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.
Despite congressional findings that all people are “presumed to be capable of engaging in gainful employment,” individuals with serious intellectual disabilities face barriers to obtaining and maintaining meaningful employment. One barrier to employment is the lack of funding for long-term job support, which many individuals with intellectual disabilities require. Although the primary method of funding long-term support is Medicaid Home- and Community-Based Services Waivers, states limit the number of waivers available to their residents and leave many people on waiting lists for funding. Unfortunately, states are not required to provide a waiver to every eligible individual, as the Medicaid statute does not require that states give funding for community-based services to all. This lack of entitlement to a waiver results in an administrative failure and denial of equal employment opportunities for individuals with intellectual disabilities.
This Comment analyzes the firm resettlement bar—a statutory bar that denies asylum if the applicant received an offer of some type of permanent resettlement status in a third country that is not the United States or the applicant’s country of origin—by exploring its history and jurisprudence. This Comment argues that to lessen the risk of denial of meritorious asylum and refugee claims, the list of exceptions to the firm resettlement bar must be expanded to encompass situations where (1) citizens of the third country—not just the third country’s government—placed restrictive conditions on the asylum applicant, (2) fraudulent documents were used to gain entry into the third country, (3) the applicant has temporarily traveled from the third country back to the country of origin for good reason, or (4) the third country becomes dangerous after a formal offer of firm resettlement has been made.
Revenge porn is the posting of an intimate picture of another person without their consent. According to a study conducted by the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative, approximately 12% of study participants had either been victims of revenge porn or been threatened with revenge porn. Despite the prevalence and publicity of revenge porn, there are many barriers to criminal prosecution, including ineffective or nonexistent criminal laws and unresponsive police departments. To eliminate these barriers, Congress has considered passing a federal law. On a more local level, states have worked to protect victims by creating or strengthening state criminal statutes.
In 2012 Pennsylvania House Republicans won 72% of the House seats despite winning only 49% of the statewide popular vote. And in both the 2014 and 2016 congressional races, Republicans continued to win the same number of seats with approximately 54% of the statewide vote. The outcome was not just disproportionate congressional representation. One recent study found that the extreme partisan gerrymandering in Pennsylvania has eroded Pennsylvania voters’ trust in their elected representatives and allowed Pennsylvania’s representatives to be less responsive to Pennsylvania Democrats’ policy preferences.
In Pennsylvania, the growing demand for BWCs culminated in the passage of Pennsylvania Senate Bill 560 (S.B. 560) on July 7, 2017. The bill added Chapter 67A to Title 42 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, “clearing the way for the use of police body-worn cameras.” Although Chapter 67A does not require police departments to implement BWCs, supporters of the law believe that it will encourage more departments to begin using them. But much to the chagrin of civil rights activists and organizations like the ACLU, the law also provides sweeping restrictions on public access to the resulting BWC recordings. Chapter 67A both exempts all audio and video recordings made by law enforcement from Pennsylvania’s Right-to-Know Law and further limits public access by implementing a “heavily restrictive process for members of the public to obtain” such recordings.
The same March 2017 executive order that directed the EPA to reconsider existing greenhouse gas regulations also jettisoned the federal social cost of carbon (SCC), a set of standardized values developed during the Obama administration to monetize the climate change benefits of proposed regulations. Because agencies must justify major regulations through a largely monetized cost-benefit analysis (CBA), the resulting calculations play a critical role in determining both the stringency and viability of regulatory standards. President Trump’s order withdrew all documents relating to the federal SCC, including background technical documents detailing the economic costs of global warming. Although President Trump’s order did not prohibit agencies from attempting to calculate climate benefits, it required any subsequent analyses to follow strictly a 2003 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance document, Circular A-4, that directs agencies to discount steeply the value of preventing future harms and to focus on impacts within the United States. Indeed, President Trump’s EPA applied these limitations to assess the costs and benefits of repealing the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan and to support replacing it with much less effective power plant efficiency improvement guidelines.
Use of the terrorist label to describe intimate partner violence is increasing not only due to identified commonalities between domestic abuse and terroristic behaviors but also because of the rhetorical force the word terrorist has in highlighting the gravity of domestic violence. The label “fits” and is effective for advocacy, which makes the temptation to use it great. However, due to the serious negative implications of expanding the framework of terrorism into new subject and legal areas, it is critical to carefully analyze the impact of reconceptualizing intimate partner abuse in such a manner.
The 2019 Temple Student Symposium will be held on March 20, 2019 from 4 to 5:30 p.m. in the Moot Court Room in Klein Hall, 1719 N. Broad St., Philadelphia, Pa. 19122. The symposium will feature presentations by three members of both Temple Law Review and Temple International and Comparative Law Journal. The following students […]
Throughout my thirty-eight-year legal career, I have experienced our legal system from nearly every perspective—as a trial lawyer, a juror, and a federal and state judge. Each of these experiences has demonstrated the value of ensuring our juries reflect the community in which they sit.
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.