Landmark Case Research Articles

“Hey SyRI, tell me about algorithmic accountability”: Lessons from a landmark case

Abstract The promised merits of data-driven innovation in general and algorithmic systems in particular hardly need enumeration. However, as decision-making tasks are increasingly delegated to algorithmic systems, this raises questions about accountability. These pressing questions of algorithmic accountability, particularly with regard to data-driven innovation in the public sector, deserve ample scholarly attention. Therefore, this paper brings together perspectives from governance studies and critical algorithm studies to assess how algorithmic accountability succeeds or falls short in practice and analyses the Dutch System Risk Indication (SyRI) as an empirical case. Dissecting a concrete case teases out to which degree archetypical accountability practices and processes function in relation to algorithmic decision-making processes, and which new questions concerning algorithmic accountability emerge therein. The case is approached through the analysis of “scavenged” material. It was found that while these archetypical accountability processes and practices can be incredibly productive in dealing with algorithmic systems they are simultaneously at risk. The current accountability configurations hinge predominantly on the ex ante sensitivity and responsiveness of the political fora. When these prove insufficient, mitigation in medias res/ex post is very difficult for other actants. In part, this is not a new phenomenon, but it is amplified in relation to algorithmic systems. Different fora ask different kinds of medium-specific questions to the actor, from different perspectives with varying power relations. These algorithm-specific considerations relate to the decision-making around an algorithmic system, their functionality, and their deployment. Strengthening ex ante political accountability fora to these algorithm-specific considerations could help mitigate this.

The Last Days of the Warren Court: How Justice Brennan Orchestrated Shapiro v. Thompson (1969)

The Last Days of the Warren Court:How Justice Brennan Orchestrated Shapiro v. Thompson (1969) Jordan Lampo (bio) On April 21, 1969, the Supreme Court invalidated state durational residency requirements for receipt of public assistance and helped establish a fundamental, constitutional right to travel in Shapiro v. Thompson.1 In announcing Shapiro, Justice William J. Brennan "read lengthy excerpts" from his majority opinion to spectators in the Courtroom.2 Brennan's prioritization of protecting the poor through the Fourteenth Amendment in Shapiro did not come as a surprise that day. Since he joined the Warren Court in 1956, Brennan and his fellow justices had been addressing wealth discrimination, hoping to apply the Equal Protection Clause to protect the rights of the poor. Chief Justice Earl Warren dissented in Shapiro. This was unusual. Brennan and Warren had been allies for twelve years, more often than not voting together on landmark cases. Notably, the chief justice had voted with the majority and Brennan in: Gideon v. Wainwright (1963),3 holding the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee a right for legal counsel to an indigent defendant accused of a felony; Douglas v. California (1963),4 holding that states must provide indigent persons with counsel on a first appeal of right to challenge a criminal conviction; and Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections (1966),5 holding a state law conditioning the vote on payment of a $1.50 poll tax denied equal protection. But Shapiro was different. Brennan had to deploy his persuasive powers to marshal a majority without Warren, who was about to retire. The story of how Brennan orchestrated Shapiro bears re-examination, as it took many twists and turns to arrive at the final decision. Moreover, the case took on heightened drama as some of the justices were worried about antagonizing Congress with a decision that [End Page 75] would require states to pay assistance to indigents at a time when Congress was debating whether to raise judicial salaries. The Warren Court The Warren Court spanned fifteen years (1953–1969) and Brennan served for twelve of them.6 One of Warren's clerks, Robert T. Lasky, summed up the relationship between the chief justice and the associate justice: Spearheaded by … Warren and … Brennan, the Warren Court radically expanded the reaches of the judicial power and altered constitutional law in a way that reverberates to this day. … Warren was the leader of the liberal wing; Brennan would provide its intellectual underpinnings.7 Lasky said Warren knew Brennan, the "intellectual anchor" who did "real hard, heavy lifting from a thinking standpoint," could articulate legal arguments in a manner the former governor of California could not.8 Another clerk, Paul J. Meyer, recalled that Warren and Brennan were always "very close" and that Brennan was "clearly Warren's tight ally of the Court."9 Their companionship has led historians to refer to their overlapping time on the bench not as the "Warren Court," but "the Brennan Court."10 Brennan and Warren mostly voted in lockstep. Warren often tasked Brennan with convincing a fifth justice to join them alongside liberal-leaning Justices Hugo L. Black and William O. Douglas.11 If Brennan was successful in garnering a fifth vote, then Warren would have the assignment power. Often, Warren assigned Brennan to write opinions in seminal cases. Notably, the chief justice assigned him Baker v. Carr,12 the reapportionment case that Warren deemed "the most important case of [his] tenure,"13 and Cooper Click for larger view View full resolution Earl Warren and William J. Brennan served together on the Court for 12 years and mostly voted in lockstep. Above they are shown examining Chief Justice John Marshall's Courtroom notes at the National Archives in 1966. [End Page 76] v. Aaron,14 a 1958 case denouncing Southern resistance to school desegregation. Thurgood Marshall was appointed in 1967, and soon became Brennan's ally.15 Marshall's presence gave the Court a solid block of seven liberal justices. Such a large number of like-minded justices put Brennan at ease—he no longer needed to rely on using Warren's opinion assignment power to force wavering justices to author opinions that aligned with his liberal values...

The Right to a Fair Trial of Legal Persons Throughout the Case Law of the ECHR and the CJEU

The ambition of this article is an analysis of the right to a fair trial of legal entities through the prism of the jurisprudence of the ECtHR and the CJEU. Despite the factual admission of the right to a fair trial to companies in the case law of the Courts, the absence of a strong theoretical foundation and persuasive explanation in their judgments raises ambiguity as to the ECtHR and the CJEU positions in that regard. In that context, the article examines landmark cases of both Courts and relevant doctrinal considerations concerning the application of guarantees provided by the right to a fair trial to legal persons. The ECtHR case law is considered inconsistent and the Strasbourg court, it appears, tries to avoid any far-reaching conclusions. The CJEU in its case law, due to the inherent focus of EU law on economic values, interprets the right to a fair trial of companies broadly, and sometimes, broader than it is needed. It is concluded that the issue requires more attention from both the Courts and legal scholars, in the view of serious consequences the ignorance and unfounded admission of any fundamental right could entail to the society and economy.

Development of MOF-5-like ultra-microporous metal-squarate frameworks for efficient acetylene storage and separation

A series of ultra-microporous MOF-5-like metal-squarate frameworks exhibit moderate C2H2 uptake capacity, in addition to excellent C2H2/CO2 and C2H2/C2H4 separation ability regulated by strong hydrogen bond interactions.

PROPOSAL FOR A MANDATORY HEALTHCARE PROGRAM FOR SURROGATES IN SURROGACY ARRANGEMENTS

Background: Surrogacy is controversial. The issue of surrogates’ exposure to legal, ethical, health and social risks has been globally debated, and most literature explores policies and regulations that could be crafted or reconsidered to protect surrogates from such hazards. However, a discussion is lacking on the need for surrogacy healthcare programs (SHPs), although surrogacy has been possible for over four decades.
 Objectives: This paper aimed to examine the existence (or lack) of SHPs and identify healthcare program needs to protect surrogates from risks in building surrogacy arrangements.
 Methods: An interdisciplinary, nonsystematic literature review and media content analysis were conducted. Medline (Ovid) and PubMed were searched for articles published between 2012 and 2022. In addition, three search engines, Google, Bing and Yahoo, were used to identify high-profile and landmark cases to supplement the literature review.
 Results: Seventy-eight articles were retrieved, but only 2 were reviewed. Using the 3 search engines, 53 cases were identified; however, 42 were duplicates, and only 11 were analyzed. The results suggested that SHPs do not exist. High-profile and landmark cases demonstrate a need to educate prospective surrogates.
 Conclusion: SHPs should be compulsory for prospective surrogates to promote their well-being, and proposals for such programs should be further studied and implemented in healthcare policies.

Professors proceeding at their own risk: The limited protections of academic freedom for public intellectuals

AbstractThis chapter explores whether academic freedom extends to the work of academic public intellectuals through a historical analysis of landmark cases and episodes. It leads to the sobering conclusion that “professors proceed at their own risk if and when they take on the role of a public intellectual,” noting that the presence of academic freedom as a binding policy in academic organizations or professional associations is marginal and faculty protections for statements in the media are arbitrary and uncertain.

Are Hate Crime Enhancements Warranted in American Law?

Hate crimes are crimes that have an unusual bias upon a certain group due to their specific identity. In the American legal system, it has been a long-time controversy surrounding whether a hate crime enhancement is warranted for those classified as such. This paper first seeks to examine the rationality of hate crime enhancements, using established hate crime legislature to analyze its purpose. Then it will apply such a framework to evaluate whether the legislature abides with legal philosophy and constitutional rights through the lens of moral culpability, past landmark cases, and implementation observances. The paper will explain that legal philosophy deems it impossible to assess motive, a key component of hate crimes. It will also challenge the current supreme court and landmark rulings upon hate crime legislature and points out an unconstitutional logical loophole. Flaws of implementation on demographics and due process are also pointed out as limitations. Through the three-prong analysis, although a justification for current hate crime enhancements is present due to the potential physical and mental damages, it is concluded that they are unconstitutional, unwarranted, and must be limited to ensure the justice of the American legal system.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS WITH REFERENCE TO USA, AUSTRALIA AND INDIA

Appointment of judges in India in higher judiciary have been an issue since independence where even constituent assembly while drafting the constitution was in dilemma as to what method should be adopted to appoint a judge in the Supreme court and High Court. Ultimately, the power to appoint judges was given to executive to keep a check on higher judiciary to prevent nepotism and increase accountability and transparency. But this trend was reversed in 2nd judges case in 1993 when collegium system was formed by Supreme Court and President became bound to accept the recommendation of collegium system in the appointment of judges. Even SC struck down National Judicial Appointment Commission Act, 2014 (NJAC) to uphold judicial independence. In this paper author will study the judicial appointment process of 3 countries i.e., USA, Australia and India and will try to analyze the trend followed in India for appointment process by looking into the landmark cases and NJAC Act which was struck down in 2015 by SC and lastly giving recommendations to improve the appointment process to uphold transparency and accountability which is considered as sine-qua-none for good governance.

Defying the will of the people: The US Supreme Court overturns right to abortion.

On June 24, 2022, the US Supreme Court issued its ruling in the landmark case Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization that overturned the constitutional right to abortion with a decision that opposes the will of the majority of Americans. Two earlier Supreme Court decisions had established and upheld that constitutional right for almost 50 years. Now, however, a "super majority" of the Court (6 of its 9 members) has voted to leave laws regarding abortion to the individual states. As soon as the Court's final decision was announced, demonstrations began in front of the Supreme Court in Washington, DC and throughout many states and cities. At the same time, anti-abortion crowds celebrated their victory in the streets, an indication of how polarised the United States has become.

Strategic Climate Change Litigation: Potential for Legal Adaptation

With the increasing emergency of climate change and the lack of concrete action from States to adapt and mitigate climate change effects, number of legal and non-legal means of contestation emerged to try and accelerate climate action. Climate change litigation is one of them, notably trying to enhance legal adaptation. This contribution will argue that climate change litigation, when used strategically, can have direct and indirect effects to create a more effective climate governance. The hypothesis that will be tested is that climate change litigation cases have an impact that goes beyond verdicts, having the power to affect regulations’ enforcement and creation, and therefore participate in legal adaptation and more effective governance. The effects could be both direct, influencing the State to legislate, or indirect, for instance by co-opting the public opinion or the media. The contribution will start with an overview of the evolution of both climate change litigation and scholarship, as well as the definition debates. A second section will focus on strategic litigation, starting with the legal issues that arise in litigation and the strategic choices available for legal activists in first sub-section. Then, impacts as well as the ways in which strategic choices can maximise impacts of litigation will be analysed. The third part will present a Swiss landmark case: Union of Swiss Senior Women for Climate Protection v. Switzerland.

THE LEGALITIES OF MANDATORY COVID-19 VACCINATION AT UNIVERSITIES: LESSONS TO BE LEARNT FROM Klaassen v Trustees of Indiana University (No. 1:21-CV-238 DRL, N.D. Ind.)

The Covid-19 pandemic, which started in Wuhan, China, in December 2019, has continued to wreak havoc and has changed humanity forever. The Higher Education sector, like many others, has not been spared. In an effort to save the academic year and ensure that some teaching and learning could take place in a safe and secure environment, many tertiary institutions in South Africa and other parts of the world transitioned to online education. There is no doubt that online learning promotes rich learning and understanding, and it is an effective modality for teaching both concepts and skills in most disciplines. Online education has enabled many tertiary institutions to become innovative in the way students learn and academics teach, while also overcoming the constraints of space, time and distance. However, the shift to remote learning has also unmasked historical, geospatial and economic inequalities that permeate the world in which students live. Challenges include the digital divide, lack of technical support, poor learning environments, conditions at home, and lack of assets (among others), resulting in many student organisations in Africa and South Africa rejecting online teaching, with some viewing it as “an unaffordable, impractical and an elitist solution” to COVID-19. With the realisation that COVID-19 is here to stay for a while, and many students complaining about the difficulties posed by online learning from home, it seems inevitable that many universities in South Africa have already or may in future consider expediting the return of students to campus. However, to open fully, universities (like other sectors) may deem it necessary, as part of their planning process, to make it mandatory for all staff and students to be vaccinated. The question that arises then is whether mandatory vaccination in a tertiary setting will pass constitutional muster in a court of law. Students, if required to vaccinate or produce a vaccination card upon entry to campus, may argue that their legal rights, such as their right to bodily integrity, religious freedom and possibly their choice to choose or refuse their medical treatment, may be infringed. South Africa has not yet had to deal with such challenges. However, the US case of Klaassen v Trustees of Indiana University (No 1:21-CV-238 DRL ND IND) (Klaassen) 1–101, was one of the first cases from a global perspective to deal with such challenges and can provide valuable assistance for South Africa going forward. This case note critically examines the case of Klaassen, which is a landmark case dealing with the issue of mandatory vaccinations for students within a university setting. It is hoped that the case will provide guidance to universities in drafting policy documents surrounding mandatory vaccination, as well as in dealing with possible legal challenges in future.

Competition Enforcement in Digital Markets in China

Compared with the size of China’s digital market, competition enforcement in China in this area is relatively underexplored. It had been almost an entirely blank space until the end of 2020. This article summarizes the enforcement actions that have been taken to date, from few distant cases in which former authorities tentatively approached competition issues in this area, to more recent landmark cases in which more sophisticated analysis is provided and hefty fines are imposed. This article traces the enforcement history, thereby explaining the reasons of some China-featured situations, for example, a large amount of existing gun-jumping cases. It also studies some comparable enforcement decisions with a common issue, for example, dominance abuse in the digital market and a controversial topic in China—“choose one from two.” Enforcement trends are also discussed to predict future development in this regard.

Smart Contracts and the Theory of Detrimental Reliance: Exploring the Link

A relatively recent phenomenon, smart contracts have slowly revolutionized the sphere of commercial transactions through faster, cheaper and automated means, by removing layers of unnecessary negotiation. A combination of law and coding, smart contracts have the potential to redesign our understanding of the basic doctrines of contract law. This article investigates the possible link which exists between smart contracts and the theory of detrimental reliance through the application of such contracts to certain age-old landmark cases, predominantly cited in the realm of contract law. It proposes the notion that issues pertaining to negotiation and miscommunication which have been the core matter of disputes in such cases, may have been easily avoided through an application of smart contracts, which compel enforcement at every stage. In particular, this article has explored the verdict of the jury in the matter of Pennzoil v. Texaco and construed that smart contracts have a key role to play even in instances of in-principle agreements. Further, this article has explored the possibility that, like any novel invention, smart contracts are not without their flaws and has examined the criticisms put forth regarding the applicability and adoption of such contracts, in certain instances. Finally, the author has concluded that a mechanism which would combine the strengths of both smart contracts and paper-based agreements is the need of the hour, to eliminate issues of ambiguity, enforcement and to permit the determination of more subjective legal criteria, as may be contractually required. Consideration, detrimental reliance, Pennzoil v. Texaco, promissory estoppel, smart contracts

JUDICIAL ACTIVISM AT THE COST OF SEPARATION OF POWER IN PAKISTAN: A COMPARISON OF JUSTICE IFTIKHAR CHAUDHRY AND JUSTICE SAQIB NISAR’S ERA

The study deals with the significant role of judicial activism in different eras in Pakistan. It examines the role of judicial institutions in damaging the democratic culture of the country. Since the independence of Pakistan, frequent military interventions were validated by the Superior Judiciary of Pakistan. The study discussed these landmark cases which dented the doctrine of Separation of Power in the county. The concept of judicial review has been originated and developed in Britain, and later reached the US in Marbury v. Madison. The history of Pakistan is marred by several instances of Judicial Activism, in which the jurisdiction of the judiciary encroached upon the domain of legislature and executive. In this study, the activism of populist Judges, Justice Iftikhar Chaurdhty and Justice Saqib Nisar has been compared. Their Judicial actions have been discussed in which the domain of the executive has been compromised. The populist actions of Judges dent the independence of the Judiciary and lead to judicial impartiality, as in several cases, different verdicts are observed in the same nature cases. The study concluded by establishing the link between Judicial activism and Separation of powers, as all organs of the states have constitutional limits to work within, The researchers also proposed some judicial reforms, that will maintain the sanctity of the Doctrine of Separation of Power while exercising Judicial Activism. Keywords: Judicial Activism, Separation of Power, Judicial Review in Pakistan, Judicial Reforms.

Re-reading Neulinger and Shuruk v. Switzerland: Bringing the Religious Dimension into View

AbstractThis Article offers an anthropologically informed rereading of the landmark case Neulinger and Shuruk v. Switzerland, decided by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in 2010. This rereading is undertaken by “going beyond judgments” temporally—i.e., reconstructing the case from its origins to present—and spatially—i.e., looking at different sources of data and putting them into conversation with one another. This approach draws on anthropology both conceptually and methodologically. Not only does it address “case law” and “litigation” as creations of a variety of social and legal agents, constantly and meaningfully interacting with one another, but it also adopts a “litigant’s perspective” and creates space for acknowledging aspects of the lived experience of the applicants that have been marginalized in legal reasoning. By doing so, this Article shows that, from being strongly imbued with religious considerations, Neulinger and Shuruk came to assume a neutral framing when entering and progressing through the ECtHR. “Going beyond judgments” ultimately foregrounds the image of the Court as an institution addressing and doing different things to different audiences and stakeholders, and showcases some of the ways through which multi-perspectivity and efforts to “humanize the law” may be incorporated into case-law analyses.

A scientometric and visualization analysis of studies on arsenic for acute promyelocytic leukemia

The use of arsenic for acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) has a long history. However, a systematic scientometric study to describe these studies and to explore their research status and development trends has not been carried out. CNKI and Web of Science databases were searched from their inception to June 13, 2021 to identify suitable articles. Knowledge network maps of identified studies focusing on authors, institutions, keywords and their references were summmarised. 3095 articles published between 1996 and 2021 showed an overall fluctuating trend in growth of articles. Main institutions conducting research were Harbin Medical University and Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine. The main research team working outside of China was located at the Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. Research hotspots included efficacy evaluation of arsenic alone or in combination with retinoic acid, mechanism study of apoptosis, RARα, activation, growth inhibition, expression etc. The current research hot topics were APL differentiation syndrome and drug resistance. Chinese patent medicine compound Huangdai tablets, arsenous acid and all-trans retinoic acid were the main drugs. The types of highly cited and burst studies were landmark case series, well-designed RCTs, comprehensive reviews, and authoritative APL guidelines. Articles on the use of arsenic for APL have fluctuated in growth since 1996. The themes have focused on clinical efficacy and mechanism of arsenic and its action. The APL differentiation syndrome and drug resistance are disease research hotspots. The compound Huangdai tablets, arsenious acid and all-trans retinoic acid are potentially the main focus for drugs now and in the future.

A Retrospective Look on the Use of DNA Evidence in a Sexual Assault Investigation in the Philippines

In 1998, biological samples were collected from the body of a 17-year old female rape-homicide victim within 24 hours post-contact. In the absence of a sexual assault investigation kit, locally available medical supplies were used to collect biological samples. The victim’s family filed a case naming the victim’s uncle as the assailant. More than a year into the trial, samples from the victim and the accused were tested for DNA. The vaginal smears yielded DNA profiles originating from at least two persons, with one DNA source being male. Upon discovery, the victim’s age, the state of her body, and medicolegal examination results supported the allegation of sexual assault rather than consensual sex. This paper described the DNA testing conducted for this rape with homicide case. The prosecution used the DNA test results to support the charges against the accused, who was eventually convicted and sentenced to death in 2001. Upon automatic review in 2004, the Philippine Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and dismissed the defense’s claim that DNA testing violated the defendant’s right against self-incrimination. The defendant’s death conviction was commuted to life imprisonment when the Death Penalty was suspended via Republic Act No. 9346 in 2006. The case described here is considered one of the DNA landmark cases cited in the Philippine Rule on DNA Evidence of 2007.

Legality of euthanasia concerning right to life

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which deals with the protection of life and personal liberty, has been interpreted in several landmark cases by the courts of law. Every one of those formulations has enlarged the scope of Article 21 to encompass those aspects of life that give meaning, purpose, and dignity to existence. The terms "life" and "liberty" are deeply linked. Liberty gives a person the freedom to make decisions freely, and life without liberty would be meaningless. Thus, Article 21 integrated the concepts of life and liberty distinctly and also connected them through the use of a legal mechanism for their deprivation. Due to this interpretation, the right to die was never construed as an important aspect of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21. The right to die is a notion that is predicated on the belief that a person has the right to make any choice about the termination of his or her life (this also includes undergoing voluntary euthanasia). The major issue is whether individuals should have the right to die and what may be the rationale for such a right.

The Case of Proclamations (1610), Aldred's Case (1610), and the Origins of the Sic Utere/Salus Populi Antithesis

At least since the middle of the eighteenth-century, salus populi (the people’s welfare) and sic utere (use your own without injuring others) have encapsulated alternative conceptions of regulatory power, with the former associated with continental police regimes and the latter with Anglo-American conceptions of limited government. This article finds the origins of this antithesis in the intersection of two landmark cases addressed by Coke in the fall of 1610: Aldred’s Case, sic utere’s foundational text, and the Case of Proclamations, where Coke disputed the legality of building and starch proclamations. The Crown had provided common-good justifications for these proclamations, but their beneficiaries had included the individual neighbors of smelly starch makers and obstructive new buildings who had been left unprotected by previously existing local law. Rather than acquiescing to centralized legislation enacted via proclamation or parliament, Coke hinted in Aldred’s Case towards common law nuisance adjudication based on the sic utere principle as the desired mechanism for overriding local law that had privileged injurious land uses. Like salus populi, sic utere served a centralizing function. But whereas the former invited expansive regulatory agendas, the latter conditioned interventions on a judicial finding of a nuisance. In this, Coke’s invocation of sic utere in Aldred’s Case presaged the maxim’s eventual role as a substantive limit on the police power.

Different systems, similar challenges: humor and free speech in the United States and Europe

Abstract The United States and Europe are often contrasted with each other regarding their approach to freedom of expression. Yet, despite the differences between their respective judicial systems, courts from both regions inevitably face similar interpretive challenges when dealing with humor. Our paper conducts a comparative discussion of humor-related jurisprudence from the US and Europe, mostly (but not exclusively) focusing on two landmark cases – namely Hustler v. Falwell (US Supreme Court, 1988) and Vereinigung Bildender Künstler v. Austria (European Court of Human Rights, 2007). In particular, our analysis foregrounds two aspects: 1) How courts deal with the complex relations between humor, exaggeration and factual reality; 2) The role of objective harm (as opposed to subjective offence) in distinguishing between lawful and unlawful expression, and how the subjectivity of humor interpretation can undermine this criterion. On both levels, we argue that insights from literary and linguistic theories of humor – from Simpson’s work on satirical discourse to Attardo and Raskin’s General Theory of Verbal Humor – can set the basis for a more fine-grained and systematic approach to humor across different judicial systems.