The Nuts and Bolts of Amending the Constitution: The Recent Equal Rights Amendment Ratification Debate

https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/ibrlposters/1037/thumbnail.jp

Recent Expansion of Gubernatorial Emergency Powers to Address the COVID-19 Pandemic: Examining Applications for the Climate Crisis

With a particular focus on the states of California and Florida, this Note delves into the leadership roles assumed by governors when addressing the global COVID-19 pandemic, evaluates the applicability of this gubernatorial strategy to the climate crisis, and examines the criticisms and constitutional challenges to expanding gubernatorial emergency powers. Part I explores the core similarities and differences between the COVID-19 pandemic and climate change. Part II addresses the failure of federal and international policy responses to both the pandemic and climate change. Part III details the states’ use of gubernatorial emergency powers to respond to COVID-19. Part IV then evaluates the viability of using gubernatorial emergency powers as a means of responding to climate change. Finally, Part V addresses the criticisms and constitutional challenges to expanding these gubernatorial powers. Ultimately, this Note aims to explore whether gubernatorial emergency powers, a vital tool used during the pandemic, could also be used to address climate change at a state level. This abstract has been taken from the author\u27s introduction

Carter Kaplan & Company Award

For outstanding scholarship in International Finance Law.https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/studentplaques/1130/thumbnail.jp

Environmental Law and Policy Review Award For Excellence in Scholarship: Best Note

https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/studentplaques/1128/thumbnail.jp

Burying the Icepick: Why and How the United States Should End Its Dispute with Canada Over the Legal Status of the Northwest Passage

This Note argues that the United States should work with Canada to pass an amendment to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) that allows Canada to legally claim the Northwest Passage as internal waters. While the United States has long championed freedom of navigation, important U.S. security, environmental, and diplomatic interests weigh in favor of a legal regime that allows Canada to exercise complete control over the Northwest Passage. However, UNCLOS does not currently support Canada’s claim. Thus, the best means of accomplishing this objective is for the United States to work with Canada to pass an Arctic amendment to UNCLOS that would allow Canada to draw straight baselines around the Canadian Arctic. Part I discusses relevant international maritime law and delves into the legal positions of the United States and Canada on the status of the Northwest Passage. Part II examines the competing U.S. interests at stake in the legal status of the Passage. Part III explores potential legal solutions that would satisfy the United States’ most pressing interests. This abstract has been taken from the author\u27s introduction

Never Waste a Crisis

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights allows states to suspend certain rights during emergencies, but only if necessary. Evan Criddle says that in the past 25 years, American presidents have invoked emergency powers with increasing frequency. And those measures have been deeply controversial

Shaq, \u3cem\u3eRipple\u3c/em\u3e, and the Future of Crypto Regulation

Crypto is at a regulatory crossroads. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and other regulators have taken a hard line on enforcing traditional regulatory requirements that would severely limit crypto offering activities. At the same time, crypto advocates seek preferential treatment, under the guise of “regulatory clarity,” that would allow them to bypass much of the applicable regulatory regimes. After a halt to legislative activities, brought on by the FTX implosion and ensuing crypto winter, the battle for crypto’s future is currently in the courts. Two pending, bellwether cases—the class action against Shaquille O’Neal and other celebrity spokesmen for FTX, and the SEC’s protracted Ripple Labs litigation—illustrate the following claims about crypto and financial regulation: (1) Crypto’s attempts to access broad public markets are incompatible with the existing financial regulatory framework, which either prohibits access to public markets (as for securities) or requires alternative regulatory oversight (such as substantive prudential banking regulation). (2) Calls for “clarity” regarding crypto regulation are disingenuous in that crypto investments, with quite limited exceptions, are clearly prohibited from public trading under existing regulatory frameworks. Rather, calls for clarity are actually seeking more lenient treatment than exists for comparable assets. (3) Because crypto innovations are minimal and largely reinvent the wheel of traditional back-office financial plumbing, any privileges granted to crypto may lead to massive regulatory arbitrage. Virtually any traditional financial function—fundraising, brokerage, banking—can be recast as blockchain-based with minimal functional changes for the end-user. (4) Whether the current regime—which prohibits public access for most unlicensed investment products—is desirable from the standpoint of economic efficiency is debatable. However, to date, there is little reason to treat crypto offerings differently than other passive investments, as crypto assets suffer from significant informational asymmetry and are subject to manipulation and related-party transactions. Decentralization and deconstruction of crypto financial functions is largely endogenous (and provides limited, if any, efficiency gains), such that crypto’s purported inability to comply with existing regulation is a choice that can be exploited for regulatory arbitrage

AI v. MQD: Navigating New Regulatory Challenges in the Life Sciences

This Note proceeds in four parts. Part I introduces AI as an emerging technology in the life sciences, the FDA’s inherited regulatory regime, and challenges under the MQD [major questions doctrine]. Part II explores how hypervigilant regulation obstructs innovation and exposes agencies to judicial challenges. Part III offers solutions to safely and effectively navigate the major questions landscape within a framework that fosters AI innovation. This Note proposes a solution that conceptually balances growth in the life sciences with the statutory elements required for a safe and effective regulatory scheme. This abstract has been taken from the author\u27s introduction