Could not load widget with the id 2575.

A Raw New Deal: Stripping Down and Restructuring the Immigrant Investor Program Under the Trump Administration

Allyson Moore

United States residency is for sale. As a Hail Mary attempt to jumpstart the U.S. economy, legislators set their sights on a combination of controversial immigration law and classic business tactics. Ultimately, Congress created an investment immigration program.[1] Specifically, the EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program developed from an interest in promoting the immigration of capital, not just people, in the hopes of expanding the U.S. job market.[2] This program allows investors to pay their way into the country if their investment links to a preapproved project that creates at least ten U.S. jobs.[3]

Out of Charge: The Barriers to Energy Storage New England Electricity Restructuring Created and How to Remove Them

Ian Oxenham

Unchecked climate change will have disastrous consequences for humanity and the global environment.[1] The world’s current greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions pathway will likely lead to 4˚C of global warming.[2] That level of warming could make over half of all living species extinct, sink hundreds of coastal cities beneath the ocean, render parts of the Earth virtually uninhabitable, and kill billions of people.[3] Curbing climate change requires substantial reductions in Carbon Dioxide (CO2) emissions from burning fossil fuels.[4]

Remember What His Frightened Heart Looks Like: An International Comparison of the Legal and Social Attitudes Towards Violent Punishment in the Home

Sasha Gainen-Truslow

Janusz Korczak, a Polish-Jewish turn-of-the-century children’s rights advocate and educator, gave a famous lecture on violent punishment:

 

Korczak entered with a small boy clutching his hand. Without a word he took the boy’s shirt off, placed him behind a fluoroscope and turned off the overhead light. Everyone could now see the boy’s heart beating rapidly on the screen. “Don’t ever forget this sight,” Korczak told his audience. “Before you raise a hand to a child, before you administer any kind of punishment, remember what his frightened heart looks like.”[1]

Feminist Revenge: Seeking Justice for Victims of Nonconsensual Pornography Through “Revenge Porn” Reform

Katherine Gabriel

The United States legal system fails to adequately provide redress for victims of nonconsensual pornography, also known as “revenge porn.” Prior to 2013, the judicial system ignored the growing presence of nonconsensual pornography.[1] There were no laws specifically in place to either deter or punish individuals who distributed nonconsensual, sexually explicit material.[2] There was little—if any—justice available for victims of revenge porn.

America’s Big League National Monuments

Noah Greenstein

In 1906, Congress passed the infamous National Monument Act (more commonly known as the Antiquities Act), which grants the President broad, discretionary authority to designate national monuments.[1] Over the last 100 years, 16 Presidents from both parties have used this Act to designate 157 national monuments across the United States.[2] For example, on September 18, 1996, President Bill Clinton—standing on the South Rim of the Grand Canyon—established Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in Southeastern Utah.[3] At 1.7 million acres, Grand Staircase is the largest national monument in the continental United States.[4] Many were outraged over the monument designation.[5] Senator Orin Hatch, Republican of Utah, exclaimed, that “[i]n all my 20 years in the U.S. Senate, I have never seen a clearer example of the arrogance of federal power.”[6] Another Republican Senator compared the designation to Pearl Harbor.[7] Just over ten years later, former President Barack Obama designated 1.35 million acres in Utah, bordering Grand-Staircase, as Bears Ears National Monument.[8] Republican Representative Jason Chafetz immediately criticized the decision, calling the monument “a slap in the face to the people of Utah.”[9] The outrage over these monument designations is still brewing, and in December President Donald J. Trump will head to Utah to announce his plans to reduce the size of these national monuments.[10] The extent to which President Trump will reduce these monuments is unknown, but Utah state officials are pushing for a 90% reduction.[11]

Morality Bites: Moral Rights Under VARA and the Battle between Wall Street’s “Fearless Girl” and “Charging Bull”

Amie Johnson

A girl stands boldly—fearlessly—in front of Wall Street’s famous “Charging Bull.”[1] On the eve of International Women’s Day, State Street Global Advisors commissioned Kristen Visbal’s installment of the diminutive, yet defiant, statue of a girl facing down a bull.[2] State Street Global Advisors intended the “Fearless Girl” to be a celebration of the power of women leaders.[3] However, Arturo Di Modica—the “Charging Bull” sculptor—is arguing that the juxtaposition of the two statues subverts the message of his statue, casting the bull as a villain.[4] He contends that the “Fearless Girl” infringes upon his moral rights.[5]

Score: Structured Cannabis Organizational Reform Evaluation

George Clause

Marijuana in the United States is in a precarious legal position.[1] By January 2018, adults 21 years or older will be able to consume the plant legally and recreationally in California, Oregon, Washington, and Nevada (as well as Alaska, Massachusetts and Maine), yet cross the border into Idaho or Utah and be prosecuted for the same conduct.2 All the while the plant remains unequivocally illegal at the federal level.[2] Today, the disconnect between federal and state marijuana laws exists primarily because the plant has been politically demonized.[3]

Water Tension: When Discharges to Groundwater Migrate to Navigable Waters

Katherine Klaus

Groundwater is an essential natural resource, comprising 30% of the world’s fresh water.[1] Society’s dependence on groundwater is pervasive, as it provides for drinking, irrigation, industry, and more.[2] In 2010, groundwater withdrawals in the United States totaled 79,300 Mgal/d,[3] valued at over 20 billion dollars.[4] Despite the importance of groundwater, no federal law comprehensively protects it from contamination.[5] Even the Clean Water Act (CWA) fails to address groundwater directly.[6] The CWA only prohibits discharges to “navigable waters,” the definition of which does not include groundwater.[7] Yet, there may be an indirect method of overcoming this barrier. Groundwater is often hydrologically connected to navigable surface waters.[8] Therefore, pollutants discharged to groundwater may migrate, eventually reaching navigable waters.[9] Some courts have been willing to find that these discharges violate the CWA.[10] However, there is no universal agreement on the issue. Several district courts in the Fourth Circuit have recently answered this question, reaching different conclusions.[11] The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has not yet considered this issue.[12] Consequently, this will continue to be a gray area of law in the Fourth Circuit until it takes an appeal and renders a unifying decision. The direction that the Fourth Circuit chooses to take will then have profound implications for CWA regulation moving forward.

Case Comment: Adequacy of the Efficiency Gap in Whitford v. Gill

Joseph Haase

Traditionally, the Supreme Court found the Constitution vests reapportionment to the state government.[1] With this breadth, States delegate their reapportionment responsibilities to several different bodies: direct legislative control, bipartisan or independent commissions,[2] other branches,[3] and hybrids.[4] Wisconsin follows the direct legislative control.[5] Because of this, Wisconsin’s redistricting schemes are highly contested and often end up litigated in federal courts.[6] This ultimately is the fate of Wisconsin’s 2011’s reappointment scheme: Act 43.[7]

Call to Duty: Eliminating Gender Identity Service Barriers Within the United States Armed Forces Through Social Advocacy

Caitlyn (Cat) Kelly

Unit cohesion is essential to military effectiveness and ultimately accomplishing the mission.[1] A common theme between the branches of the U.S. Armed Forces is a teamwork-based call to action; a call to action that requires service members to respect and be mindful of one another.[2] This camaraderie was disrupted on July 26, 2017, when our Nation’s President and Commander in Chief, President Donald J. Trump, announced—via Tweet—his intentions to stop transgender persons from serving in the U.S. Armed Forces.[3] His reasoning? That “the previous administration failed to identify a sufficient basis . . . terminating the Department’s longstanding policy and practice would not hinder military effectiveness and lethality, [and] disrupt unit cohesion . . . .”[4] Thus, the President believes transgender service members distract from the Department of Defense’s (DoD) overall mission. The President’s policy change will continue indefinitely unless he is advised otherwise—chiefly by Secretary of Defense James Mattis.[5]

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.

Learn more about the submissions process >