646/mjlr.52.4.keynote","url":null,"abstract":"The following is a transcription of Mr. Rangel’s keynote address presented at the University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform Symposium, Alt Association: The Role of Law in Combating Extremism on November 17, 2018, at the University of Michigan School of Law. The transcript has been lightly edited for clarity.","PeriodicalId":83420,"journal":{"name":"University of Michigan journal of law reform. University of Michigan. Law School","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88955688","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-01-01DOI: 10.36646/mjlr.52.2.critiquing
Theresa A. Vogel
The #MeToo movement has brought renewed attention to the impact of gender inequality on our society’s ability to provide protection to women from physical and sexual violence, including intimate partner violence. Despite advances in legal protections and increased resources to prevent, prosecute, and bring an end to intimate partner violence, in the absence of true efforts to combat gender inequality as a whole, intimate partner violence will continue to pervade our society. The discussion of gender inequality’s impact on the treatment of intimate partner violence must expand beyond the violence that occurs in the United States to gender inequality’s impact on the protection afforded to women who have suffered this violence in other countries and seek protection from the United States. This is because U.S. asylum law trails decades behind even our flawed federal and state protections for victims of intimate partner violence. The male-centric lens through which the refugee definition was drafted and is interpreted continues to inhibit any progress in recognizing women’s asylum claims involving intimate partner violence. This Article finds that Matter of A-B- returns to the perception that intimate partner violence is a personal matter outside the scope of asylum protections. The decision demonstrates continued ignorance regarding the underlying reasons for intimate partner violence against women—gender and subordination. The failure to recognize that intimate partner violence occurs because of a woman’s gender is one of the primary obstacles to improvements in the treatment of asylum claims involving intimate partner violence. This Article contrasts the lack of progress in U.S. asylum law to provide protection to women who suffer intimate partner violence outside the United States with the advancements made in federal and state efforts to combat intimate partner violence occurring inside the United States. As a remedy, this Article recommends new legislation and regulations recognizing and guiding adjudication of these asylum claims, combined with judicial training and the development of a tracking mechanism for determinations in these types of cases. The current commitment to eradicating gender inequality within the United States is the perfect moment for reforming how we treat gender inequality when it occurs outside the United States.
#MeToo运动让人们重新关注性别不平等对我们社会保护女性免受身体暴力和性暴力(包括亲密伴侣暴力)的能力的影响。尽管在预防、起诉和制止亲密伴侣暴力方面的法律保护和资源有所增加，但如果没有真正努力从整体上消除性别不平等，亲密伴侣暴力将继续在我们的社会中普遍存在。关于性别不平等对处理亲密伴侣暴力的影响的讨论，必须超越发生在美国的暴力，扩大到性别不平等对在其他国家遭受这种暴力并向美国寻求保护的妇女所受到的保护的影响。这是因为美国的庇护法落后于几十年，甚至落后于我们有缺陷的联邦和州对亲密伴侣暴力受害者的保护。起草和解释难民定义时所用的以男性为中心的视角继续阻碍在承认涉及亲密伴侣暴力的妇女庇护申请方面取得任何进展。本文发现，a - b -的问题又回到了亲密伴侣暴力是庇护保护范围之外的个人问题的看法。这一决定表明，对亲密伴侣对妇女施暴的根本原因——性别和从属关系——仍然一无所知。未能认识到亲密伴侣的暴力行为是由于妇女的性别而发生的，这是改善处理涉及亲密伴侣暴力的庇护申请的主要障碍之一。本文对比了美国庇护法在保护在美国境外遭受亲密伴侣暴力的妇女方面缺乏进展，以及联邦和各州在打击发生在美国境内的亲密伴侣暴力方面取得的进展。作为补救措施，本文建议制定新的立法和法规，承认并指导对这些庇护申请的裁决，并结合司法培训和对这类案件的裁决制定跟踪机制。当前致力于消除美国国内的性别不平等，是改革我们对待美国以外的性别不平等的方式的最佳时机。
{"title":"Critiquing Matter of A-B-: An Uncertain Future in Asylum Proceedings for Women Fleeing Intimate Partner Violence","authors":"Theresa A. Vogel","doi":"10.36646/mjlr.52.2.critiquing","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36646/mjlr.52.2.critiquing","url":null,"abstract":"The #MeToo movement has brought renewed attention to the impact of gender inequality on our society’s ability to provide protection to women from physical and sexual violence, including intimate partner violence. Despite advances in legal protections and increased resources to prevent, prosecute, and bring an end to intimate partner violence, in the absence of true efforts to combat gender inequality as a whole, intimate partner violence will continue to pervade our society. The discussion of gender inequality’s impact on the treatment of intimate partner violence must expand beyond the violence that occurs in the United States to gender inequality’s impact on the protection afforded to women who have suffered this violence in other countries and seek protection from the United States. This is because U.S. asylum law trails decades behind even our flawed federal and state protections for victims of intimate partner violence. The male-centric lens through which the refugee definition was drafted and is interpreted continues to inhibit any progress in recognizing women’s asylum claims involving intimate partner violence. This Article finds that Matter of A-B- returns to the perception that intimate partner violence is a personal matter outside the scope of asylum protections. The decision demonstrates continued ignorance regarding the underlying reasons for intimate partner violence against women—gender and subordination. The failure to recognize that intimate partner violence occurs because of a woman’s gender is one of the primary obstacles to improvements in the treatment of asylum claims involving intimate partner violence. This Article contrasts the lack of progress in U.S. asylum law to provide protection to women who suffer intimate partner violence outside the United States with the advancements made in federal and state efforts to combat intimate partner violence occurring inside the United States. As a remedy, this Article recommends new legislation and regulations recognizing and guiding adjudication of these asylum claims, combined with judicial training and the development of a tracking mechanism for determinations in these types of cases. The current commitment to eradicating gender inequality within the United States is the perfect moment for reforming how we treat gender inequality when it occurs outside the United States.","PeriodicalId":83420,"journal":{"name":"University of Michigan journal of law reform. University of Michigan. Law School","volume":"54 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83314117","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In March 2017, it was revealed that current and former armed service members shared thousands of nude photos of their female counterparts over social media. Although some of these photos were taken with the women’s consent, almost none of them were distributed with the women’s consent. Victims have little legal recourse. Military law is silent on the matter of non-consensual distribution. Federal civilian law speaks only to interstate stalking, domestic violence, and harassment, while only thirty-four states have revenge porn laws that sufficiently criminalize nonconsensual distribution of illicit photographs. Further complicating matters, the perpetrator’s military status as active duty, reservist, or National Guardsman at the time of the crime determines which remaining punitive remedies are available to the victim, if any. Under the current legal framework, two recent developments in U.S. military policy risk opening female service members to additional exposure. First, in 2015, the Department of Defense opened all combat roles to women. Second, and concurrently, the Department began downscaling the military to a smaller, more flexible force increasingly supplemented by its reserve and National Guard (non-active-duty) forces. In light of these developments, the current state of the law poses an unacceptable risk that the growing number of female service members will be subjected to the dual horrors of seeing lewd photos of themselves plastered across the internet, and of seeing the perpetrator walk freely. This Note argues for expanding Article 2 subject matter jurisdiction of the Uniform Code of Military Justice to include all currently contracted members of the U.S. military—active duty, reservist, and guard—in order to bring peace of mind to those female service members willing to fight for peace abroad.
{"title":"This We’ll Defend: Expanding UCMJ Article 2 Subject Matter Jurisdiction as a Response to Nonconsensual Distribution of Illicit Photographs","authors":"Nicholas Karp","doi":"10.36646/mjlr.52.2.this","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36646/mjlr.52.2.this","url":null,"abstract":"In March 2017, it was revealed that current and former armed service members shared thousands of nude photos of their female counterparts over social media. Although some of these photos were taken with the women’s consent, almost none of them were distributed with the women’s consent. Victims have little legal recourse. Military law is silent on the matter of non-consensual distribution. Federal civilian law speaks only to interstate stalking, domestic violence, and harassment, while only thirty-four states have revenge porn laws that sufficiently criminalize nonconsensual distribution of illicit photographs. Further complicating matters, the perpetrator’s military status as active duty, reservist, or National Guardsman at the time of the crime determines which remaining punitive remedies are available to the victim, if any. Under the current legal framework, two recent developments in U.S. military policy risk opening female service members to additional exposure. First, in 2015, the Department of Defense opened all combat roles to women. Second, and concurrently, the Department began downscaling the military to a smaller, more flexible force increasingly supplemented by its reserve and National Guard (non-active-duty) forces. In light of these developments, the current state of the law poses an unacceptable risk that the growing number of female service members will be subjected to the dual horrors of seeing lewd photos of themselves plastered across the internet, and of seeing the perpetrator walk freely. This Note argues for expanding Article 2 subject matter jurisdiction of the Uniform Code of Military Justice to include all currently contracted members of the U.S. military—active duty, reservist, and guard—in order to bring peace of mind to those female service members willing to fight for peace abroad.","PeriodicalId":83420,"journal":{"name":"University of Michigan journal of law reform. University of Michigan. Law School","volume":"17 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75587007","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-01-01DOI: 10.36646/mjlr.52.4.interview
K. Beydoun, Nina Mozeihem, S. Bagenstos
The following is a transcription of an interview with Professor Khaled Beydoun, conducted at the University of Michigan Law School on March 15, 2019. The transcript has been lightly edited for clarity.
{"title":"Interview with Khaled Beydoun","authors":"K. Beydoun, Nina Mozeihem, S. Bagenstos","doi":"10.36646/mjlr.52.4.interview","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36646/mjlr.52.4.interview","url":null,"abstract":"The following is a transcription of an interview with Professor Khaled Beydoun, conducted at the University of Michigan Law School on March 15, 2019. The transcript has been lightly edited for clarity.","PeriodicalId":83420,"journal":{"name":"University of Michigan journal of law reform. University of Michigan. Law School","volume":"107 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81294540","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The U.S. medicines system is broken. Millions of Americans suffer and some even die because they cannot afford medicines discovered by government-funded research. At the same time, corporations holding monopoly patent rights to those medicines collect some of the largest profits in modern capitalist history. It does not have to be this way. The global legacy of treating essential medicines as a public good and the robust U.S. history of government seizure of private property for the public interest reveals a better path: the United States should nationalize its pharmaceutical industry. U.S. statutory law already provides broad powers for the executive branch to immediately order the substantial manufacturing and distribution of patent-free medicines. That statutory authority should be immediately implemented and further expanded. In addition, U.S. constitutional law justifies a full seizure of all industry assets. Given the pharmaceutical industry’s substantial reliance on government funding and licensing, along with the industry’s widespread malfeasance that harms the public welfare, the amount of compensation for this seizure will be limited. That seizure and compensation will finally conclude the tragic era of medicines profiteering and launch a new system that restores life-saving medications to their rightful role as affordable, accessible public goods.
{"title":"Tell Me How It Ends: The Path to Nationalizing the U.S. Pharmaceutical Industry","authors":"F. Quigley","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3496795","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3496795","url":null,"abstract":"The U.S. medicines system is broken. Millions of Americans suffer and some even die because they cannot afford medicines discovered by government-funded research. At the same time, corporations holding monopoly patent rights to those medicines collect some of the largest profits in modern capitalist history. It does not have to be this way. The global legacy of treating essential medicines as a public good and the robust U.S. history of government seizure of private property for the public interest reveals a better path: the United States should nationalize its pharmaceutical industry. U.S. statutory law already provides broad powers for the executive branch to immediately order the substantial manufacturing and distribution of patent-free medicines. That statutory authority should be immediately implemented and further expanded. In addition, U.S. constitutional law justifies a full seizure of all industry assets. Given the pharmaceutical industry’s substantial reliance on government funding and licensing, along with the industry’s widespread malfeasance that harms the public welfare, the amount of compensation for this seizure will be limited. That seizure and compensation will finally conclude the tragic era of medicines profiteering and launch a new system that restores life-saving medications to their rightful role as affordable, accessible public goods.","PeriodicalId":83420,"journal":{"name":"University of Michigan journal of law reform. University of Michigan. Law School","volume":"10 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"72750854","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：