Caught Between Superpowers:Alaska’s Economic Relationship with China Amidst the New Cold War

In recent years, Alaska has developed an increasingly robust economic relationship with China. China is the largest foreign buyer of Alaskan goods and China continues to invest in Alaska and promote Alaskan tourism. Meanwhile, the U.S. federal government’s relationship with China has deteriorated over concerns that China poses a danger to U.S. national security. As the U.S. federal government continues to scrutinize Chinese investment and trade with the United States, Alaska’s economic relationship with China increasingly hangs in the balance. Alaska’s relationship with China thus joins a long history of economic ties between states and foreign nations that pose conflicts of interest for the U.S. federal government. Beginning with the ratification of the U.S. Constitution and leading up to the present, the states have staked out a role as advocates on behalf of their citizens in promoting economic ties with foreign nations. This Note argues that the anti-commandeering doctrine provides constitutional protection for Alaska’s promotion of its economic relationship with China from interference by the U.S. federal government. While the federal government may itself regulate commerce between Alaska and China, the federal government may not muzzle the Alaska state government and prevent it from promoting commerce with China. While this state of play might seem like a hollow victory for Alaska, the anti-commandeering doctrine requires the federal government to take action itself — rather than coerce Alaska to take action — and thus forces the federal government to expend greater political capital in passing a law or regulation. The anti-commandeering doctrine thus properly apportions political accountability among the state and federal governments and makes federal intervention less likely

The Student Journal of Latin American Studies: Avenue for Student Research

Latin American Studie

Southern Cal. Edison v. State Dep’t of Taxation, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 49 (Jul. 27, 2017)

The Court considered whether an electrical utility company was entitled to a tax refund after it had paid taxes under an alleged discriminatory taxation scheme. The Court held that the company was not entitled to a tax refund because the company’s statutory construction argument regarding NRS 372.270 in conjunction with NRS 372.185 would create absurd results. Moreover, the company did not provide sufficient evidence demonstrating substantially situated competitors who benefited from the unconstitutional taxation scheme. Finally, the Court found that the company was not entitled to a tax credit for the money it paid to an out-of-state tax because the tax was not a sales tax

In re D.T., 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 23 (May 25, 2017)

The Nevada Supreme Court held that the juvenile court properly certified a juvenile as an adult because the seriousness of his offense and his prior adjudications outweighed the subjective factors in Seven Minors. Additionally, the Court held that a court’s certification of cognitively impaired juveniles for adult proceedings does not offend the Eighth Amendment

Hawaii

Getting in that summer mood, here are some pictures from Hawaii and warmer weather. I love to travel and Hawaii will always be one of my favorite spots

Saticoy Bay LLC v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 3 (Jan. 26, 2017)

The Court held that under NRCP 41(e) a complaint in intervention is a part of an original action, and thus, the district court’s dismissal of appellant’s complaint was mandatory. However, the district court abused its discretion in dismissing the complaint with prejudice because the district court mischaracterized NRS 116.3116(6) as a statute of limitations when it only limits the amount of actionable unpaid HOA assessments. Finally, the Court found that appellant’s subsequent action would not be barred by statute of limitations