A Legal-Conceptual Framework for the School-to-Prison Pipeline: Fewer Opportunities for Rehabilitation for Public School Students
Brian J. Fahey
I. Introduction
II. Three Models for Regulating Juvenile Conduct ... A. The Criminal Punishment Model ... 1. Rights Attendant to the Criminal Punishment Model ... 2. A Framework for Recognizing Criminal Punishment ... B. The Juvenile Justice Model ... 1. Rehabilitative Beginnings ... 2. Recognizing Due Process Rights in Juvenile Justice ... 3. A Retributive Renaissance in Juvenile Courts ... C. The School Discipline Model ... 1. Sparse Constitutional Origins ... 2. Students’ Rights and Punishment in Schools ... a. Goss v. Lopez ... b. Ingraham v. Wright ... 3. What Goss and Ingraham Tell Us about Students’ Rights in School
III. The School-to-Prison Pipeline ... A. Zero-Tolerance Policies ... B. Referral of Students to the Juvenile System for Misconduct in School ... C. The Rise of the School Resource Officer
IV. The Negative Consequences of the Pipeline ... A. Counterproductive Results ... B. Disproportionate Effect on Minority and Learning-Disabled Students ... C. Discipline without a Purpose
V. Conclusion
An Infamous Case: How the Iowa Supreme Court’s Minimalist Approach Forced Everyone to Come Back for More in Chiodo v. Section 43.24 Panel, 846 N.W.2d 845 (Iowa 2014)
Michael S. Boal
I. Introduction
II. Background ... A. Chiodo v. Section 43.24 Panel Facts ... B. Chiodo v. Section 43.24 Panel Opinions ... C. Judicial Minimalism
III. Analysis ... A. Dual Disorder: Two Levels of Minimalism ... B. More Harm than Good: Four Indicators ... 1. Final Arbiter of Constitutional Rights ... 2. Application of Stare Decisis ... 3. Repeat Players and Institutional Relationships ... 4. Increased Future Litigation
IV. Conclusion
Giving Birth under the ACA: Analyzing the Use of Law as a Tool to Improve Health Care
Elizabeth Kukura
I. Introduction
II. Overview of Maternity Care in the United States ... A. High Costs and Poor Outcomes: Demonstrating the Urgent Need for Maternity Care Reform ... B. Understanding the Landscape of Childbirth
III. The ACA and Maternity Care ... A. The ACA’s Significant Expansion of Access to Maternity Coverage ... 1. ACA Reforms that Apply Regardless of Coverage Source ... 2. ACA Reforms That Apply to Particular Modes of Coverage ... a. Individual Market ... b. Medicaid ... B. The ACA’s Improvement of Maternity Care Benefits ... 1. ACA Reforms That Apply Regardless of Coverage Source ... 2. ACA Reforms That Apply to Particular Modes of Coverage ... a. Individual Market ... b. Private Insurance (Individual and Employer-Sponsored) ... c. Medicaid (and Medicare) ... C. The ACA’s Investments in Better Care through Programmatic and Policy Initiatives
IV. Assessing the ACA’s Impact on Maternity Care: Enhancing Coverage without Shifting Culture ... A. The Need for Payment Reform in Maternity Care ... B. Improving Outcomes Requires Practicing Evidence-Based Maternity Care ... C. Transforming Birth by Elevating Midwives as Primary Maternity Care Providers
V. Conclusion: Reflections on Law as a Tool to Improve Health Care
Restoring the Civil Jury in a World without Trials
Dmitry Bam
Early in this nation’s history, the civil jury was the most important institutional check on biased and corrupt judges. Recently, concerns about judicial bias, especially in elected state judiciaries, have intensified as new studies demonstrate the extent of that bias. But the jury of Hamilton, Madison, and Jefferson is nowhere to be found. In fact, the civil jury is virtually dead. It is used in less than 1% of all civil cases, and even when it makes a rare appearance, the jury’s powers have been significantly curtailed. This Article argues that we must reimagine the civil jury to match the framework of modern civil litigation and modern civil procedure. Civil litigation in the 21st century revolves around pre-trial practice, including the motion to dismiss and the motion for summary judgment. Today, judges alone decide those dispositive motions. And when the judges deciding these motions are biased, the jury is conspicuously absent. I propose that jurors serve alongside judges to decide fact-intensive dispositive motions on what I call Hybrid Judicial Panels. This proposal restores the jury’s historical power to control biased judges, and offers the people themselves a renewed role in modern civil litigation.
Judicial Bypass in Nebraska: How the Nebraska Supreme Court’s Decision in In re Anonymous 5, 286 Neb. 640, 838 N.W.2d 226 (2013) Illustrates the Complexity of Parental Consent Laws for State Wards Seeking Abortion
Amy J. Peters
I. Introduction
II. Background ... A. Parental Consent Laws for Minors Seeking Abortion ... B. Teen Pregnancy and Abortion in Foster Care ... C. Nebraska’s Parental Consent Law and the Supreme Court’s Holding in Anonymous 5
III. Analysis ... A. Nebraska’s Parental Consent Law Grants Judges an Impermissible, “Absolute, and Possibly Arbitrary, Veto” over a State Ward’s Access to Abortion ... B. Nebraska’s Parental Consent Law Imposes an Undue Burden on State Wards Seeking an Abortion ... C. Nebraska’s Abortion Law Needs Reform to Clarify Parental Consent Requirements and Judicial Bypass Considerations for State Wards ... 1. Consent Requirements ... 2. Judicial Bypass Considerations
IV. Conclusion
Practice and Procedure before the Nebraska State Railway Commission
J. Max Harding
I. Introduction
II. The Original or Extension Application
III. The Transfer Application
IV. Orders to Show Cause and Formal Complaints
V. After the Hearing
VI. Conclusion
Standing on Thin Ice: How Nebraska’s Standing Doctrine Prevents the Majority of Surface Water Users from Obtaining Judicial Relief against Groundwater Users Interfering with Their Appropriations
Logan Hoyt
I. Introduction
II. Background ... A. Water Development in Nebraska ... B. Spear T Ranch, Inc. v. Knaub ... C. Introduction to Standing Doctrine
III. Standing in Water Law Cases ... A. Natural Resource Districts and Standing to Challenge Governmental Actions ... B. Surface Water Entities and Standing ... C. Contrast between Natural Resources District Standing Cases and Central ... D. Nebraska’s Standing Doctrine Prevents Most Surface Water Users from Obtaining Relief
IV. Is It Good Public Policy to Allow Surface Water Users to Pursue Judicial Relief? ... A. Arguments in Favor of Judicial Intervention ... B. Arguments against Allowing Surface Water Irrigators to Obtain Judicial Relief ... C. Policy Summary
V. If Surface Water Irrigators Should Be Able to Sue, What Changes Can Be Made? ... A. Legislative Intervention ... B. Judicial Intervention
VI. Conclusion
Section 25-530—Venue or Jurisdiction?
R. H. Beatty
On October 26, 1957, the writer of this paper received a letter from the Chairman of the Judicial Council enclosing a copy of a communication sent to all the members of the Judicial Council suggesting the consideration by the Council of the advisability of seeking an amendment to Section 25-530 of the Nebraska Revised Statutes to provide for venue of actions against nonresident defendants growing out of damages caused by the operation of motor vehicles by such nonresidents of Nebraska while using the public highways of this state in the county in which the accident and damages occurred. The letter suggests that under present Nebraska laws, such a nonresident, when not physically present in Nebraska, can only be found in Lancaster County, Nebraska, where the Secretary of State of the State of Nebraska, his statutory agent, resides. The letter further states that several district judges in this state have held that such actions may be brought only in Lancaster County, Nebraska. A determination of the question as to whether an action against a nonresident of the State of Nebraska for damages caused by such nonresident in the operation of a motor vehicle upon the public streets or highways of Nebraska can be brought in any county other than Lancaster County, the residence of the statutory agent of the nonresident requires the examination and consideration of five sections of Nebraska statutes, to-wit: Sections 25-408, 25-409, 25-504, 25-521, and 25-530.