Founded in 1927, Temple Law Review is a student-edited, quarterly journal dedicated to providing a forum for the expression of new legal thought and scholarly commentary on important developments, trends, and issues in the law.
Racial discrimination in the property tax foreclosure context is difficult, if not impossible, to prove in court because the applicable laws and policies are almost always facially race-neutral. Nonwhite people are not explicitly singled out for unequal treatment, yet foreclosure laws and policies often have a demonstrably disproportionate effect on low-income, nonwhite homeowners. Alleging that a law or policy results in a disparate impact avoids the difficulties of proving discriminatory treatment by allowing plaintiffs to show discriminatory effect without the burden of proving discriminatory intent.
This Comment explains why—despite the state’s adoption of the ERA in 1971 and the ERA’s seemingly clear, environmentally friendly language—the ERA did not have teeth until June 2017. This Comment begins with a history of the ERA, including its adoption and Pennsylvania courts’ early interpretations of it. It then describes the Pennsylvania courts’ environmentally destructive interpretation of the ERA and the eventual evolution of that interpretation. Finally, this Comment discusses the potential for using the ERA to compel the Commonwealth to regulate GHG emissions following two monumental 2017 Pennsylvania Supreme Court decisions—Pennsylvania Environmental Defense Foundation v. Commonwealth (PEDF) and William Penn School District v. Pennsylvania Department of Education (William Penn).
Pennsylvania has a high home-birth rate, and non-nurse midwives attend most Pennsylvania home births. In 2015, non-nurse midwives attended at least 1,300 deliveries in Pennsylvania. All of the non-nurse midwives who attended these deliveries did so illegally. Non-nurse midwives in Pennsylvania practice illegally because the Midwife Regulation Law proscribes midwifery practice without a license, and Pennsylvania currently provides no path to licensure for non-nurse midwives.
This Comment seeks to answer two questions. First, how did the Justice Department come to believe that it had the authority to prosecute riots so broadly—is the riot law of D.C. unique, or would such a prosecution have been viable under the laws of other American jurisdictions? Second, did the prosecution offend the constitutional rights of the people involved, and if so, how? Although the Justice Department’s tactics received criticism in the media for their unfairness and deleterious effect on free speech, are those criticisms grounded in a principle of constitutional law that would constrain future prosecutors from attempting the same feat?
In this Article, I argue that the enumeration of papers as a discrete area of Fourth Amendment protection—distinct from trespass upon real and personal property (i.e., houses and effects) and bodily integrity (i.e., persons)—reflects a unique and substantial concern for the historical sanctity of “an individual’s most private thoughts.”
Some notable watch lists are the No Fly List (banning certain individuals from any type of air travel) and the Selectee List (subjecting select individuals to enhanced screening whenever they attempt to travel).
These watch lists, while nominally used to keep track of the identities of certain individuals determined to be potential threats, are also used as a means to curtail certain freedoms, especially the freedom to travel. After Omar Mateen’s recent attack on the Orlando Pulse nightclub, for example, members of Congress considered using the No Fly List and Selectee List as tools to enforce gun control measures, known as “No Fly, No Buy” legislation.
What is so awful about a law requiring the burial or cremation of fetal remains? These pieces of legislation represent an unsettling trend in the anti-abortion movement—a trend by which the fetus is treated like a legal person, leading to instances in which the rights of the fetus may outweigh the rights of the pregnant woman. As a result, fetal burial and cremation laws present a direct threat to the right to a safe, legal abortion.
But what TLR@90 really illuminates is that, like much of what’s best at Temple Law School, the best thing about Temple Law Review has always been its people. It’s impossible to look around this room, filled with former and current members of the Temple Law Review, and conclude otherwise.
On March 22, 2018, Professor Robert J. Reinstein sat down with Temple Law Review editorial board members Kevin Trainer, Sonya C. Bishop, and David A. Nagdeman. The following is a condensed transcript of their conversation.
What justifies our failure to engage all students in discussions of the justice gap, and of our obligation to do something about it? The limited attention we give to the subject is especially strange given our extensive focus on questions of ethics. Without minimizing the importance of the rules that prohibit us from failing to act zealously on behalf of our clients, from misusing client funds, and from divulging confidences and avoiding conflicts, isn’t it also a significant ethical issue that most people of low and even moderate means are unable obtain any legal help at all?