Subjects -> LAW (Total: 1397 journals)
    - CIVIL LAW (30 journals)
    - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (52 journals)
    - CORPORATE LAW (65 journals)
    - CRIMINAL LAW (28 journals)
    - CRIMINOLOGY AND LAW ENFORCEMENT (161 journals)
    - FAMILY AND MATRIMONIAL LAW (23 journals)
    - INTERNATIONAL LAW (161 journals)
    - JUDICIAL SYSTEMS (23 journals)
    - LAW (843 journals)
    - LAW: GENERAL (11 journals)

LAW (843 journals)                  1 2 3 4 5 | Last

Showing 1 - 200 of 354 Journals sorted alphabetically
ABA Journal Magazine     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 16)
Acta Judicial     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Acta Juridica     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 5)
Acta Politica     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 19)
Acta Universitatis Danubius. Juridica     Open Access  
Acta Universitatis Lodziensis : Folia Iuridica     Open Access  
Actualidad Jurídica Ambiental     Open Access  
Adelaide Law Review     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 19)
Administrative Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 37)
Aegean Review of the Law of the Sea and Maritime Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 7)
African Journal of Legal Studies     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 9)
African Journal on Conflict Resolution     Open Access   (Followers: 28)
Ahkam : Jurnal Hukum Islam     Open Access  
Ahkam : Jurnal Ilmu Syariah     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Air and Space Law     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 19)
Akron Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 4)
Al 'Adalah : Jurnal Hukum Islam     Open Access  
AL Rafidain law journal     Open Access  
Al-Ahkam     Open Access  
Al-Istinbath : Jurnal Hukum Islam     Open Access  
Alaska Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 9)
Alberta Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 13)
Alternative Law Journal     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 8)
Alternatives : Global, Local, Political     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 10)
Amazon's Research and Environmental Law     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
American Journal of Comparative Law     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 60)
American Journal of Jurisprudence     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 19)
American Journal of Law & Medicine     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 10)
American Journal of Legal History     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 10)
American Journal of Trial Advocacy     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 6)
American University Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 13)
American University National Security Law Brief     Open Access   (Followers: 6)
Amicus Curiae     Open Access   (Followers: 5)
Anales : Facultad de Ciencias Jurídicas y Sociales de la Universidad Nacional de La Plata     Open Access  
Anales de la Cátedra Francisco Suárez     Open Access  
Annales Canonici     Open Access  
Annales de droit     Open Access  
Annales de la Faculté de Droit d’Istanbul     Open Access  
Annales Universitatis Mariae Curie-Skłodowska, sectio G (Ius)     Open Access  
Annals of the Faculty of Law in Belgrade - Belgrade Law Review     Open Access  
Anuario da Facultade de Dereito da Universidade da Coruña     Open Access  
Anuario de la Facultad de Derecho : Universidad de Extremadura (AFDUE)     Open Access  
Anuario de Psicología Jurídica     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
ANZSLA Commentator, The     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 3)
Appeal : Review of Current Law and Law Reform     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Arbeidsrett     Full-text available via subscription  
Arbitration Law Monthly     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 4)
Arbitration Law Reports and Review     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 12)
Arctic Review on Law and Politics     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Argumenta Journal Law     Open Access  
Arizona Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 5)
Arizona State Law Journal     Free   (Followers: 2)
Arkansas Law Review     Free   (Followers: 4)
Ars Aequi Maandblad     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 4)
Art + Law     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 11)
Artificial Intelligence and Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 14)
ASAS : Jurnal Hukum dan Ekonomi Islam     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Asia Pacific Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Asia-Pacific Journal of Ocean Law and Policy     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2)
Asian American Law Journal     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Asian Journal of Law and Society     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 9)
Asian Journal of Legal Education     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 3)
Asian Pacific American Law Journal     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
AStA Wirtschafts- und Sozialstatistisches Archiv     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 3)
Asy-Syir'ah : Jurnal Ilmu Syari'ah dan Hukum     Open Access  
Australasian Law Management Journal     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 3)
Australian and New Zealand Sports Law Journal     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 7)
Australian Feminist Law Journal     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 10)
Australian Indigenous Law Review     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 20)
Australian Journal of Legal History     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 16)
Australian Year Book of International Law Online     Hybrid Journal  
Ballot     Open Access  
Baltic Journal of Law & Politics     Open Access   (Followers: 5)
Bar News: The Journal of the NSW Bar Association     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 7)
Behavioral Sciences & the Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 29)
Beijing Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 4)
Berkeley Journal of Entertainment and Sports Law     Open Access   (Followers: 5)
Berkeley Technology Law Journal     Free   (Followers: 15)
BestuuR     Open Access  
Bioderecho.es     Open Access  
Bioethics Research Notes     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 15)
Boletín de la Asociación Internacional de Derecho Cooperativo     Open Access  
Bond Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 17)
Boston College Journal of Law & Social Justice     Open Access   (Followers: 11)
Boston College Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 15)
Boston University Law Review     Free   (Followers: 11)
Bratislava Law Review     Open Access  
BRICS Law Journal     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Brigham Young University Journal of Public Law     Open Access   (Followers: 6)
Brill Research Perspectives in Comparative Discrimination Law     Full-text available via subscription  
Brill Research Perspectives in International Investment Law and Arbitration     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 3)
British Journal of American Legal Studies     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Brooklyn Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 4)
Bulletin of Medieval Canon Law     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 3)
Bulletin of Yaroslav Mudryi NLU : Series : Philosophy, philosophy of law, political science, sociology     Open Access  
Business and Human Rights Journal     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 5)
C@hiers du CRHIDI     Open Access  
Cadernos de Dereito Actual     Open Access  
Cahiers de la Recherche sur les Droits Fondamentaux     Open Access  
Cahiers Droit, Sciences & Technologies     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
California Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 22)
California Western Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
Cambridge Law Journal     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 124)
Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 4)
Campus Legal Advisor     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2)
Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 10)
Canadian Journal of Law and Society     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 23)
Canadian Journal of Law and Technology     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Case Western Reserve Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Časopis pro právní vědu a praxi     Open Access  
Catalyst : A Social Justice Forum     Open Access   (Followers: 10)
Católica Law Review     Open Access  
Chicana/o-Latina/o Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
China : An International Journal     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 20)
China Law and Society Review     Full-text available via subscription  
China-EU Law Journal     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 5)
Chinese Journal of Comparative Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 7)
Chinese Journal of Environmental Law     Hybrid Journal  
Chinese Law & Government     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 8)
Chulalongkorn Law Journal     Open Access  
Cleveland State Law Review     Free   (Followers: 2)
Clínica Jurídica per la Justícia Social : Informes     Open Access  
College Athletics and The Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 1)
Colombia Forense     Open Access  
Columbia Journal of Environmental Law     Open Access   (Followers: 12)
Columbia Journal of Gender and Law     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 15)
Columbia Journal of Race and Law     Open Access  
Columbia Journal of Tax Law     Open Access  
Columbia Law Review (Sidebar)     Open Access   (Followers: 21)
Commercial Law Quarterly: The Journal of the Commercial Law Association of Australia     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 4)
Comparative Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 45)
Comparative Legal History     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 8)
Comparative Legilinguistics     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Con-texto     Open Access  
Conflict Resolution Quarterly     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 42)
Cornell Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 14)
Corporate Law & Governance Review     Hybrid Journal  
Critical Analysis of Law : An International & Interdisciplinary Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 6)
Cuadernos de Historia del Derecho     Open Access   (Followers: 6)
Cuestiones Juridicas     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Current Legal Problems     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 25)
Danube     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
De Europa     Open Access  
De Jure     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Deakin Law Review     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 14)
Debater a Europa     Open Access  
Democrazia e diritto     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 2)
Denning Law Journal     Open Access   (Followers: 5)
DePaul Journal of Women, Gender and the Law     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
DePaul Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Derecho Animal. Forum of Animal Law Studies     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Derecho PUCP     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Derecho y Ciencias Sociales     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Derechos en Acción     Open Access  
Dereito : Revista Xurídica da Universidade de Santiago de Compostela     Full-text available via subscription  
Deusto Journal of Human Rights     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
DiH : Jurnal Ilmu Hukum     Open Access  
Dikaion     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Dike     Open Access  
Dikê : Revista de Investigación en Derecho, Criminología y Consultoría Jurídica     Open Access  
Diké : Revista Jurídica     Open Access  
Direito e Desenvolvimento     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Direito.UnB : Revista de Direito da Universidade de Brasília     Open Access  
Dixi     Open Access  
DLR Online     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Doxa : Cuadernos de Filosofía del Derecho     Open Access  
Droit et Cultures     Open Access   (Followers: 7)
Droit, Déontologie & Soin     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 1)
Drug Science, Policy and Law     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 4)
Duke Environmental Law & Policy Forum     Open Access   (Followers: 7)
Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy     Open Access   (Followers: 19)
Duke Law & Technology Review     Open Access   (Followers: 11)
Duke Law Journal     Open Access   (Followers: 29)
e-Pública : Revista Eletrónica de Direito Público     Open Access  
Economics and Law     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
Edinburgh Law Review     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 20)
Education and the Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 16)
Election Law Journal     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 18)
Environmental Justice     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 12)
Environmental Law Review     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 23)
Environmental Policy and Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 16)
ERA-Forum     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 5)
Erasmus Law Review     Open Access  
Erdélyi Jogélet     Open Access   (Followers: 4)
Espaço Jurídico : Journal of Law     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Estudios de Derecho     Open Access  
Ethnopolitics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 3)
Ethos: Official Publication of the Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 5)
EU Agrarian Law     Open Access   (Followers: 4)
European Convention on Human Rights Law Review     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 5)
European Energy and Environmental Law Review     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 14)
European Investment Law and Arbitration Review Online     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 1)
European Journal of Comparative Law and Governance     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 11)
European Journal of Law and Technology     Open Access   (Followers: 18)
European Law Journal     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 133)
European Public Law     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 44)
European Review of Private Law     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 37)
European Yearbook of Minority Issues Online     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 5)

        1 2 3 4 5 | Last

Similar Journals
Journal Cover
Boston College Law Review
Number of Followers: 15  

  This is an Open Access Journal Open Access journal
ISSN (Print) 0161-6587
Published by Boston College Homepage  [7 journals]
  • "Sexual Activity": What Qualifies Under 18 U.S.C. §
           2422'

    • Authors: Max Doherty
      Abstract: On May 13, 2021, in United States v. Dominguez, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit joined a pre-existing circuit split regarding the meaning of “sexual activity” under 18 U.S.C. § 2422 and whether that term requires physical contact between the defendant and the victim. The statute prohibits individuals from coercing or enticing others to participate in illegal sexual activity, including when the victim is a minor. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth and Seventh Circuits previously reached opposite interpretations of the phrase’s meaning. The court in Dominguez agreed with the Fourth Circuit and held that the phrase did not require the defendant to engage or attempt to engage in physical contact with another individual. This Comment argues that the Fourth and Eleventh Circuits reached the correct interpretation of “sexual activity” as not requiring physical contact.
      PubDate: Tue, 10 May 2022 08:42:02 PDT
       
  • Ransomware, Cyber Sanctions, and the Problem of Timing

    • Authors: Christine Abely
      Abstract: This essay argues that the lack of a federal blanket prohibition against ransomware payments undermines the purpose and effectiveness of the U.S. sanctions regime. The U.S. cyber-related sanctions program suffers from an essential problem of timing: often payments to malicious cyber actors are not prohibited until those actors have been named to the Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN) maintained by the Office of Foreign Assets Control in the U.S. Department of the Treasury. Yet those actors generally are not so designated until they have been identified as malicious through a completed or attempted attack. Further, the time between a cyberattack and the designation of a party as an SDN is generally not short enough to prohibit the making of a ransomware payment in response to an attack itself. A blanket prohibition against the making of ransomware payments would supplement the OFAC regulations and remedy a structural shortcoming of that regulatory scheme.
      PubDate: Mon, 09 May 2022 07:09:49 PDT
       
  • “Dueling” Experts and the False Claims Act: Weaponizing Legal Falsity
           to Combat Hospice Fraud

    • Authors: Kristen Parnigoni
      Abstract: In 2020, in United States ex rel. Druding v. Care Alternatives, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit advanced a broad interpretation of “falsity” under the federal False Claims Act (FCA) to allow conflicting medical opinions on a patient’s medical prognosis as evidence of false certification for hospice eligibility. In doing so, the court rejected a blanket rule that clinical judgments are immune from legal challenge and dismissed an “objective falsehood” requirement because it inappropriately conflated elements of the statute. The holding has important implications in industries with high risk for fraud, particularly the for-profit hospice industry that contracts with Medicare. This Comment argues that the Third Circuit’s liberalization of the falsity element aligns with congressional intent to create broad FCA liability for any attempt to defraud the government. Moreover, the Third Circuit’s approach incentivizes entities that receive federal funding to strengthen internal oversight and compliance programs.
      PubDate: Thu, 05 May 2022 11:22:35 PDT
       
  • NYSRPA v. Bruen and the Future of the Sensitive Places Doctrine: Rejecting
           the Ahistorical Government Security Approach

    • Authors: Carina Bentata Gryting et al.
      Abstract: On November 3, 2021, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, a Second Amendment case challenging New York’s concealed carry licensing system. The justices’ questions focused not only on who may obtain a license to carry a firearm in public, but also where those with a license may or may not bring their weapons. These questions acknowledged that the Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller provided a carveout for firearms restrictions in “sensitive places,” providing “schools and government buildings” as just two examples. In the fourteen years since Heller, state and federal courts have upheld firearms restrictions in a number of locations under the sensitive places doctrine. However, in anticipation of a wave of sensitive places litigation following the Bruen decision, several conservative scholars now seek to limit the doctrine to only those locations protected by strict government security measures, such as metal detectors and security guards. This article demonstrates that such an approach is inconsistent with our nation’s history of regulating public carry and both historical and present-day case law, including Heller.
      PubDate: Thu, 05 May 2022 07:32:06 PDT
       
  • A Hacker “May” Have Accessed Your Data: Can Victims of Data Breaches
           Sue Before Alleging Misuse'

    • Authors: John Landzert
      Abstract: On February 4, 2021, in Tsao v. Captiva MVP Restaurant Partners, LLC, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that the mere existence of a data breach is insufficient to grant plaintiffs standing to sue the company that exposed their personal information. By doing so, the Eleventh Circuit aligned itself with the Second, Third, Fourth, and Eighth Circuits. In contrast, the Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, and D.C. Circuits have granted standing in such cases. This Comment argues that the Eleventh Circuit properly applied Supreme Court jurisprudence at the time it decided Tsao and, in light of more recent Supreme Court decisions, came to the correct conclusion.
      PubDate: Tue, 03 May 2022 07:45:07 PDT
       
  • Calling Strikes: The Sixth Circuit’s Interpretation of the Prison
           Litigation Reform Act

    • Authors: Emily O'Hara
      Abstract: On May 3, 2021, in Simons v. Washington, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that a court’s non-binding “strike” recommendation under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) did not violate the PLRA or Article III of the United States Constitution. Courts agree that binding strikes are impermissible, but disagree on the underlying reasoning. The Sixth Circuit reasoned that the PLRA, which revokes in forma pauperis filing from indigent prisoner-litigants after three qualifying dismissals, renders binding strikes impermissible before a prisoner accrues three strikes. By resolving the issue using the PLRA, the Sixth Circuit found the constitutional inquiry unnecessary. This Comment argues that the Sixth Circuit’s approach is correct because it aligns with the well-established canon of constitutional avoidance. The Sixth Circuit’s approach also narrows the legal issues in a PLRA ruling, thereby communicating familiar legal principles to under-resourced prisoner-litigants.
      PubDate: Tue, 03 May 2022 07:45:03 PDT
       
  • Procedural Pitfalls: The Eleventh Circuit Holds That the Sentencing
           Commission’s Policy Statement on Sentence Reduction is Binding on
           Defendant-Filed Motions

    • Authors: Allison Cheney
      Abstract: On May 7, 2021, in United States v. Bryant, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that the U.S. Sentencing Commission’s policy statement in Section 1B1.13 of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines binds defendant-filed motions for compassionate release. In its Application Notes, the policy statement provides four “extraordinary and compelling circumstances” that warrant a sentence reduction. Application Note 1(D) is the “catch-all provision” because it states that judges may grant compassionate release for “other reasons” not specifically listed in the preceding Application Notes. Application Note 1(D) states that the Director of the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) defines all “other reasons” under the catch-all provision that qualify an inmate for compassionate release. Before 2018, only the Director of the BOP could file compassionate release motions under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). The First Step Act of 2018 amended the statute to allow defendants to file motions too. Because the policy statement still begins with the phrase “upon motion of the Director of the BOP,” courts have since questioned whether it also applies to defendant-filed motions. In a departure from the holdings of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth and D.C. Circuits, the Eleventh Circuit decided that the policy statement and its corresponding Application Notes apply to defendant-filed motions for compassionate release. Under this interpretation, only the BOP defines the “other reasons” that warrant compassionate release pursuant to Application Note 1(D). This Comment argues that the Eleventh Circuit was incorrect in its interpretation because it disregarded the plain text of the policy statement and erroneously considered the legislative intent of a different statute.
      PubDate: Mon, 02 May 2022 08:00:24 PDT
       
  • There's No Place Like Dot-Com: Are Websites Places of Public
           Accommodation Under Title III of the ADA'

    • Authors: Michele Astor-Pratt
      Abstract: On April 7, 2021, in Gil v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that websites are not places of public accommodation pursuant to Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Before the Eleventh Circuit vacated its decision in December 2021, it joined the majority of circuit courts in a split regarding whether Congress intended Title III to apply to websites and other non-physical places. The First, Second, and Seventh Circuits considered Title III’s language broad or ambiguous enough to include web-sites. Conversely, the Third, Fifth, Sixth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits held that Title III unambiguously excludes websites and other non-physical places. Although it vacated Gil, the Eleventh Circuit’s reasoning provides valuable insight as to how this court will decide when it hears another Title III appeal in the future. This comment argues that the Eleventh Circuit, with its extremely narrow interpretation of Title III, erred by disregarding the ambiguity of the Act’s language and should have construed the statute in light of Congress’s purpose.
      PubDate: Fri, 29 Apr 2022 07:54:17 PDT
       
  • Indiana Jones and the Illicit Excavation and Trafficking of Antiquities:
           Refining Federal Statutes to Strengthen Cultural Heritage Protections

    • Authors: Marina F. Rothberg
      Abstract: Most nations consider the protection of cultural material, such as historical monuments, archaeological sites, and antiquities, to be of utmost consequence. Yet, despite the near-universal importance of safeguarding cultural heritage, domestic protections for cultural material in the United States tend to be difficult to interpret. These ambiguities and gaps allow for continued exploitation and illicit trafficking of cultural heritage. This Note focuses on the legal structures in the United States that safeguard indigenous cultural material. After briefly discussing the rationale behind safeguarding objects of heritage, this Note explores the dominant federal statutes that protect cultural material: the National Historic Preservation Act, Archaeological Resources Protection Act, and Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. This Note then explores the various ways in which the efficacy of these protections is limited. Finally, this Note recommends amending federal statutes to eliminate gaps in protection, empower the Department of the Interior to prosecute violations, and increase training among those most likely to encounter illicitly trafficked cultural material—namely customs officials and law enforcement.
      PubDate: Wed, 27 Apr 2022 06:56:06 PDT
       
  • Accountable to None' Challenging Sovereign Immunity Through the
           Trafficking Victims Protection Act

    • Authors: Heather Odell
      Abstract: Although amendments to the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) have opened the door to greater corporate liability, government liability under the TVPA remains murky. A critical barrier that plaintiffs suing government entities confront is the broad protection from suit that states enjoy under the Eleventh Amendment. One of the few exceptions to this protection is congressional abrogation of state sovereign immunity. In 1996, the Supreme Court held in Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida that to abrogate state sovereign immunity, Congress must do so pursuant to a valid source of power. It further held that this valid source includes Congress’s Fourteenth Amendment enforcement powers, but not its Article I powers. Although some courts interpreting the TVPA have noted its roots in the Commerce Clause of the Constitution (an Article I power), others reason that Congress enacted it pursuant to its Thirteenth Amendment enforcement power. This Note argues that Congress enacted the TVPA based on the Thirteenth Amendment, and therefore, suits against state defendants present a novel legal issue: can Congress abrogate state sovereign immunity pursuant to its power to enforce the Thirteenth Amendment' This Note answers in the affirmative. It contends that plaintiffs suing states under the TVPA have an opportunity to simultaneously seek remedy for violations of their rights, while also chipping away at restrictive abrogation precedent that continues to protect states at a high cost to individuals.
      PubDate: Wed, 27 Apr 2022 06:56:05 PDT
       
  • Young Guns: The Constitutionality of Raising the Minimum Purchase Age for
           Firearms to Twenty-One

    • Authors: Zachary S. Halpern
      Abstract: In 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller, the United States Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects the right of “law-abiding, responsible citizens” to keep and bear arms to defend their home. The Court’s decision in Heller, however, left novel questions about the scope of the right unanswered, including at what age it vests. Federal law prohibits federally-licensed dealers from selling handguns to persons under twenty-one, but it permits persons over eighteen to possess and use handguns and acquire them through private sales. In 2018, in response to the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, Florida raised its minimum purchase age for all firearms to twenty-one. The National Rifle Association immediately challenged the law in federal court, claiming that it violated the Second Amendment rights of young adults aged eighteen to twenty. In 2021, in National Rifle Ass’n v. Swearingen, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida held that the law is consistent with the Second Amendment. This Note discusses how federal and state statutory regimes interact with the Court’s Second Amendment jurisprudence to govern young adults’ access to firearms. It examines arguments concerning the constitutionality of Florida’s minimum purchase-age provision and contends that the measure is valid because it is analogous to the “presumptively lawful” restrictions identified in Heller and because it survives intermediate scrutiny.
      PubDate: Wed, 27 Apr 2022 06:56:04 PDT
       
  • Safe Injection Facilities: Reconsidering American Drug Policy

    • Authors: Evelyn L.A. Jackson
      Abstract: On January 12, 2021, in United States v. Safehouse, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that supervised injection facilities—sites where medical professionals monitor injection drug use—violate the Crack House Statute. The legality of supervised injection facilities was a matter of first impression at the circuit level. Research shows that supervised injection facilities reduce overdose deaths and the spread of infection and are important harm reduction measures for combatting the opioid epidemic. The Third Circuit held that these programs violate the Crack House Statute, 21 U.S.C. § 856(a)(2), because they act with the statutorily proscribed purpose of drug use. Within its opinion, the Third Circuit noted that the word “purpose” in the provision pertains to the drug users. The Third Circuit’s determination that the statute does not require the property managers to hold an illicit purpose conflicted with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania’s opinion, which found supervised injection facilities to be legal. This Note maintains that the Third Circuit erred in concluding that “purpose” refers to the drug users and argues that it instead modifies the site operator. This Note further argues that American drug law is inapposite to treating and ending the opioid epidemic. Thus, this Note concludes by calling on Congress to incorporate addiction research findings into future drug policy.
      PubDate: Wed, 27 Apr 2022 06:56:04 PDT
       
  • Transnational Migration Deterrence

    • Authors: Anita Sinha
      Abstract: The governance of global migration increasingly relies on what critical migration scholarship refers to as externalized control. Externalization encompasses limiting human mobility through the imposition of migration control measures by transit states, as well as by states that are geographically proximate to destination states. Destination states are at a minimum complicit in the creation and operation of these externalized migration control systems. To capture this phenomenon, this Article offers a reconceptualization of externalization as transnational migration deterrence. The objective of this nomenclature is to provide a framework that highlights the role of destination states, to build a lexicon of accountability for extraterritorial human rights violations against migrants. Transnational migration deterrence systems often arise through ad hoc policies and practices, typically as a response to a migration “crisis,” and continue there-after as long-lasting mechanisms of regional migration control. Destination states typically provide assistance for less-resourced states to carry out migration control on their behalf through financial and logistical support, while also levying threats if they fail to deter migration. This Article begins with transnational migration deterrence in the Americas, describing first the historical context of the U.S.-Caribbean migrant deterrence system and then present-day migration control practices between the United States, Mexico, and Central America. It then turns to the transnational migration deterrence systems in Europe and Australia, chronicling arrangements of interdiction at sea and offshore detention in both regions. The Article concludes by exploring a framework of accountability that recognizes the relational nature of how externalized migration controls are operationalized, emphasizing the need for systems of accountability with respect to destination countries’ role in migration deterrence practices.
      PubDate: Wed, 27 Apr 2022 06:56:03 PDT
       
  • Platform-Enabled Crimes: Pluralizing Accountability When Social Media
           Companies Enable Perpetrators to Commit Atrocities

    • Authors: Rebecca J. Hamilton
      Abstract: Online intermediaries are omnipresent. Each day across the globe, the corporations running these platforms execute policies and practices that serve their profit model, typically by sustaining user engagement. Sometimes, these seemingly banal business activities enable principal perpetrators to commit crimes. Online intermediaries, however, are almost never held to account for their complicity in the resulting harms. This Article introduces the concept of platform-enabled crimes into the legal literature to highlight the ways in which the ordinary business activities of online intermediaries enable the commission of crime. It then focuses on a subset of platform-enabled crimes—those in which a social media company has facilitated international crimes—to understand the accountability gap associated with them. Further, this Article begins the work of addressing the accountability deficit for platform-enabled crimes by adopting a survivor-centered methodology and using the complicity of Facebook (now Meta) in the Rohingya genocide in Myanmar as a case study. It advances a menu of options that survivors, prosecutors, and legislators could pursue in parallel, including amending domestic legislation, strengthening transnational cooperation between international and domestic prosecutors for criminal and civil corporate liability cases, and regulatory action. The Article concludes by acknowledging that no single body of law is equipped to respond to the advent of platform-enabled crimes. By pursuing a plurality of proactive options, however, we can make a vast improvement on the status quo.
      PubDate: Wed, 27 Apr 2022 06:56:03 PDT
       
  • Psychosis, Heat of Passion, and Diminished Responsibility

    • Authors: E. Lea Johnston et al.
      Abstract: This Article calls for the creation of a generic partial excuse for diminished rationality from mental disability. Currently, most jurisdictions recognize only one partial excuse: the common law heat-of-passion defense. Empirical research demonstrates that populations with delusions experience similar impairments to decision-making capacities as people confronted with sudden, objectively adequate provocation. Yet, current law affords significant mitigation only to the latter group, which only applies in murder cases. Adoption of the Model Penal Code’s “extreme mental or emotional disturbance” (EMED) defense could extend mitigation to other forms of diminished responsibility. However, examination of jurisdictions’ adoption and utilization of the EMED defense shows that, of the few states that have adopted it, most have rejected its diminished responsibility potential. Instead, most retain key features of heat of passion such as requiring an external provoking event, rendering the defense inapplicable to many delusion-driven crimes. A better solution would be to create a generic partial excuse for diminished rationality from mental disability. Over the decades, several prominent scholars have offered proposals for generic partial excuses for partial responsibility, but, as of yet, none has inspired legislative action. This Article’s proposal differs from prior proposals in four key respects. First, it limits its purview to rationality impairments from mental disabilities, a traditionally recognized form of diminished blameworthiness. Second, to be workable and attractive to states, this proposal recommends that states draw definitions of partial responsibility from existing statutory frameworks, namely existing insanity or Guilty But Mentally Ill (GBMI) standards. Such an understanding of partial responsibility should carry greater local legitimacy, and the popularity of GBMI verdicts with legislatures and juries may mean that extending those statutes into the realm of partial responsibility would be more palatable to state legislatures than wholly new language. Third, in light of the realities of mental disorder and its lived experience, our proposal does not advocate for a lesser degree of mitigation for defendants who contributed to their irrationality through failure to comply with medical directives. Fourth, our proposal draws from GBMI statutes and partial responsibility standards outside the United States to suggest sentencing, treatment, and post-sentence options to accompany a partial responsibility verdict and respond to any possible threat to public safety. This Article examines the first two distinctive components of the partial excuse; the third and fourth aspects of the proposal will be developed in a future work.
      PubDate: Wed, 27 Apr 2022 06:56:02 PDT
       
  • Sovereign Immunity or: How the Federal Government Learned to Stop Worrying
           and Love the Discretionary Function Exception

    • Authors: Tristen Rodgers
      Abstract: The doctrine of sovereign immunity generally bars suits against the federal government. The Federal Tort Claims Act, however, waives sovereign immunity for a broad class of tort claims against the United States. It contains several exceptions, including the discretionary function exception that precludes suit against the federal government if the underlying conduct involved individual judgment or choice. In 2021, in Shivers v. United States, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that the discretionary function exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act applies even where the plaintiff alleges that the conduct at issue violated the U.S. Constitution. The Eleventh Circuit agreed with the Seventh Circuit and declined to permit a constitutional claims exclusion. In contrast, the First, Eighth, Ninth, and D.C. Circuits have each held that the discretionary function exception does not shield the United States from liability where the conduct at issue allegedly violates the Constitution. This Comment argues that the minority approach is correct because sovereign immunity doctrine indicates that courts should read any exception narrowly in favor of the federal government.
      PubDate: Thu, 14 Apr 2022 08:20:38 PDT
       
  • Scratching the "8-Ball": The Fourth Circuit's Approach to the First
           Step Act Misses the Mark

    • Authors: Matthew Baker
      Abstract: On March 9, 2021, in United States v. Lancaster, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that a district court ruling on a First Step Act motion must consider intervening factual and legal developments when deciding whether to resentence an offender under the Act. In doing so, the Fourth Circuit exacerbated a circuit split regarding the proper scope of the First Step Act. Four circuits, led by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, have taken the opposite position and do not allow their district courts to consider intervening circumstances at all. The United States Courts of Appeals for the First, Second, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Tenth, and D.C. Circuits, on the other hand, allow their district courts to consider intervening circumstances but do not require them to do so. Within the latter group, the First Circuit created a two-step framework for ruling on a First Step Act motion where a district court may not consider intervening circumstances when deciding whether to resentence but may do so when actually resentencing. This Comment argues that the Fourth Circuit incorrectly expanded the First Step Act’s scope of relief in United States v. Lancaster because it did not properly balance the Act’s statutory text with the Act’s discretionary grant. Additionally, this Comment argues that the Supreme Court should adopt the First Circuit’s two-step framework because that approach best realizes Congress’s intent within the Act’s textual limitations.
      PubDate: Wed, 30 Mar 2022 12:07:20 PDT
       
  • Evidence, Truth, and History in Atrocity Trials

    • Authors: Fergal Gaynor
      Abstract: This essay was delivered as the 2021 Holocaust and Human Rights Project Owen Kupferschmid Memorial Lecture. The Owen M. Kupferschmid Holocaust/Human Rights Project is named after its founder, a 1986 Boston College Law School graduate. Launched in 1984, the project’s goal was to ensure that the precedential value of Holocaust-related law is fully realized and applied to state-sponsored human rights violations today.
      PubDate: Wed, 30 Mar 2022 09:21:56 PDT
       
  • Pornography Isn't the Problem: A Feminist Theoretical Perspective on
           the War Against Pornhub

    • Authors: Taylor Comerford
      Abstract: Over the last year, Pornhub and its parent company, MindGeek, ignited public outcry against the prevalence of content users posted to their sites featuring sexual violence, nonconsensual pornography, and sex trafficking. Activists, journalists, and legislators allege that Pornhub and similar pornography sites are apathetic toward the victims in these videos and photos while profiting from the ad revenue such content brings to their sites. In December 2021, Senator Josh Hawley proposed the Survivors of Human Trafficking Fight Back Act, proposing to add criminal penalties and a federal cause of action against websites that either post or refuse to remove criminal pornography from their sites. This Note examines the arguments for and against legislation penalizing pornography websites for posting or hosting content of featuring sexual violence through a feminist lens. This style of legislation, which nobly aims to protect survivors of sexual violence, will likely appear again in Congress. This Note argues that Congress should not pass these bills because they subject transactional sex workers and pornography performers to economic and physical harm, making it an ineffective and misguided method to address the core harms of digital sexual exploitation.
      PubDate: Wed, 30 Mar 2022 09:21:50 PDT
       
 
JournalTOCs
School of Mathematical and Computer Sciences
Heriot-Watt University
Edinburgh, EH14 4AS, UK
Email: journaltocs@hw.ac.uk
Tel: +00 44 (0)131 4513762
 


Your IP address: 44.200.174.97
 
Home (Search)
API
About JournalTOCs
News (blog, publications)
JournalTOCs on Twitter   JournalTOCs on Facebook

JournalTOCs © 2009-