The Internal Revenue Service released a fact sheet that defines crowdfunding as a method to raise money on websites by soliciting contributions from a large number of people. This article considers how crowdfunding is treated for tax purposes and argues that, contrary to the fact sheet’s determination, all donations collected by commercial websites should be income to the recipient.
Since its participation in the 1998 Rome Conference, the United States has vocalized opposition to key components of the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) jurisdiction. This opposition has informed longstanding positions taken by the executive branch and motivated anti-ICC legislation passed by Congress. Support for the ICC’s investigation in Ukraine challenged these narratives across the legislative and executive branches, but the ICC’s arrest warrants of Israeli officials in 2024 renewed Congress’s heightened skepticism of the court and sowed political divisions on… Read More
This article examines two 2024 Federal Maritime Commission (FMC or “Commission”) cases that significantly impact the interpretation of ocean carrier accountability under the Shipping Act of 1984: MCS Industries, Inc. v. COSCO Shipping Lines Co. Ltd. and OJ Commerce, LLC v. Hamburg Südamerikanische Dampfschifffahrts-Gesellschaft A/S & Co. KG. This article argues that the FMC, whose mission is to “[e]nsure a competitive and reliable international ocean transportation supply system that supports the U.S. economy and protects the public from unfair and… Read More
The passage of the First Step Act of 2018 provoked a wave of scholarship analyzing the impact of the Act on compassionate release. However, little attention has been paid to the newfound potential for sentencing errors to fit within the compassionate release framework. This Note addresses a federal circuit split over the legality of sentencing errors as a ground for compassionate release. Drawing on statutory text, legislative history, and recently promulgated U.S. Sentencing Commission guidelines, this Note seeks to provide… Read More
Earlier this year, Jennifer and James Crumbley were convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to 10-15 years for not stopping their teenage son, Ethan, from killing four students at his high school. This is the first known occurrence of an American prosecutor obtaining a homicide conviction relying on a parental omission—or failure to act—where the victim was not the parent’s own child. Parental omissions historically have only triggered homicide charges if the parent fails to protect their child, not others, from harm. Unlike the general population, parents owe a special duty to their child because they are the ones tasked to oversee the child’s care. The Crumbley verdict has dislodged this longstanding criminal precedent. It has expanded a parent’s common law duty to include protection of the would-be victims of their child’s criminal acts. Recently, Georgia has brought manslaughter charges against the parent of a school shooter under similar circumstances. This Essay provides the first legal assessment of this prosecutorial theory and analyzes the various doctrinal, constitutional, and policy considerations surrounding its use.
This Note examines the right to effective assistance of counsel during guilty pleas through the lens of the pending Second Circuit case Farhane v. United States. This case will have significant implications for the right to effective legal representation, particularly in terms of defense attorneys’ duty to warn clients of the potential risk of denaturalization as a consequence of pleading guilty. In May 2024, the court reheard Farhane en banc and will issue a decision later this year. If this opinion aligns with the court’s initial decision, it will severely limit the rights of all defendants in criminal proceedings in the Second Circuit. This Note traces the development of the right to effective assistance of counsel to contextualize Farhane. This Note then critiques the initial Farhane decision, highlighting its incongruity with historical approaches to ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) claims. This Note then argues for a shift toward a client-centric and circumstance-specific approach to IAC claims. Such approach would be grounded in evolving professional norms and acknowledge the severe nature of certain consequences to ensure defendants receive comprehensive legal counsel during plea negotiations. This Note contends that courts should demand more “competent” counsel to protect the fairness of plea bargaining and the overall integrity of the criminal justice system.
An international fight grows over corn. The United States claims that México’s ban on genetically modified corn for human consumption violates the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). A trade panel will review México’s ban, deferring to the level set by México, and then evaluate American complaints on standards, trade restrictions, and risks. The upshot: the USMCA is not the clear free trade answer the United States seeks. Because of this, it should pursue resolution versus fruitless legal conflict.
This Essay contends that the Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari in Harness v. Watson stands as a testament to its hypocrisy. The day after the Court professed an allegiance to promoting racial equality in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, it refused to even consider invalidating a clear barrier to racial equality. The day after the Court struck down a remedy designed to address a long, sad, and painful history of racism, the Court left undisturbed an obvious symbol of this long, sad, and painful history of racism. When juxtaposed against both the denial of certiorari in Harness and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s searing dissent for denial of certiorari, the Students for Fair Admissions majority’s lofty pronouncements about opposing racism amount to pure smoke and mirrors. The consistent through line that connects Students for Fair Admissions and Harness is the Roberts Court’s commitment to preserving anti-Black racism.
This Note will advocate for the position taken by the Third and Seventh Circuits that incarcerated individuals’ right to affirmative assistance in accessing legal materials extends past the pleading stage to all stages of civil rights claims and post-conviction criminal appeals. U.S. Supreme Court precedent supports this position, and judicial clarity on this issue is required to best protect the constitutional right of access in light of significant existing barriers to incarcerated litigants’ access to courts.
The ethical goals of the legal doctrine of informed consent are lofty. The law requires that clinicians explain the risks, benefits, and alternatives of proposed treatments to patients, and to respect patient autonomy through voluntary, informed medical decisions aligned with individual values and preferences. Yet in practice, patients often struggle to comprehend the risks and alternatives of a proposed medical intervention. Since investigators began analyzing the sufficiency of informed consent, it has been recognized that the current rules, which focus solely on clinical disclosures, are inadequate in addressing disparities associated with education, race/ethnicity, and age. Despite technically “adequate” disclosures under the legal doctrine of informed consent, patients may consent to major procedures with little substantive grasp of the risks. Shifting the law’s emphasis from disclosures alone to disclosure and comprehension will better align the ethical goals of informed consent with the legal rules that govern it.