Toxic Exposure

Service members are often exposed to toxins in service. When they file claims for disability compensation, they struggle to link their diseases to toxic exposure while serving. Congress stepped in to ease their burden by creating presumptions, relieving the veterans of the burden of proving a nexus between the exposure and their disease. In 2022, Congress enacted the PACT Act which expanded presumptive service connection for veterans whose service involved exposure to toxic substances. But, for veterans whose conditions do not fall within these presumptions, problems with the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) benefits adjudication system make it difficult to prove direct service connection. First, VA too often wrongfully develops to deny, which means that even if a veteran submits adequate medical evidence connecting the toxic exposure to his or her disability, VA disregards the evidence and orders a VA examination to justify denying the claim. Second, although veterans should have the benefit of the doubt on any close issue concerning benefits, VA often merely pays lip service to this standard and denies the claim. In the March 2025 case Bufkin v. McDonough, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) reviews the Board of Veterans’ Appeals’ application of the benefit of the doubt rule as part of its factual findings under the clearly erroneous standard, rather than de novo. Thus, whether the evidence is in “approximate balance” concerning a veteran’s claim is a factual finding reviewed under the deferential clear error standard. This prevents the Veterans Court from ensuring VA properly applies the benefit of the doubt. Finally, the VA benefits system is like a hamster wheel because claims are often remanded for factual development at every stage, forcing claims to revolve up and down through the system. This Article recommends Congress amend the PACT Act to aid veterans who do not qualify for the PACT Act presumptions to: (1) ensure VA fulfills its duty to refrain from developing to deny, (2) grant the Veterans Court de novo review of VA benefit of the doubt determinations, and (3) mitigate the hamster wheel

From Mods to Multiplayer: Strategies for Protecting the Video Game Industry from Section 230 Reform

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 has long shielded online platforms from liability for the actions of their users. As calls for its repeal or reform grow louder across the political spectrum, debate has largely centered on social media; however, the video game industry—a significant yet often-overlooked stakeholder in this discourse—also depends heavily on Section 230 protections. From multiplayer servers to online platforms such as Steam, Twitch, and Discord, this Note examines the crucial role Section 230 plays in sustaining the video game ecosystem. It argues that repealing or significantly reforming Section 230 without accounting for the video game industry’s unique reliance on it would produce serious unintended consequences: stifling innovation, heightening legal risks, and undermining community-building efforts. By exploring the legal, economic, and interactive dimensions of Section 230 within the gaming sphere, this Note urges lawmakers to strike a balance in reform that preserves Section 230’s benefits to industries beyond social media

The Culture of Gender/the Gender of Culture: Cuban Women, Culture, and Change—the Island and the Diaspora

This Essay analyzes the role of the Cuban woman in society—both on the island as well as in the diaspora. The purpose of this Essay is to assess whether culture has changed among either (or both) Cuban women on the island after the revolution and those who have emigrated since then. The Essay develops this topic in three parts. The first part presents the role of women in society in general and specifically in Latina/o societies. Following, the work addresses the history of Cuba, in order to weave in the record of women\u27s movements and women\u27s organizations on the island until 1959. As all Cuban women share this history, whether they live on the island or are part of the diaspora, this historical perspective will serve to inform readers of the changes based on gender roles. The third part of the Essay focuses on the contemporary status of Cuban women in order to evaluate if there have been any changes with respect to the gender of culture or the culture of gender. This Essay concludes that the cultural, gendered role of Cuban women has remained unchanged both on the island and in the diaspora

Taxing Hot Asset Shifts

Notice 2006-14 invites comments concerning proposals to simplify and rationalize the treatment of disproportionate distributions that rearrange the partners\u27 shares of unrealized appreciation in ordinary income and capital gain assets ( hot asset distributions ). Specifically, the Notice requests comments concerning whether to adopt the hot asset sale approach in lieu of the imputed exchange mechanism under the current section 751(b) regulations. Upon a current nonprorata distribution, the hot asset sale approach would be coupled with a revaluation of partnership property and special allocations to preserve shares of built-in hot asset gain to the extent possible. Although enacted in 1954, section 751(b) has remained largely unchanged. Indeed, the regulations issued in 1956 have never been updated to reflect the modem concept of revaluations and section 704(c) allocations. While section 751(b) is sometimes viewed mainly as concerned with the character of income, it also has a significant impact on the timing of gain recognition. Section 751(b) is only one of several provisions that are intended to prevent a distribution or sale of partnership interests from shifting built-in ordinary income or capital gain among partners. The collapsible partnership rules of sections 751(a) and 751(b) and the inside basis adjustment rules of sections 743(b) and 734(b) represented the culmination of intensive study by the American Bar Association (ABA) and American Law Institute (ALI) leading to the 1954 codification of Subchapter K. While sections 743(b) and 751(a) dealing with sales of partnership interests generally function relatively well, sections 734(b) and 751(b) are subject to important defects that impair their ability to prevent shifting of built-in gain. These defects stem mainly from Congress\u27 failure to follow through on the 1954 ALI proposals for treating a nonprorata current distribution as a partial liquidation of the distributee\u27s interest, coupled with mandatory inside basis adjustments. To avoid inadvertently undermining the purpose of section 751 (b), the hot asset sale approach needs to be coordinated with section 734(b) adjustments. Part II of this Commentary considers the general operation of the hot asset sale approach when partnership property is revalued. Part III considers the relationship between sections 734(b) and 751 (b), focusing on the 1954 ALI proposals and Professor Andrews\u27 more recent proposals to reform the treatment of hot asset distributions and inside basis adjustments. Part IV explores the hot asset sale approach in the context of liquidating distributions that trigger section 734(b) because of insufficient shares of outside (or inside) basis. Part V addresses nonprorata current distributions that reduce the distributee\u27s interest in the partnership, leaving the distributee with a retained interest that may be insufficient (by value) to support booked-up hot asset gain. Part VI suggests the need to restore conformity between sections 751(a) and 751(b) by extending the hot asset sale approach to shifts of tepid asset gain. While the hot asset sale approach represents a significant improvement, this Commentary concludes that section 75 1(b) should continue to play an essential gain-recognition function

New Flames, Old Irons: A Striking Analysis of Florida\u27s Gaming Compact with the Seminole Tribe

This Comment analyzes Florida’s gaming compact (the Compact) with the Seminole Tribe, focusing on the legality of allowing online sports betting under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA). The Compact permits the Seminole Tribe to offer statewide online sports betting by “deeming” all bets placed in Florida as occurring on tribal lands, where the Seminole betting servers are located. This Comment argues that such an interpretation stretches the plain meaning of “Indian lands” in IGRA, which traditionally refers to physical land within reservations. Notably, the Ninth Circuit and the D.C. Circuit have seemingly contradictory opinions on this issue. This Comment focuses on three key challenges to the Compact—one from the D.C. Circuit, one from the Florida Supreme Court, and one from the United States Supreme Court—further underscoring the need for clarification. This Comment concludes by asserting that Congress should amend IGRA to clarify the definition of “Indian lands” for online gaming ensuring, consistent application of the law and promoting judicial economy

Due Process in the Brazilian Presidential Impeachment

This Essay discusses the applicability of the U.S. notion of procedural due process of law to the presidential impeachment process within the Brazilian Constitution. It takes a critical approach based on the Inter-American system of human rights protection and includes a comparison with the European human rights model. The analysis is illustrated by means of the Brazilian Federal Senate\u27s impeachment of Dilma Rousseff on August 31, 2016 on charges of having opened additional lines of credit by presidential decrees, without the authorization of the National Congress, and (illegally) entering into loan transactions. As a result, the ex-President Rousseff was removed from office, but not barred from holding other public offices. The first half of this Essay deals with the grounds for the applicability of procedural due process to impeachment in general, and argues that the degree of deference that the Judiciary must show to the resulting decision depends on the Senate\u27s respect for due process in its adjudicatory role. The second half of the text enumerates certain procedural guarantees that are necessary for impeachment in a constitutional system in order to prohibit judicial review of such decisions

Pillar Two: Much Ado About Next to Nothing?

The OECD has spent the last fifteen years working on the design and implementation of rules for the taxation of income derived from international transactions, rules that are supposed to both increase corporate tax revenues and minimize “destructive” tax competition. Pillar Two, the second part of the two-part “Inclusive Framework,” was released in July of 2021. It is designed to force countries to impose a minimum tax on income derived by large multinational enterprises. Pillar Two–compliant taxes have been enacted by most of the countries in the European Union, Japan, South Korea and other economically important countries, but not by the United States. Reacting to President Trump’s continued opposition to Pillar Two and the threatened imposition of a retaliatory tax on investors from countries imposing certain elements of the minimum tax regime on U.S. investors, the OECD agreed to exempt U.S.-parented groups from parts of the Pillar Two regime, and instead allow U.S. domestic minimum tax rules to exist on a “side-by-side” basis. However, this concession will not eliminate the economic incentive for the United States to conform many of its tax rules to fit the Pillar Two template. As this Article explains, such conformity could actually advance the President’s and Congress’s nationalist economic and political agenda because in many respects Pillar Two is a “paper tiger.” It leaves plentiful opportunities for countries including the United States to engage in tax and economic competition