The Unreasonable Rise of Reasonable Suspicion: Terrorist Watchlists and Terry v. Ohio

Terry v. Ohio’s “reasonable suspicion” test was created in the context of domestic law enforcement, but it did not remain there. This Essay examines the effect of transplanting this test into a new context: the world of terrorist watchlists. In this new context, reasonable suspicion is the standard used to authorize the infringement on liberty that often results from being watchlisted. But nothing else from the case that created that standard remains the same. The government official changes from a local police officer to an anonymous member of the intelligence community. The purpose changes from crime prevention to counterterrorism. The technology changes from a police officer’s notebook or filed report to a massive and remote computer databank. And, most significantly, the person who determines whether the reasonable suspicion standard has been met changes from a neutral and detached magistrate to the executive official who harbored the suspicion in the first place

GoTaxMe: Crowdfunding and Gifts

In 2018, Peter Strzok was fired from the FBI, based on text messages that he sent denigrating President Trump. A week later, a group set up a GoFundMe page soliciting funds to help with his “legal costs” and to replace his “lost income.” As of early September, that fund had raised over $450,000. GoFundMe states on its website that donations made are usually considered to be “private gifts” and not taxable to the recipient. Using Strzok’s campaign as an example, this Article will discuss the current standards for determining whether a transfer qualifies as a nontaxable gift and the policy rationale for the exclusion of gifts. The Article argues that, contrary to the common conception of what qualifies as a gift for tax purposes, there are some circumstances in which the intention of the transferor should not control the characterization. Instead, in those circumstances, the role of the transferee should control. The Article concludes that GoFundMe’s positon is incorrect and funds collected using GoFundMe (and other crowdfunding websites) should be treated as income to the recipient

Russian Compliance with Articles Five and Six of the European Convention of Human Rights as a Barometer of Legal Reform and Human Rights in Russia

This Note examines two of Russia\u27s obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR): the Article 5 right to liberty and security, and the Article 6 right to a fair trial to gauge Russian compliance with European human rights norms. These articles lie at the heart of systematic legal reform in the Russian Federation. This Note defends the thesis that the agonizingly slow progress of judicial reform and the advancement of human rights in Russia is a function of the inevitable lag of conceptual norms behind institutional reform. Part I explores the weak place of the rule of law as an institutional force in Soviet and post-Soviet Russian history and emphasizes the power of conceptual legacies as well as the path dependency of prior institutional choices. Part II presents the current legal architecture of the Russian Federation as it relates to the ECHR, discussing first the position of international treaties in Russia \u27 hierarchy of laws and, second, domestic Russian criminal law and criminal procedural law. Part III focuses on the conceptual and legal distance that separates Russian domestic law from the human rights obligations that Russia has undertaken in international treaties with the Council of Europe. Part IX analyzes the steadily growing docket of complaints lodged against Russia for alleged violations of the ECHR. Finally, Part V advocates a variety of educational reforms at every level of Russian society by both foreign and domestic actors. The Note concludes on a note of alarm, predicting the weakening of institutional legal structures absent conceptual and attitudinal changes

Tax and Cross-Collateralized Nonrecourse Liability

This Article explores the tax treatment of cross-collateral nonrecourse debt. When using the term cross-collateral debt, we are referring to non¬recourse debt that is connected with more than one piece of property. While tax issues concerning cross-collateralized properties can arise in several circumstances, the focus of this Article is on the tax treatment of a transfer of property subject to a cross-collateralized nonrecourse lia¬bility to a controlled corporation in exchange for stock that qualifies for some or all nonrecognition under § 351. The Article also discusses two other tax issues involving cross-collateralized nonrecourse liability—namely, cancellation of debt and determination of basis issues

Free Rider: A Justification for Mandatory Medical Insurance Under Health Care Reform?

Section 1501 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act added section 5000A to the Internal Revenue Code to require most individuals in the United States, beginning in the year 2014, to purchase an established minimum level of medical insurance. This requirement, which is enforced by a penalty imposed on those who fail to comply, is sometimes referred to as the “individual mandate.” The individual mandate is one element of a vast change to the provision of medical care that Congress implemented in 2010. The individual mandate has proved to be controversial and has been the subject of a number of lawsuits contending that it is unconstitutional. It is not our purpose in this article to discuss its constitutionality. Rather, this piece focuses on the viability of one of the justifications that often is put forth for the adoption of the individual mandate: the “free-rider” problem