Decline in Relative Abundance of Hippodamia convergens (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) in Fall Shoreline Aggregations on Western Lake Superior

In the 1970s, migratory coccinellid aggregations on western Lake Superior shorelines consisted of over 90% Hippodamia convergens Guérin-Méneville. In 2014, the alien Harmonia axyridis (Pallas) accounted for over 80% of shoreline coccinellid aggregations and H. convergens declined to less than 10% of the total. Additional work is needed to elucidate the extent and cause of the decline of H. convergens in western Lake Superior shoreline aggregations

Why Bivens Won\u27t Die: The Legacy of Peoples v. CCA Detention Centers

Interpreting recent Supreme Court precedent, the Tenth Circuit, in Peoples v. CCA Detention Centers, held that a federal prisoner confined in a privately run prison may not bring a Bivens suit against the employees of the private prison for violations of his constitutional rights when alternative state-law causes of action are available. The author first reviews the Supreme Court\u27s evolving Bivens jurisprudence and turns next to an overview of the Tenth Circuit\u27s opinion. Third, the author argues that, despite the Tenth Circuit\u27s new approach, putative constitutional claims brought under state-law theories of recovery will often be re-federalized, producing uniform federal liability rules and federal jurisdiction. The author concludes that should the Supreme Court truly wish to end the practice of implying causes of action from the Constitution, it must reconsider a whole host of federal common law and jurisdictional doctrines - which the Court may find unpalatable

Why Bivens Won't Die: The Legacy of Peoples V. CCA Detention Centers

Full-text available at SSRN. See link in this record.Interpreting recent Supreme Court precedent, the Tenth Circuit, in Peoples v. CCA Detention Centers, held that a federal prisoner confined in a privately run prison may not bring a Bivens suit against the employees of the private prison for violations of his constitutional rights when alternative state-law causes of action are available. The author first reviews the Supreme Court's evolving Bivens jurisprudence and turns next to an overview of the Tenth Circuit's opinion. Third, the author argues that, despite the Tenth Circuit's new approach, putative constitutional claims brought under state-law theories of recovery will often be re-federalized, producing uniform federal liability rules and federal jurisdiction. The author concludes that should the Supreme Court truly wish to end the practice of implying causes of action from the Constitution, it must reconsider a whole host of federal common law and jurisdictional doctrines - which the Court may find unpalatable

An Architecture of a New Story

As the world reckons with an uncertain future at the hands of global climate change and biodiversity loss, the question of how to proceed seems ever more urgent. Approaches to sustainability in design tend to focus on technological solutions to what is often presented as a technical problem. This approach overlooks the ways in which the forces that have led us to this point are born out of our cultural story of what it means to be human, what the natural world is, and what our relationship is to it. This is the story that has permitted if not encouraged the kind of development that has led to global warming and extensive loss of biodiversity. If we are going to reverse these trends we must tell a new story – one that, among other things, removes humans from the center of the conversation, acknowledges the interconnectedness of things, and values multi- and extra-sensory ways of knowing. This thesis asks the question, “What might architecture look like if we held these beliefs and if we told ourselves a new story?” The thesis explores ways in which architecture can continue to advance the practice of sustainable design by embodying, encouraging, and reflecting this New Story. The theory is put to the test via a curated experiential journey, culminating at a tower in the middle of a forest. The design at once exemplifies New Story ideals and offers a place to dream about new ways of being and building

What's Good for the Goose is Not Good for the Gander: Sarbanes-Oxley-Style Nonprofit Reforms

Full-text available at SSRN. See link in this record.In this article, I contend that these Sarbanes-Oxley-inspired, state, nonprofit reforms, particularly the costly disclosure requirements, will be of little value in the effort to improve ethical nonprofit board governance. The article proceeds as follows. Part II provides a primer on the oversight of nonprofit organizations. Part III reviews the recent Sarbanes-Oxley-like nonprofit reforms introduced in seven states. Part IV contends that the disclosure-focused reforms, which form the bulwark of these acts, will not foster ethical nonprofit board governance. Part V argues that this failure stems from the inappropriate application of a stockholder-based, normative perspective in the nonprofit sector. The article concludes by noting that appropriating a normative construct more tailored to the nonprofit community, namely stakeholder theory, is essential to drafting effective nonprofit sector reforms in the future

What\u27s Good for the Goose Is Not Good for the Gander: Sarbanes-Oxley-Style Nonprofit Reforms

In this Article, I contend that the Sarbanes-Oxley-inspired nonprofit reforms currently being put forward in seven states, particularly the costly disclosure requirements, will be of little value in the effort to improve ethical nonprofit board governance. After providing a primer on the oversight of nonprofit organizations and highlighting the unique difficulties facing the nonprofit sector the Article reviews the recent Sarbanes-Oxley-like nonprofit reforms introduced in seven states. It then contends that the disclosure- focused reforms that form the bulwark of these initiatives will not foster improved ethical nonprofit board governance. It also argues that this failure stems from the inappropriate application of a stockholder-based normative perspective in the nonprofit sector The Article concludes by noting that appropriating a normative construct more tailored to the nonprofit community, namely stakeholder theory, is essential to drafting effective nonprofit sector reforms in the future

Jurisdiction by Cross-Reference

State and federal law often cross-reference each other to provide a rule of decision. The difficulties attendant to these cross-referenced schemes are brought to the fore most clearly when a federal court must determine whether such bodies of law create federal question jurisdiction. Indeed, the federal courts have issued scores of seemingly inconsistent opinions on these cross-referential cases. In this Article, I offer an ordering principle for these apparently varied, cross-referential jurisdictional cases. I argue that the federal courts only take federal question jurisdiction over crossreferenced claims when they, from a departmental perspective, maintain declaratory authority over the cross-referenced law. I defend this thesis by extensively exploring cross-referenced regimes in numerous modes. I also contend that this cross-referential ordering principle offers significant insights into the nature of federal question claims more generally. Namely, I assert that, contrary to the predominant view, the federal courts do not stand ready to hear cases in which the judiciary as a whole is deployed merely as a fact-finding forum under federal question jurisdiction. Further, I contend that this view of federal question jurisdiction comports with the original understanding of that font of jurisdiction, as well as principles of judicial independence, and that the Court’s tendency to vest federal question jurisdiction upon mere formal distinctions in these contexts often leads to separation-of-powers difficulties. As such, I advocate that jurisdiction over all cross-referenced regimes proceed on functionalist lines