Time and again marginalized neighborhoods, often communities of color or low-income communities, bear the brunt of local pollution due to historic placement of high-polluting power plants.[1] In particular, fossil fuel peaker plants expose nearby low-income and minority communities, or environmental justice (EJ) communities, to disproportionate amounts of particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur dioxide.[2] Grid operators typically employ peaker plants when there is high demand on the electric grid, usually in extremely hot or cold temperatures. These plants need to ramp up quickly and use single-cycle operation, making them more inefficient than their baseload generation counterparts.[3] Currently, the United States has over 1,000 peaker plants.[4] Nearby neighborhoods suffer disproportionate health disparities linked to heavy air pollution from this fossil-fuel energy infrastructure, particularly on hot summer days when local pollution impacts can be more significant.[5]
The LGBTQ+ “panic” defense allows “a jury to find that a victim’s sexual orientation or gender identity/expression is to blame for a defendant’s violent reaction, including murder.”[1] Eleven states have banned the use of the LGBTQ+ panic defense; nine more have proposed legislation doing the same. However, not all states that have enacted this legislation have placed outright bans on the defense entirely. Maine, Rhode Island, and Connecticut have legislation that includes language that bars the defense only if it is based solely on the discovery of a victim’s actual or perceived sex or sexual orientation.[2] In effect, inclusion of the word solely creates a loophole allowing defendants to still claim the defense.
The Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River Basin hold twenty-one percent of the world’s fresh water, bring in billions of dollars to the region annually, and provide water to over 30 million people for uses ranging from drinking and recreation to industry.[1] The Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Resources Compact (“Great Lakes Compact” or “Compact”) regulates this Basin.[2] Each of the eight states, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, and the two surrounding Canadian providences, Ontario and Quebec, within the Basin collaborate through the Compact to coordinate their activities and ensure the longevity of their mutual water source.[3] However, in the thirteen years since the Compact was enacted, states have taken actions contrary to the Compact’s purpose and sought economic gains through the exploitation of loopholes. Additionally, time has shown that the Compact cannot effectively address new problems and issues such as water quality,[4] climate change,[5] and regional water access.[6] While other interstate agreements have faced similar challenges, some have successfully managed to both adapt and provide protections for their water resources.[7]
Gladys Wisner lived on 480 acres of cropland outside of North Platte in Lincoln County, Nebraska, since 1941.[1] At 90 years old and suffering from mini-strokes, Gladys moved from her home of over 70 years to a supervised living facility.[2] Gladys’ eldest of four, Roger, handled all the finances for her and the farm.[3] Unfortunately and unexpectedly, Roger passed away and Gladys’ second son, Robin, stepped in to handle all the finances.[4] In the transition, Robin failed to pay the property taxes one year because he misunderstood the family’s land trust.[5] The County sold a property tax lien on the land to a third party.[6] The original third-party purchaser sold the property tax lien to Vandelay Investments.[7] No one told Robin or Gladys their taxes were delinquent or that interest in their land moved through so many hands.[8]
After paying Gladys’ property taxes for three years, Vandelay sent a letter to Gladys’ retirement home telling her that she would lose her family’s 480 acres if she did not pay three years-worth of property taxes, costs and fees, plus a 14% interest rate.[9] Gladys never received the letter, and Vandelay never sent a letter to Robin.[10] Ninety days after the post office returned Vandelay’s notice, the county transferred the property to Vandelay, free and clear.[11] When Robin found out about the transfer, he offered to pay the total amount of past-due taxes, costs, fees, and 14% interest to keep his family’s land, but Vandelay rejected the payment.[12] Vandelay paid roughly $50,000 in delinquent taxes to receive a farm worth $1.1 million.[13] This is the tax sale process.
President Trump’s executive order banning the use of TikTok in the United States (U.S.) violates treaties the U.S. has within the World Trade Organization (WTO) and violates Bytedance’s Constitutional due process rights as a corporation. When comparing TikTok with other social media apps, there is not a huge difference in security issues, content manipulation, or what happens with users’ data. The fundamental difference is that TikTok is subject to Chinese government censorship, and a Chinese corporation owns TikTok. The Trump administration, therefore, treats a business differently mainly because the corporation is based in a different country. This Note addresses how the executive order is improper and investigate the possible avenues that TikTok might pursue to invalidate this former President’s ban.
Many patients in America currently suffer from terminal illness, with no option other than to suffer for an indeterminate amount of time. The Supreme Court of the United States denies terminally ill patients the fundamental right to hasten their death through physician-assisted suicide.[1] The case Washington v. Glucksberg declared there was no fundamental right to assisted suicide.[2]Glucksberg denies countless patients, suffering from terminal illness, a dignified end to their suffering.[3]
The COVID-19 pandemic has had a major impact on everyone’s lives. Society, people, and likely even the courts will not be the same afterwards.[1] Our world is shifting away from physical interactions to an increasingly online reality.[2] More day-to-day operations are going virtual.[3] E-commerce has risen to greater heights.[4] Yet the outdated test for internet personal jurisdiction has stayed relatively the same.
The need for a robust internet personal jurisdiction rule is at its peak as the pandemic forced our personal and professional lives to go online.[5] The Supreme Court has not adopted a test for internet personal jurisdiction, leaving lower courts without clear precedent to follow.[6] The most used test for internet personal jurisdiction, the Zippo sliding-scale test, is outdated and should be modernized to reflect our prevalent online presence.[7] Courts cannot rely on the current jurisprudence for internet personal jurisdiction in our increasingly virtual reality. For internet personal jurisdiction to be brought to the modern age, courts need to look “under the hood” and actually parse through a website’s code to see if the website has availed itself of a website visitor’s personal data.
Residents of Toledo, Ohio, were given a stark warning in August of 2014: “Do not drink the water, do not brush your teeth or prepare food with it, and do not give it to your pets.”[1] This warning came after a particularly dangerous harmful algal bloom (HAB) in the western basin of Lake Erie; just offshore from Toledo.[2] Lake Erie has a history of HABs dating back to the 1960s.[3] HABs died down in the decade before and after the turn of the 21st century, but steadily increased since then.[4] Sensing an abdication of their government’s environmental responsibility—that directly endangered their health and well-being—the people of Toledo worked to enact a Rights of Nature (RoN) ordinance.[5]
The United States is facing a critical moment in human history and the choices we make will determine the future we will collectively inhabit. Societally, we are still grappling with whether the science of climate change is real and whether humans are the cause of it.[1] In the meantime, species are dying off in all ecosystems at alarming levels.[2] The increase in overall extinction has drastically accelerated since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution and the increase of human-produced greenhouse gases.[3] While we are making steps in the right direction to reduce greenhouse gas production, it is not quickly enough to prevent a warming planet and the ensuing effects on all species.[4] Currently, the way we conserve species focuses on populations that are already threatened, whose numbers are dangerously close to extinction. [5]We should be taking more proactive steps to assist species that are still abundant, so they are capable of adapting through the Anthropocene.[6]
Imagine that you and your friends took a vacation to a five-star resort. Your phone vibrates with an alert that a foreign country has just launched a nuclear missile, and it is undoubtedly on its way to your location. The resort can assist you in departing before the missile arrives. Meanwhile, while cognizant of the danger, the resort’s staff disregards the severity of the crisis.
You and others are stunned when you hear the resort’s response to the many grievances that are circulating amongst the group. Despite knowledge of the danger and the resources to assist you and others, the resort ignores your plea and adds ‘you’ll survive, don’t worry.” However, one staff member disagrees and offers you and others a way out of this travesty. And when the group makes its way to the exit, the head of security for the resort halts you in your path. And to add to this preposterous response, you overhear a command on the head security guard’s radio stating, “this is the owner of the resort; those individuals are prohibited from leaving the resort grounds.” The resort’s security begins to detain you and the group and jokingly says “you were supposed to fill out a request, subject to the review of our board of directors who will be in next week.”
Submissions The Vermont Law Review continually seeks articles, commentaries, essays, and book reviews on any subject concerning recent developments in state, federal, Native American, or international law.
