This Essay offers a novel solution to a thorny problem at the intersection of trust law and the conflict of laws: When should the settlor be able to choose a governing law other than the law of the jurisdiction with the most significant relationship to the trust?
In a story from The Take Away, a podcast supported by New York Public Radio, Alexandra Natapoff of the UC Irvine School of Law discusses the position she presents in her new book Punishment Without Crime: How Our Massive Misdemeanor System Traps the Innocent and Makes American More Unequal.
If you believe the rhetoric, the U.S.-Mexico border is a repugnant and dangerous place roiling with unseemly people sneaking into our country, smuggling drugs and escaping law enforcement.
Requiring cross-examination in campus sexual-misconduct proceedings is among the key features of the Department of Education’s proposed Title IX reforms currently open for public comment.
Traditional choice of law theory conceives of certainty and flexibility as opposed values: increase one, and you inevitably decrease the other. This article challenges the received wisdom by reconceptualizing the distinction.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard argument in its latest foray into Indian treaty interpretation, Herrera v. Wyoming. The case concerns the persistence of the Crow Tribe’s hunting right in the 1868 Second Treaty of Fort Laramie. In an occasionally meandering argument, the Supreme Court repeatedly circled the three issues at the core of the case: issue preclusion, the implications of the court’s holding in its 1999 decision in Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians, and the meaning of the treaty term “unoccupied.”