Calling Strikes: The Sixth Circuit’s Interpretation of the Prison Litigation Reform Act

On May 3, 2021, in Simons v. Washington, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that a court’s non-binding “strike” recommendation under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) did not violate the PLRA or Article III of the United States Constitution. Courts agree that binding strikes are impermissible, but disagree on the underlying reasoning. The Sixth Circuit reasoned that the PLRA, which revokes in forma pauperis filing from indigent prisoner-litigants after three qualifying dismissals, renders binding strikes impermissible before a prisoner accrues three strikes. By resolving the issue using the PLRA, the Sixth Circuit found the constitutional inquiry unnecessary. This Comment argues that the Sixth Circuit’s approach is correct because it aligns with the well-established canon of constitutional avoidance. The Sixth Circuit’s approach also narrows the legal issues in a PLRA ruling, thereby communicating familiar legal principles to under-resourced prisoner-litigants

Contested Spaces: Spatial Discourses and the Struggle for Power in the Early Modern English Empire

This project examines how early modern English spatial discourses can be used to understand power relations at the beginning of American colonization. Through analyzing John Smith’s A True Relation, Smith’s Generall Historie of Virginia, Ralph Hamor’s A True Discourse of the Present Estate of Virginia, and William Shakespeare’s The Tempest, I argue that, despite English attempts to highlight their abilities to exert absolute control over peripheral spaces, English writers ultimately reveal within their texts that the English are unable to definitively control spaces throughout the empire. These spaces include peripheral regions far from English centers of imperial control and regions closer to and even within the imperial center of London

Extrajudicial Statements and Prejudice in the Digital Age: Creating Factors to Preserve the Balance Between Attorney and State Interests in Trial Litigation

As social media’s prevalence and usage grows within the United States, people and organizations capitalize on new media to send news to users. In 2017, 67 percent of people consumed their news from social media websites, and the rate continues to grow. Local and national news sources bring newsworthy stories to active users on social media sites such as Twitter, where users can communicate and interact with one another to promote ideas and spread information. These online accounts cover not only mundane, day-to-day news, but also salacious stories relating to civil and criminal lawsuits. In April 2018, attorney Neal Katyal used his Twitter account to advocate for his client leading up to oral argument before the Supreme Court in Trump v. Hawaii. Katyal posted personal statements voicing his opinion about the case and retweeted posts linking to news articles and amicus briefs that supported his argument. With nearly 284,000 followers, many people could view and perceive the arguments Katyal would make at oral argument. Katyal’s persistent tweeting enabled him to have “extra” argument time in the court of public opinion, as advocates are allowed only a specific number of minutes to argue before the Supreme Court. Attorneys also post statements on Twitter referring to criminal cases when an alleged offender stands trial for a crime in a local venue. Scholars and practitioners voice additional concerns about an attorney’s extrajudicial statements made during criminal trials in local venues because laypeople serve on juries. The media’s publishing of a lawyer’s out-of-court comment could prejudice jurors before and during a trial. Because of this concern, the American Bar Association (ABA) enacted Model Rule of Professional Conduct 3.6 (Rule 3.6), which attempts to limit the types of speech attorneys can make while involved in litigation. fair trial and its own interest in the fair administration of justice, courts and disciplinary boards must balance these interests against an attorney’s First Amendment free speech right when determining whether an attorney has violated Rule 3.6. Comment 1 to Rule 3.6 notes that a lawyer’s statements have value, as a lawyer is often in the best position to disseminate pertinent case-related information to the public. Attorneys may need to release this information to expose government abuse, ensure that citizens remain safe, or promote discussions about changing public policy. To effectively balance these rights, the standard described in Rule 3.6 requires courts and disciplinary boards to consider various factors in determining whether an attorney’s statement results in a “substantial likelihood of prejudice” to the proceeding. By requiring courts to consider the factors, the ABA and the adopting states ensure that the rule is narrowly tailored to protect as much attorney speech as possible while still promoting state and defendant interests. For over thirty years, these factors have enabled decision makers to balance these rights effectively when faced with attorney statements published in traditional media outlets. Yet in a new age of Internet communication and social media, the original factors noted in the ABA rule and comments do not sufficiently protect attorney speech posted on online forums. This Note argues that a new technological-focused comment to Rule 3.6 will remedy this problem. In today’s online world, scholars and practitioners constantly remind attorneys to take caution when posting statements online, because confidential and inappropriate information will spread across the web and reach large numbers of people at accelerated speeds. With this perception prevalent within the legal community, a judge—ruling on a case involving attorney statements made on social media—could find that there is a substantial likelihood that the online statements will prejudice a trial. Although Internet communications and social media outlets give users the opportunity to spread information to more people at faster rates, it does not necessarily follow that all attorney statements posted online about litigation will be seen by potential jurors within the court’s jurisdiction. Numerous factors make it less likely that a potential juror will see an online statement, including the attorney’s social media account privacy settings, the attorney’s number of followers, the functions the attorney uses on a specific medium to make a statement more searchable, and the ability of a potential juror to be inundated with statements from nonfollowers. This Note argues that by creating a new, additional comment to Rule 3.6 that lists the factors to consider when faced with an attorney’s social media statement, judges will be in a better position to determine if an attorney’s statement reaches and prejudices a jury. The inclusion of such factors can aid decision makers who may be unfamiliar with how attorneys can protect information on social media. The new considerations, designed for a new age of social media use, can help shift back into place the balancing of rights that judges have achieved when applying the rule to statements presented in traditional media. In applying Rule 3.6 to social media statements, a judge must first understand how courts have applied Rule 3.6 to traditional media statements and the factors that make traditional media statements different from social media statements. Part I discusses Rule 3.6 and explains how courts apply the rule to statements that lawyers make in traditional-media outlets. Part II describes the problems that derive from a judge’s application of Rule 3.6 to statements lawyers make online. Part III lists and describes new factors for a judge to consider when ruling on a case that involves an attorney’s social media statements. Using these factors, a judge achieves a better balance between an attorney’s speech interests and a state’s interest in obtaining fair and just proceedings. Lastly, Part IV analyzes counterarguments and assures readers that new factors will not unjustly promote lawyer speech interests at the expense of state interests

Addressing Facilitators and Barriers Related to Early Childhood Obesity Prevention in Rural Appalachian Communities

Through a community-focused needs assessment conducted in rural Appalachia, we gauged perceptions of facilitators and barriers related to healthful eating and physical activity for young children and identified suggestions for improvement. Thirty-seven key informant interviews and three caregiver focus group sessions were coded and analyzed for key themes. Limited community resources emerged as a barrier to both healthful eating and physical activity. Suboptimal communication about existing opportunities was also identified. Community members reviewed the needs assessment data and implemented initiatives to address identified needs. The importance of Extension-facilitated needs assessments in rural settings to shape health initiatives to local contexts is highlighted

Opportunities for Impact: Health Promotion in Rural Early Care and Education Environments

Early care and education settings are essential partners in the battle against childhood obesity. We describe an Extension-facilitated early childhood obesity prevention intervention conducted in 25 rural early care and education settings. A total of 148 policy, systems, or environmental changes were achieved, reaching approximately 450 young children. Systems changes were the most prevalent outcome achieved. The experiences of Extension professionals in promoting policy, systems, and environmental changes are highlighted as are implications for other Extension systems and professionals promoting policy, systems, or environmental changes in early care and education settings

Early Childhood Obesity Prevention in Rural West Virginia Extension’s Role and Lessons Learned

The Cooperative Extension system is uniquely positioned to lead rural community efforts to prevent obesity in early childhood. This article explores best practices in promoting healthy weights among young children and shares examples and resources relevant to Extension programming. The West Virginia (WV) Healthy Children Project aims to improve community, home, and early care and education (ECE) environments by promoting healthy eating, physical activity, outdoor play, and reduced screen time. This project primarily focuses on interventions with ECE providers serving 2-5-year-old children in three rural counties. Comprehensive assessments informed the interventions and guided Community Advisory Committees. ECE providers were trained in “I Am Moving, I Am Learning” (IMIL) and “Nutrition and Physical Activity Self-Assessment for Child Care” (Go NAP SACC) best practices and were supported with technical assistance and classroom resources. Garden-based learning, natural playscapes, painted playgrounds, and farm-to-ECE further enhanced the environments and experiences. Community leaders were engaged in advisory committees, transformative projects, and local family-focused activities. The efficacy of these practices was tracked using quantitative and qualitative evaluation strategies conducted throughout the project, including observations, ripple effects mapping, and questionnaires. This article describes the overall project strategies and reveals the lessons learned and the challenges encountered