• A Comparative Analysis of the United States’s Response to Extradition Requests from China

      Bloom, Matthew (2008-05-01)
      Since the late 1970s, China has undertaken a process of opening up to the world and engaging in economic reform. This process has brought increased opportunities for Western nations to cooperate with China. Predictably, efforts to cooperate also have given rise to new challenges, as Chinese and Western cultures and systems often conflict.

      Jasiewicz, Isia (2013-01-01)
      In May 2011, a federal district court issued a ruling that shocked the art world. In a copyright infringement action against prominent artist Richard Prince,[1] Judge Deborah Batts of the Southern District of New York dispensed the art world equivalent of the death penalty: an injunction requiring that artworks be “deliver[ed] up for impounding, destruction, or other disposition.”[2] The condemned works—a series of Prince collages titled “Canal Zone”—contained photographs from Yes, Rasta, a book of portraits of Jamaican Rastafarians by the photographer Patrick Cariou.[3] Prince had cut out images from the book and painted over them, combining them in his collages with other original and found images.[4] The court held that by using images from Yes, Rasta, Prince infringed Cariou’s copyrights, and his work did not qualify for the fair use defense.[5] [1] See Richard Prince Biography, Gagosian Gallery, http://gagosian.vaesite.net/__data/9fc46da40860e8dfbd593fb7af4bc63f.pdf (last visited Feb. 1, 2013). [2] Cariou v. Prince, 784 F.Supp.2d 337, 355 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). [3] Id. at 343-44. [4] Id. [5] Id. at 353-54.
    • A Distaste for War at Walden Pond: Thoreau’s The Bean-Field, Theories of Personal Property, and the Mexican-American War

      Cross, Jesse (2011-01-01)
      Upon the tenth anniversary of their graduation from Harvard University, the members of the Harvard class of 1837 were sent a survey asking them to state, among other things, their current occupation. One member of this class, Henry David Thoreau, undoubtedly encountered this request while in a peculiar frame of mind. Thoreau responded to the survey on September 30, 1847, less than four weeks after he had left the small home he had occupied for two years at Walden Pond. Once again a “sojourner in civilized life,” Thoreau responded to his alma mater by listing no less than thirteen different occupations. “I am a Schoolmaster,” Thoreau explained, “a Private Tutor, a Surveyor—a Gardener, a Farmer—a Painter, I mean a House Painter, a Carpenter, a Mason, a Day-Laborer, a Pencil-Maker, a Glass-paper Maker, a Writer, and sometimes a Poetaster.”
    • A New Ideal for Government in Malory’s Morte Darthur

      Goldblatt, Dana (2005-09-01)
      This is a paper about the ideal of government expressed in Sir Thomas Malory’s fifteenth-century Morte Darthur, but it is also a paper about the relationship of laws to stories, and both to history. In Malory’s vision of the founding of the Round Table, King Arthur’s knights shed personal histories, family ties, even their memories of the functions of chivalry and knighthood. In place of traditional norms, emotional bonds, and personal histories, they substitute a code that, while it produces behaviors identical in many respects those that the traditional norms would have produced, imagines for itself a new origin in Merlin’s magical interventions. Thus redefined, honor becomes about righting all wrongs and eradicating all potential injustices, not just injustices that impinge upon friends and family. The objects of the adventures are not previously associated with the knights in any way and are in many ways irrelevant to the honor-seeking project itself. The Knights of the Round Table serve an ideal of honor that is basically impersonal – the same for every knight in every situation. The fellowship is united not by blood but by excellence.
    • A New National Security Court? The Case for a Provisional Approach to the Guantanamo Habeas Suits

      Brill, Sophia (2010-01-01)
      A preventive detention court sits today in Washington, D.C. It has jurisdiction over more than 200 people. In each case before the court, the government claims that the petitioner can be detained by the executive without trial because he is part of a terrorist organization and would pose a threat to the United States if released. The petitioner, who is hundreds of miles away but may participate via telephone or video access, denies the claim and on occasion presents countervailing evidence of his own. Hearsay evidence is admissible, and the standard of proof is preponderance of the evidence. Often the government’s case is based largely on the petitioner’s own statements. Hearings rarely last more than a day or two. If the petitioner loses, and loses on appeal, he may not ever have a right to return to a court for the rest of his life. Several years ago, some began calling for Congress to create a new “national security court” that would perform this function or something like it. But Congress has done no such thing. Instead, this system is the result of a Supreme Court victory on behalf of Guantánamo Bay detainees. In Boumediene v. Bush —after several years of habeas litigation from multiple detainees—the Court settled a core issue: people being held in Guantánamo have a constitutional right to bring habeas petitions in Article III courts. Dozens of petitions that had been filed were allowed to proceed; for the sake of organization and some measure of uniformity, they were channeled through the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The D.C. judges have been left to improvise; with only a vague balancing test envisioned by the Court in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and an invitation to “innovat[e]” in Boumediene, they have come up with their own set of rules for the habeas proceedings. Gradually, they have been building through common law what looks substantially like a “national security court”: a specialized judicial body that decides on preventive detention through abbreviated hearings.
    • A Punitive Bind: Policing, Poverty and Neoliberalism in New York City

      Kaplan-Lyman, Jeremy (2012-01-01)
      Narrowly conceived, neoliberalism is a system of economic ideas and policy initiatives that emphasize small government and market-based solutions to social and economic problems. Adopted in response to the fiscal, welfare and racial crises of the Keynesian state, neoliberalism has become the dominant governing principle in the United States over the last forty years. A growing body of literature has shown how the rise of neoliberalism has underwritten the massive expansion of the American criminal justice system and the growth of its incarceral arm. Yet theorists of neoliberalism have largely ignored how the rise of neoliberalism has affected policing practices and, in turn, have failed to consider the role that police play in the neoliberal state.
    • A Question of Rank

      Ehrenberg, Shuky (2007-11-11)
      U.S. News and World Report rankings have long been a part of the law school application process, with school rank often playing an important role in a prospective student’s decisions. This Paper addresses the question of whether law schools act strategically in order to maximize their U.S. News and World Report ranking, with a focus on the admissions process. The Paper will show that some law schools admit students in order to maximize their ranking, as opposed to admitting students expected to succeed in law school. The Paper will also include a more general discussion of U.S. News’s ranking methodology, and possible implications to affirmative action and minority admissions in law schools.
    • A Reassessment of Common Law Protections for “Idiots”

      Clemente, Michael (2015-01-01)
      When the Eighth Amendment was ratified, common law protections categorically prohibited the execution of “idiots.” On two occasions, the Supreme Court considered whether these protections proscribe executing people with intellectual disabilities; however, the Court concluded that idiocy protections shielded only the “profoundly or severely mentally retarded.” This Note argues that the Court’s historical analysis of idiocy protections was unduly narrow. It then proceeds to reassess common law insanity protections for idiots and finds strong evidence that these protections included people with a relatively wide range of intellectual disabilities. Based on this new historical account, this Note argues that there are people with intellectual disabilities on death row today who likely would have been protected from execution in 1791.
    • A Sobering Look at Why Sunday Closing Laws Violate the Sherman Act

      Tetelbaum, Elina (2010-01-01)
      On April 8, 2010, an attempt to allow liquor stores to open on Sundays was overwhelmingly defeated in the Minnesota state house. Minneapolis Rep. Phyllis Kahn, who has unsuccessfully tried to overturn the Sunday closing laws for years, “tried to put an amendment on another liquor-related bill, but it was voted down 110-20.” Minnesota is one of many states that maintain a ban on Sunday liquor sales, even though Sunday sales of alcohol could bring in much-needed revenues to the state. Despite a recent momentum in opposing these bans, which date back to the seventeenth century in the United States, they continue to persist, notwithstanding repeated constitutional and political challenges.
    • A Study of Changes to the Land Demarcation System in Seventeenth and Eighteenth Century New Haven

      Boyle, Maureen (2011-04-01)
      There is a default assumption in the field of urban legal history that systematic, coordinated action is superior to individualized, haphazard action when it comes to decisions about town planning and local land policy. Economic historians of colonial towns and institutions view the informality of early planning as an anomaly and a flaw; they argue that their irregular property systems were inefficient and failed to stimulate local land markets. In contrast, they argue that comprehensive plans and rectangular layouts facilitated land markets, which was beneficial for the settlements that adopted them. Theorists who agree with this assumption argue that the upfront costs of comprehensive planning are justified because they reduce the significant transactions costs caused by irregular plans and layouts.
    • A Unified Constitutional View of Financial Punishment: Synthesizing the Excessive Fines Clause and Bearden-Based Protections

      Feinzig, Joshua M. (2020-01-01)
      This Note coordinates the Eighth Amendment Excessive Fines Clause with the Fourteenth Amendment wealth-discrimination protection set forth in Bearden v. Georgia. It is generally assumed that the two protections operate independently: while the Excessive Fines Clause protects individuals against exorbitant financial obligations, Bearden limits the state from converting criminal debt into a severe liberty deprivation. But in recognizing how the two doctrines are normatively and functionally reinforcing, this Note proposes a single framework for considering financial punishment’s constitutionality. If the Eighth Amendment protection applies at the imposition of a financial punishment, Bearden provides a “second look” at the constitutionality of that punishment. Or, put another way, the Eighth Amendment is a preemptive look at the downstream poverty-based liberty deprivations that Bearden secures individuals against. Appreciating this relationship affords additional authority to both protections, and suggests a number of improvements to existing safeguards.
    • Attorney for the Day: Measuring the Efficacy of In-Court Limited-Scope Representation

      Mandilk, James (2017-01-01)
      Limited-scope representation is on the rise, but it has been questioned: Is it ethical? Does it impose unreasonable delays on the court or other parties? And, most fundamentally, does it work—can a few hours’ assistance change the arc of a case? This Note evaluates limited-scope representation, with a focus on whether it works, by examining the Attorney for Short Calendar program (“ASC”), a program run by the Mortgage Foreclosure Litigation Clinic at Yale Law School. ASC clients are homeowners defending against foreclosure; ASC volunteers (law students, faculty, and attorneys from the Connecticut Fair Housing Center) advise them and represent them in court for that day’s motions. To measure the efficacy of ASC, I compared outcomes for ASC clients and pro se homeowners—both that day’s orders and the eventual resolution of each case. I studied case files for more than a thousand foreclosure-related interactions from October 2015 through January 2017, including all such interactions in New Haven Superior Court at which a defendant appeared pro se or with limited-scope counsel, and I conclude that limited-scope representation at ASC was effective.
    • Beyond Lawrence: Metaprivacy and Punishment

      Greene, Jamal (2005-09-01)
      Can the State kill someone for being a bad person? Consider the following Connecticut case: In 1997, Todd Rizzo, then eighteen years old, invited thirteen-year-old Stanley Edwards into his backyard, telling him that they would be hunting snakes. Once there, Rizzo straddled Edwards, in Rizzo's words, "like a horse," and struck him thirteen times with a sledgehammer as the boy pleaded for his life. He dumped the dead body in the woods nearby. Rizzo's motive? While stationed in Hawaii less than a year before the murder, the members of Rizzo's Marine platoon had been asked to list their ten goals in life. The second goal on Rizzo's list was "to kill a man." An avid student of past serial killings, Rizzo told police after he was taken into custody that he had bludgeoned Edwards to death because he wanted to see what it felt like. He pleaded guilty to capital murder and was sentenced to death in August 1999.

      Kabat, Patrick (2008-05-01)
      The United Kingdom’s Human Rights Act (1998) gives domestic courts the weakest role of any European state in ensuring conformity with the European Convention on Human Rights. Though the Act provides that most “public authorities” may not violate Convention rights, and that violations of Convention rights are actionable in domestic courts, Acts of either House of Parliament are above censure. In the case of conflict, U.K. courts may make a “declaration of incompatibility”, but must give force to domestic legislation.
    • Chevron as a Doctrine of Hard Cases

      Liu, Frederick (2008-05-28)
      The most important doctrine of statutory interpretation in the modern administrative state rests today on a legal fiction. That doctrine, announced over twenty years ago in Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., directs courts to defer to “reasonable” agency interpretations of “ambiguous” statutes. Although Chevron itself left unclear the doctrine’s precise basis, a consensus has since formed on what that basis is. According to a diverse group of jurists and scholars alike, the doctrine rests on a presumption about congressional intent: when courts follow Chevron, they are merely respecting Congress’s decision to delegate interpretive authority to the agency. Of course, Congress seldom delegates such authority explicitly; Chevron itself dealt with an “implicit” delegation. For the most part, then, the presumption about congressional intent is a mere legal fiction—a fact no one denies.