Illinois Law professor Lesley M. Wexler comments on the Trump administration’s reversal of longstanding policy on cluster munitions. Wexler describes both what changes and what remains the same under the new policy and considers whether, taken in the context of other similar shifts in policy, the Trump administration is implementing its “America-First” approach and discarding prior policies that upheld international law norms.
University of Washington law professor Anita Ramasastry comments on the recent release of records known as the Paradise Papers, which reveal the identities of thousands of individuals and corporations using offshore jurisdictions as a tax avoidance strategy. Ramasastry argues that while such actions may in many cases be legal, they are also unethical. She points out that if we focus on the harm of tax avoidance to society, rather than how it is legally defined, then we can see that it contributes to growing inequality and increases tax burdens on resident taxpayers who cannot change their citizenship or move their money.
Guest columnists Igor De Lazari and Antonio Sepulveda, and Justia editor David S. Kemp compare and contrast the evolving recognition of the rights of LGB individuals in the United States and Brazil. The authors point to several parallel decisions by the high court of each nation, but they also point to ways in which the jurisprudence of the two countries might diverge—specifically when religious beliefs appear to conflict with the recognition of the rights of gays and lesbians.
Cornell University law professor Sherry F. Colb reviews Sital Kalantry’s book Women's Human Rights and Migration: Sex-Selective Abortion Laws in the United States and India. Colb explains how the book taught her a new way to think about an area in which Colb herself already has extensive knowledge. Colb praises Kalantry for taking an empirically supported look at the practice of sex-selection abortions in the United States and elsewhere and for drawing sophisticated conclusions about the proper place for regulation on the basis of that scrutiny.
Cornell University law professor Michael C. Dorf comments on a recent decision by the Israel Supreme Court holding that the government’s policy of exempting Haredim (ultra-Orthodox Jews) from military service was unconstitutional discrimination. Dorf describes the background of the legal system in Israel and explains how the relationship between the court and the elected officials in that country might inform judicial review in other democracies.
Cornell University law professor Michael C. Dorf comments on a recent decision by the Supreme Court of India in which that court ruled that the Constitution of India protects a right of privacy. Dorf explains the significance of the decision not only for the largest democracy in the world, but also for people in other constitutional democracies, including the United States.
Illinois Law professor Lesley Wexler explains the significance of the Canadian government’s recent settlement with and apology to Omar Khadr, a 15-year-old Canadian member of al-Qaeda who fought against the United States in Afghanistan. Wexler explains that while a majority of Canadians oppose the settlement, Prime Minister Trudeau has chosen to pay the political and economic price for his predecessor’s decision to allow Canadian interrogators to participate in the Guantanamo regime and for his refusal to seek Khadr’s return to Canada.
Guest columnists Antonio G. Sepulveda, Henrique Rangel, and Igor De Lazari comment on a recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that a New York law prohibiting merchants from imposing a surcharge for payment by credit card constitutes a regulation of speech, and they compare the Court’s treatment of the law as regulating speech with Brazil’s historic treatment of similar laws in that country as protecting consumers.
Guest columnist Dean Falvy, a lecturer at the University of Washington School of Law and attorney with an international business practice, explains why (and how) British prime minister Theresa May called an early election for June 8. Falvy describes the legal basis for the election and predicts that rather than leading to a kind of national rebirth, Brexit may actually end up being the catalyst for the rapid dissolution of the United Kingdom.
Chapman University Fowler School of Law professor Ronald D. Rotunda explains the difficulty of determining whether a nation has chemical weapons and praises President Trump’s recent military response to the use of chemical weapons in Syria.
Guest columnist Dean Falvy, a lecturer at the University of Washington School of Law and attorney with an international business practice, comments on the upcoming presidential election in France. Falvy explains the French election process, the contenders for the presidency, and the high stakes of the election.
Cornell University law professor Michael C. Dorf comments on the legality of President Trump’s missile strike on a Syrian airbase under domestic and international law. Dorf describes the different stakes under domestic and international law of permitting military intervention for humanitarian purposes.
SMU Dedman School of Law professor Joanna L. Grossman discusses the grave risks to women’s health under the Trump Administration, both within the United States and worldwide. Grossman explains the unprecedented breadth of President Trump’s executive order reinstating what is known as the “global gag rule” and vastly expanding its scope.
University of Washington law professor Anita Ramasastry comments on recent legislation in France recognizing a “right to disconnect” to help workers establish work–life balance. Ramasastry argues that while laudable in its attempt to address changing social behaviors, legislation might not be the best way to address this growing problem, and it almost certainly would not work in the United States.
Guest columnists Igor De Lazari, Antonio G. Sepulveda, and Carlos Bolonha critique recent significant budget cuts to Brazil’s federal judiciary. The authors explain the importance of ensuring the judiciary has sufficient funds and draw upon both U.S. and Brazilian precedence to argue that allocating funds for the proper function of the judicial branch is a legislative prerogative.
Antonio G. Sepulveda, Carlos Bolonha, and Igor De Lazari comment on a law recently passed by the house of representatives of the Brazilian state of Alagoas—over the governor’s veto—that places certain restrictions on teachers’ autonomy in the classroom. Sepulveda, Bolonha, and De Lazari discuss the purpose of the law and the criticism leveled against it and draw upon United States federal case law as a basis for analysis.
Igor De Lazari, Antonio Sepulveda, and Carlos Bolonha discuss a recent decision by the Brazilian Supreme Court affecting presidential impeachment procedures. The authors point out that the United States and Brazil have similar constitutional origins of impeachment proceedings but that the two countries diverge in interpreting and applying those provisions.
George Washington law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan explains why Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are both correct about international trade. Buchanan points out that there is no single set of policies that deserves to be called “free trade,” and thus that the term is incoherent.
Guest columnists Igor De Lazari, Antonio Sepulveda, and Henrique Rangel comment on a recent ruling by the Brazilian Supreme Court that criminal sentences may be enforced after a challengeable appellate court decision—a ruling the authors argue departs from the clear meaning of article 5, section LVII of the Brazilian Constitution. De Lazari, Sepulveda, and Rangel suggest that the ruling was based on strategic motivations by the justices, rather than purely on interpretations of the law.
Cornell University law professor Michael Dorf comments on the memoranda that supported the legality of the 2011 Navy SEAL raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound in Pakistan. Dorf argues that these “bin Laden” memos are, in at least one respect, as bad as the infamous “torture memos” that authorized the Bush Administration to use “enhanced interrogation” techniques on prisoners suspected of terrorism.