Law Center Research Articles

Legislation Committee as Law Center in the National Law Development

The shift in the DPR legislative function after the amendment of the UUDNRI 1945, which was previously owned by the President then become the DPR function brought major changes. This change, plays an important role in the process of checks and balances and in enhancing the development of national law quality. However, this change is still not optimal. As can be seen from the fact that the legislative products produced by the DPR are not yet maximal, both quantitatively and qualitatively. Optimizing Baleg's position as a Law Center with the support of reliable supporting staff is one way to improve legislative performance. So far Baleg's role in carrying out its duties has not been optimal due to various interests which have hindered the drafting of the National Legislation Program and the deliberation of the Bill and the absence of a road map in monitoring and reviewing laws. Baleg's position as a Law Center must be strengthened to minimize the obstacles that arise so that the Prolegnas that have been set can be realized. Baleg needs to make arrangement so that the implementation of its duties can be optimal and ultimately able to improve the performance of the DPR in carrying out its powers as legislators. A road map in post legislative scrutiny needs to be made so it is clear that the implementation can be carried out in a directed and measurable manner.

A New Frontier in Telehealth Research: A National Telehealth Data Warehouse.

Importance: Given the rapid increase in telehealth utilization since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, it has become essential to examining the vast amount of available data on telehealth encounters to conduct more cogent, robust, and large-scope research studies to examine the utility, cost-impact, and effect on clinical outcomes that telehealth can potentially provide. However, the diversity of data collected by numerous telehealth organizations has made that type of analysis difficult. Objective: The University of Mississippi Medical Center (UMMC), a Telehealth Center of Excellence designated by the Health Resources and Services Administration, is creating a National Telehealth Data Warehouse. Design: UMMC will develop the data warehouse in Microsoft Azure and will use a data dictionary that was created by the Center for Telehealth and eHealth Law (CTeL) to support their national cost-benefit study on the use of telehealth during COVID-19. Impact: The data warehouse will provide unparalleled opportunities to conduct cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analyses on telehealth, to develop and test quality measures specific to telehealth, and to understand how telehealth and reduce disparities in health care and expand access to care for everyone. The warehouse is expected to go live in the Summer of 2023.

Society for Education and the Advancement of Research in Connected Health SEARCH 2022 – The National Telehealth Research Symposium Abstracts Virtual Meeting November 16–18, 2022

Society for Education and the Advancement of Research in Connected Health SEARCH 2022 – The National Telehealth Research Symposium Abstracts Virtual Meeting November 16–18, 2022

Review of M. D. Perkins “Dangerous Affirmations: The Threat of ‘Gay Christianity’”

In his book, Review of “Dangerous Affirmations: The Threat of ‘Gay Christianity’” M. D. Perkins analyzes the movement of what he terms “gay Christianity.” In his forward to the book, Stephen Black notes that revisionists’ expressions of “gay Christianity” include: -A person who identifies as “gay” is simply part of God’s plan for a diverse church. - Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered (LGBT)-identified persons are free to serve in any capacity within the church without restriction. - Sexual orientation is innate and immutable. - To truly “love our neighbours,” Christians must fight for LGBT causes, including allowing LGBT persons to serve openly within the church, marry, and adopt children. According to Black, these expressions reject and revise traditional biblical sexual ethics. While admitting nuances, Perkins broadly summarizes “gay Christian” theology into separate categories: gay Christian theology, affirming theology, queer theology, and gay celibate theology (side B theology). These categories ultimately contrast what Perkins refers to as a “legitimate biblical interpretation” (p.29) (See “Legitimate biblical interpretation” section below). According to Perkins, other than a “legitimate biblical interpretation," any of these would be a “threat” to the church. In addition to being an elder at the Lawndale Presbyterian Church (PCA), Perkins identifies as a research fellow for the American Family Association (AFA), the book's publisher. The AFA is an American conservative protestant non-profit organization that focuses on traditional pro-family agenda and media activism. The AFA is not without scrutiny and disdain by some LGBT advocacy groups, notably the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which has accused AFA of being an anti-gay hate group. In a sense, this book puts iron into an existing cultural war.

Amicus Brief of Tax Law Center at NYU Law and Professors Ari Glogower, David Kamin, Rebecca Kysar, and Darien Shankse in Support of Respondent in Moore V. United States, No. 22-800

Amicus Brief of Tax Law Center at NYU Law and Professors Ari Glogower, David Kamin, Rebecca Kysar, and Darien Shankse in Support of Respondent in Moore V. United States, No. 22-800

Introduction

Introduction Timothy S. Huebner The mission of the Supreme Court Historical Society is to collect, preserve, and promote the history of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Society carries out its mission not only by conducting educational programs for students and teachers, but also by presenting public programs and lectures, producing documentaries and books, and acquiring artifacts and documents of historical significance in cooperation with the Curator of the Supreme Court. The Journal, of course, plays an essential role in carrying out the mission of the Society, as it serves as the only publication devoted exclusively to publishing the latest historical scholarship on the Court. It is a mission that our editorial board, Director of Publications Clare Cushman, and I take very seriously. Part of the Journal's longstanding purpose, moreover, has been to promote and publish the work of young scholars—the next generation of constitutional and Supreme Court historians. To that end, since 1995 the Society has bestowed the Hughes-Gossett Student Award upon an outstanding student paper submitted to the Journal. In addition to this award, I am proud to announce that our editorial board has decided to offer a research grant for early career scholars researching and writing about the history of the Court. Awarded on a competitive basis in June of each year, the $1,000 grant, named in memory of the distinguished scholar Henry J. Abraham, supports the research of those who are pursuing academic careers in legal history, including graduate students, law students, and those who are no more than five years from completion of either the Ph.D. or J.D. The award will be given on the basis of the applicant's potential for producing publishable work in the field of Supreme Court history, and the grant recipient will be expected to produce an article for submission to the Journal. Our board is very excited about this ongoing commitment to young scholars. If you know of someone who qualifies, please make that person aware of this opportunity! More information is available on the Society's website. This issue of the Journal highlights the work of young scholars. In case you haven't noticed, Prof. Brad Snyder's seminar on the Warren Court, which he has offered over the past few years at Georgetown University Law Center, has been the source of several papers of late, including last year's winner of the Hughes-Gossett Student Award. Under Brad's mentorship, these students have [End Page 5] produced outstanding essays based on an impressive array of primary sources. Three essays in this issue come straight from Brad's seminar. The first of these essays, by Theodore Salem-Mackall, explores Justice Hugo Black's opinions in cases involving mandatory arbitration. Although best known for his opinions in civil rights and civil liberties cases, Black dissented in a string of Warren-era mandatory arbitration cases, out of a general wariness of corporate power and a deep belief in each person's right to a fair "day in court." Salem-Mackall, who originally wrote the paper while a law student, is currently a Law Clerk at Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP. The second essay, by Gabriel Valle, tells the largely unexplored story of Gus Garcia and Hernandez v. Texas (1954), which involved the rights of Mexican-Americans to serve on juries. Although overshadowed by a contemporary case, Brown v. Board, and its emphasis on the struggle of Black Americans to desegregate schools, Valle shows the importance not only of Garcia's advocacy but also the Hernandez decision. Valle is a J.D. candidate at Georgetown. Third and finally, Jordan L. Lampo's essay chronicles the internal deliberations in Shapiro v. Thompson (1969), in which the Court invalidated state durational residency requirements to receive public assistance, thereby contributing to the establishment of a constitutional right to travel. The unusual lineup in the case—with Justice William Brennan and outgoing Chief Justice Earl Warren on opposites sides—makes for a fascinating story. Lampo is also a J.D. candidate at Georgetown. In addition to these student essays, Helen Knowles, Associate Professor of Political Science, State University of New York at Oswego and a member of...

Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia, Merits Amicus Curiae Brief Submitted on behalf of the Human Rights Law Centre of the University of Nottingham

Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia, Merits Amicus Curiae Brief Submitted on behalf of the Human Rights Law Centre of the University of Nottingham

Yale lawsuit cites bias against students with MH disabilities

The Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law has joined a group of former and current students at Yale University in a lawsuit alleging discrimination against students with mental health challenges in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The lawsuit also alleges that Yale's policies are in violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the Fair Housing Act and the Affordable Care Act.

Editorial: Special Issue Managing Responsibilities for Climate Change Risks

The Special Issue brings together contributions examining concrete case studies on managing responsibilities for climate change risks around the world. It aims to generate new and interdisciplinary knowledge on potential approaches to risk allocation, adaptation and resilience, and explore normative aspects of burden-sharing in the development of rights and obligations to respond to climate change. This Special Issue was coordinated by the University of Sydney Law School and Utrecht University School of Law under the 2019 Utrecht University and University of Sydney Partnership Collaboration Award. The grant recipients and ULR guest editors from Australia are Katherine Owens, Director of the Australian Centre for Climate and Environmental Law (ACCEL) (Sydney University Chief Investigator), and Madeline Taylor (Macquarie University) Deputy Director of the Centre for Energy and Natural Resources Innovation and Transformation (CENRIT). The guest editors from the Utrecht University Centre of Water, Oceans and Sustainability Law (UCWOSL) are Natalie Dobson (Utrecht University Chief Investigator), Herman Kasper Gilissen (UCWOSL Senior Researcher) and Marleen van Rijswick (UCWOSL Director).

Congress Extends Enhanced ACA Subsidies.

Congress extended enhanced Marketplace subsidies through 2025 and adopted historic Medicare prescription drug reforms.

Association Between Child Access Prevention and State Firearm Laws With Pediatric Firearm-Related Deaths

IntroductionWe aim to study the association between state child access prevention (CAP) and overall firearm laws with pediatric firearm-related mortality. MethodsThe Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System was queried for pediatric (aged < 18 y) all-intent (accidental, suicide, and homicide) firearm-related crude death rates (CDRs) among the 50 states from 1999 to 2019. States were into three groups: Always CAP (throughout the 20-year period), Never CAP, and New CAP (enacted CAP during study period). We used the Giffords Law Center Annual Gun Law Scorecard (A, B, C, D, F) to group states into strict (A, B) and lenient (C, D, F) firearm laws. A scatter plot was constructed to display state CDR based on CAP laws by year. The top 10 states by CDR per year were tabulated based on CAP law status. Wilcoxon rank-sum was used to compare CDR between strict and lenient scorecard states in 2019. ResultsThere were 12 Always CAP, 21 Never CAP, and 17 New CAP states from 1999 to 2019. No states changed from CAP laws to no CAP laws. Never CAP and New CAP states dominated the high outliers in CDR compared to Always CAP. The top 10 states with the highest CDR per year were most commonly Never CAP. Strict firearm laws states had lower median CDR in 2019 than lenient states (0.79 [0-1.67] versus 2.59 [1.66-3.53], P = 0.007). ConclusionsStricter overall gun laws are associated with three-fold lower all-intent pediatric firearm-related deaths. For 2 decades, the 10 states with the highest CDR were almost universally those without CAP laws. Our findings support the RAND Gun Policy in America initiative's claims on the importance of CAP laws in reducing suicide, unintentional deaths, and violent crime among children, but more research is needed.

19. International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN)

The IUCN is an international organization uniquely composed of both governments and civil society organizations. It provides public, private, and non-governmental organizations and actors with the knowledge and tools to combine efforts to conserve nature and accelerate the transition to sustainable development. Created in 1948, the IUCN has evolved into the world’s largest and most diverse environmental network. It harnesses the experience, resources, and reach of its more than 1,300 members and the input of over ten thousand experts. The IUCN is the global authority on the status of the natural world and the measures needed to safeguard it. The IUCN’s experts volunteer in six commissions dedicated to species survival, environmental law, protected areas, social and economic policy, ecosystem management, and education and communication. The IUCN Environmental Law Programme (ELP) is an integrated program of activities that assists decision makers with information, analysis, advisory services, legislative drafting, mentoring, and capacity development at the national, regional, and global levels. It includes the Environmental Law Centre (ELC) and collaborates with and supports the World Commission on Environmental Law (WCEL). The ELP, WCEL, and ELC collaborate in their endeavours with the IUCN Academy of Environmental Law.

DESAIN PENGUATAN PELAKSANAAN FUNGSI LEGISLASI DEWAN PERWAKILAN RAKYAT REPUBLIK INDONESIA MENUJU PEMBAHARUAN HUKUM NASIONAL

This study aims to find out how the ideal model for strengthening the implementation of the legislative function of the DPR RI in the context of reforming national law. Using a normative research method with a statutory approach. The results of the study show that the implementation of the legislative function of the DPR RI after the amendment to the constitution cannot be carried out optimally because it is indicated by the lack of legislative products and the low quality of the laws produced by the DPR. Legislation achievements that are not achieved according to the target of legislation and the number of laws submitted for judicial review at the Constitutional Court are benchmarks for the implementation of the legislative function of the DPR RI. And it can be concluded that the design of strengthening the implementation of the legislative functions of the DPR RI can be done by repositioning the Legislative Body of the DPR RI as a law center, strengthening the Supporting system of the DPR RI, and making a blue print for strengthening the implementation of the legislative functions of the DPR RI.

Editor’s Note

Editor’s Note David N. Myers The study of jewish law has deep roots in Jewish history. With due respect to philosophers and mystics, halakhists assumed a position of millennial dominance in Jewish intellectual culture from the destruction of the Second Temple to the Paris Sanhedrin in 1808. The study of Jewish law did not disappear but became a subsidiary field of the larger project of modern Jewish studies—from the Wissenschaft scholars Zecharias Frankel, I. H. Weiss, and D. Z. Hoffmann to the adepts of mishpat ‘ivri such as Asher Gulak and later Menachem Elon, to a diverse network of global scholars today, including Suzanne Stone and her charges at the Center for Jewish Law and Contemporary Civilization (who are amply represented in this forum). Meanwhile, the study of Jewish history became the central axis of modern Jewish scholarship, exemplified and enabled by the macrohistorians Jost, Graetz, Dubnow, and Baron—and enriched by the evolution of many subfields including intellectual, political, economic, social, gender, and global branches. While the study of Jewish law indeed had deep roots in Jewish history, its encounter with the modern discipline of history was episodic and unsystematic. Recent decades, however, have yielded a far more textured meeting of the subfields of Jewish law and Jewish history, in no small part instigated by the pathbreaking impetus of the late Yale legal theorist Robert Cover. The present JQR forum is the result of a collaboration between the Katz Center for Advanced Judaic Studies at the University of Pennsylvania and the Julis-Rabinowitz Program on Jewish and Israeli Law at the Harvard Law School. The Katz Center is in the midst of a two-year cycle of seminars devoted to Jewish legal cultures that brings together historians and legal scholars, among others. The Julis-Rabinowitz Program has burst onto the scene with great energy, hosting a wide range of events on themes in and around Jewish law; in January 2022, the Julis-Rabinowitz Program cosponsored with JQR and the Katz Center a symposium on the [End Page 599] encounter between Jewish legal theory and Jewish history. This forum draws on the ideas and participants of that symposium. We are grateful to Noah Feldman, director of the Julis-Rabinowitz Program, for providing an introduction. [End Page 600] Copyright © 2022 Herbert D. Katz Center for Advanced Judaic Studies

Insolvency Law and Policy in Times of COVID-19 and Beyond: Academic Roundtable Proceedings

Abstract The Centre for Chinese and Comparative Law and Asian Business Law Institute jointly organised an academic roundtable entitled ‘Insolvency Law and Policy in Times of COVID-19 and Beyond’ on 29 March 2022. The event brought together judges, scholars, experts and professionals from world-leading universities and institutions. This note sets out a summary of the proceedings held at the academic roundtable.

Youth and Families Matter

A group of youth advocates were tasked with discussing their experiences in the child welfare system as children and their perspectives on reforming the system. Informed by their experiences in foster care and work with the Juvenile Law Center, the youth advocates addressed issues of racism, reform, abolition, and child well-being. They concluded that meaningful reform of the child welfare system mandates a radical realignment of power to provide full participation, collaboration, and shared decision-making authority to families impacted by the child welfare system.

Mathias Rohe. Das islamische Recht - Geschichte und Gegenwart. München: C. H. Beck , 3.Baskı, 2011, 612 p.

Eserin müellifi Mathias Rohe Alman bir hukukçu ve İslam araştırmacısıdır. Erlangen-Nürnberg şehrinin Friedrich-Alexander-Üniversitesi’nde Medeni Hukuk, Uluslararası Özel Hukuk ve Mukayeseli Hukuk kürsüsü başkanı olan yazar EZIRE’nin (Avrupa’da İslam ve Hukuk Erlangen Merkezi) direktörü ve GAIR’nin (Arap ve İslam Hukuku Topluluğu) kurucu üyesidir. 2001 ile 2007 yılları arasında Nürnberg Eyalet Mahkemesinde hakimlik görevini ifa etmiştir. 2006 ile 2009 yılları arasında Almanya İçişleri Bakanlığı tarafından Müslüman toplum temsilcileri ve entelektüelleriyle yürütülen “Alman İslam Konferansı”nın (Deutsche Islamkonferenz DIK) üyeliğini yapmıştır. 2018 yılında Ankara Üniversitesi tarafından kültür ve ülkeler arası diyaloğa katkılarından ötürü fahri doktora unvanına layık görülmüştür.

Centre for Law in Asia

Centre for Law in Asia

Historical Markers or Markers of White Supremacy? Confederate Memorialization, Racial Threat, and Hate Crime

Abstract Many Confederate monuments were erected during the Jim Crow era, sending symbolic messages of intimidation and hostility to the Black population. Yet no studies have examined the relationship between contemporary Confederate memorialization and bias crime. Drawing from research on hate crime law compliance, we posit an inverse relationship between Confederate monuments and mobilization of hate crime law, such that compliance with hate crime laws will be lower in communities with memorialization, but that among complying agencies, anti-Black hate crime rates will be higher. To examine these relationships, we combined data from the Uniform Crime Report Hate Crime Statistics and the American Community Survey with Confederate monument data from the Southern Poverty Law Center. We conducted analyses predicting a) monument presence, b) agency non-compliance, and c) anti-Black hate crime. Results indicate that monuments are located in communities exemplifying a challenge to racial hierarchies: economically advantaged communities with larger Black populations. Regarding hate crime, analyses show that (1) the American South is associated with reduced compliance, and, (2) after accounting for compliance, Confederate memorialization is associated with increased anti-Black hate crime. These findings have implications for intergroup conflict and the impact of local symbolism on the formal mobilization of hate crime law.

Advocating for Transgender Immigrants in Detention Centers: Cisnormativity as a Tool for Racialized Social Control

Despite public concern over immigration enforcement, little attention has been given to transgender immigrants, who are disproportionately at risk for arrest and deportation. Organizations dedicated to protecting LGBT people’s rights and immigrant rights have been working to address this issue and shape policy decisions to better protect transgender immigrants in detention centers; however, research has not investigated how these organizations frame transgender immigrant detainees and their experience in detention to accomplish their goals. This current study uses a content analysis of public documents spanning 2009–2021 from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Transgender Law Center (TLC) to investigate how two legal advocacy organizations frame the issue of transgender immigrants within detention centers. The ACLU rarely discusses transgender immigrants and thus upholds cisnormativity. When they do discuss transgender immigrants, their transgender identity is referenced as a singular issue in isolation from other facets of their identity. The TLC, on the other hand, frames immigration detention for transgender immigrants as part of a larger web of oppression. Through a comparison of the ACLU and TLC, this study underscores the role of cisnormativity as a tool for racialized social control. Findings highlight the importance of a critical, intersectional approach to immigration advocacy and scholarship that challenges the cisnormative assumptions guiding the current immigration system. Implications for future research and service provision are discussed.