I recently had the opportunity to speak to various elected officials and higher-education personnel in the countries of Georgia and Kazakhstan. I was excited to tell them about the ALI Project on Ethics and that there will be suggested guidelines which will be applicable to any interested public official or government. The audience members were very interested to hear about this timely project. I am sure the project will be met with great interest not only in North America, but also around the globe. It is truly an honor for me to be working with this eminent group of distinguished people to bring this project forward.
The American Law Institute Postpones Final Vote On The Liability Insurance Restatement But That Hasn’t Stopped Six Courts From Already Citing ItRandy Maniloff
For those not closely following the ALI Liability Insurance Restatement, the project, and its process, can seem mysterious. This decision by the ALI, to delay the final vote, hardly solves this problem. So, what does all this mean?
Tribal self-governance contracting/compacting has significantly raised American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) health outcomes, standards of living, and education rates across tribal backgrounds. However, whether the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA) of 1975 empowers tribal sovereignty remains an open question—a question with important policy implications for tribal governments.
A brief historical account may be helpful in understanding the uncertainty and the reasons why a Restatement of Children and the Law would be particularly useful in clarifying legal doctrine and in supporting emerging reform trends.
The Restoration of Rights Project is an online resource that offers state-by-state analyses of the law and practice in each U.S. jurisdiction relating to restoration of rights and status following arrest or conviction. Jurisdictional “profiles” cover areas such as loss and restoration of civil rights and firearms rights, judicial and executive mechanisms for avoiding or mitigating collateral consequences, and provisions addressing non-discrimination in employment and licensing. Links to many original sources are included. The information in each profile is summarized, followed in each case by a link to the full profile.
Part I examines changes associated with the Supreme Court’s requirement that juvenile courts provide delinquents some procedural safeguards. Part II examines the Get Tough Era and states’ emphases on youths’ adult-like culpability and adoption of punitive policies. Part III reviews the Supreme Court’s recent jurisprudence of youth, reaffirmation that children are different, and limits on harsh punishment for youths. It concludes with a reflection on the limits of juvenile justice reform to improve the life chances of young people.