Internet Civil Liberties in the U.S. and the Protection of the Modern Terrorist

This capstone examines the civil liberties of the modern terrorist and explicates the right to freedom of speech for terrorist organizations and their use of the internet. Terrorist organizations use the internet to promote ideas, recruit members, organize the flow of information, and coordinate actions. During the war on terror the US Patriot Act became law allowing for U.S. government censorship and surveillance of internet traffic and many believe these acts are a threat to civil liberties. Terrorist organizations have the right to express their views, however unpopular, and censoring or restricting web sites diminishes civil liberties for all, which democracies and liberal societies are founded upon.

Back in Blue: The Successful Reintegration of Combat Veteran Law Enforcement Officers.

In the past ten plus years, several million national guard and reserve component military personnel have been deployed in support of the global war on terrorism. Tens of thousands of those personnel also serve as full-time law enforcement officers in police and sheriff's offices around the country. Life as a law enforcement officer is tough enough, but when combined with the psychological baggage brought on by months of war, reintegrating into civilian life and the role of a law enforcement officer can be extremely difficult. This article discusses a reintegration program specifically for law enforcement agencies that is designed to promote long-term psychological and social health in combat veteran officers. The program's costs are offset by the many assets (leadership, tactical training, etc.) these men and women bring to the department. By committing to the long-term successful reintegration of these individuals, departments enhance their own forces and improve community safety.

Psychological Perspectives on the Civil Liberties of Transgendered Inmates in a Prison Setting

As society becomes increasingly less binary, and moves towards a more spectrum based approach to mental illness, medical illness, and personality, it becomes necessary to address this shift within formerly rigid institutions. This paper explores this shift as it is occurring within correctional settings around the United States concerning the medical care, housing, and safety of transgendered inmates. As there is no legal standard for the housing or access to gender-affirming medical care (i.e., hormone therapy, sexual reassignment surgery), these issues are addressed on an institutional level, with very little consistency throughout the country. Currently, most institutions follow a genitalia-based system of classification. Within the system, core beliefs are held, some adaptive and some no longer adaptive, that drive the system's behavior and outcomes. With regard to transgendered inmates, several underlying beliefs within the system serve to maintain the status quo; however, the most basic underpinning is the system's reliance on a binary gender system. As views of humane treatment of the incarcerated expand and modernize, the role of mental health within corrections has also expanded. Psychologists, social workers, counselors, and psychiatrists are found in almost all correctional facilities, and have become a voice of advocacy for an often underserved population.

The Future Direction of Delaware Law (Including a Brief Exegesis on Fee Shifting Bylaws)

Delaware sets the governance standards for most public companies. The ability to attract corporations could not be explained solely by the existence of a favorable statutory regime. Delaware was not invariably the first or the only state to implement management friendly provisions. Given the interpretive gaps in the statute and the critical importance of the common law in the governance process, courts played an outsized role in setting legal standards. The management friendly nature of the Delaware courts contributed significantly to the state’s attraction to public corporations. A current example of a management friendly trend in the case law had seen the recent decisions setting out the board’s authority to adopt bylaws under Section 109 of the Delaware General Corporation Law (DGCL), particularly those involving the shifting of fees in litigation against the corporation or its directors. The DGCL allows bylaws that address “the business of the corporation, the conduct of its affairs, and its rights or powers or the rights or powers of its stockholders, directors, officers or employees.” The broad parameters are, however, subject to limits. Bylaws cannot be inconsistent with the certificate of incorporation or “the law.” Law includes the common law. The Delaware courts have used the limitations imposed by “the law” to severely restrict the reach of shareholder inspired bylaws. The courts have not used the same principles to impose similar restraints on bylaws adopted by the board of directors. This can be seen with respect to bylaws that restrict or even eliminate the right of shareholders to bring actions against management and the corporation. In ATP Tour, Inc. v. Deutscher Tennis Bund the court approved a fee shifting bylaw that had littl relationship to the internal affairs of the corporation. The decision upheld the bylaw as facially valid.The decision ignored a number of obvious legal infirmities. Among other things, the decision did not adequately address the requirement in Section 109(b) that bylaws be consistent with “the law.” The decision obliquely acknowledged that the provisions would “by their nature, deter litigation” but otherwise made no effort to assess the impact of this deterrence on shareholders causes of action. The provision in fact had the practical effect of restricting, if not eliminating, litigation rights granted by the DGCL and the common law. Perhaps most significantly, however, the bylaws significantly limited common law rights of shareholders to bring actions against the corporation and the board. Given the high dismissal rates for these actions, fee shifting bylaws imposed a meaningful risk of liability on plaintiffs. Moreover, because judgments in derivative suits were paid to the corporation, shareholders serving as plaintiffs confronted the risk of liability without any offsetting direct benefit. By preventing suits in this area, the bylaw effectively insulated the behavior of boards from legal challenge. The ATP decision was poorly reasoned and overstepped acceptable boundaries. The management friendly decision threatened the preeminent role of Delaware in the development of corporate law. The decision raised the specter of federal intervention and the potential for meaningful competition from the states. Because the opinion examined the bylaw in the context of non-stock companies, the reasoning may remain applicable only to those entities and never make the leap to for-profit stock corporations. Nonetheless, the analysis reflects a management friendly approach that does not adequately take into account the impact of the provision on the rights of shareholders.

The Keyes to Reclaiming the Racial History Of the Roberts Court

This article advocates for a fundamental re-understanding about the way that the history of race is understood by the current Supreme Court. Represented by the racial rights opinions of Justice John Roberts that celebrate racial progress, the Supreme Court has equivocated and rendered obsolete the historical experiences of people of color in the United States. This jurisprudence has in turn reified the notion of color-blindness, consigning racial discrimination to a distant and discredited past that has little bearing to how race and inequality is experienced today. The racial history of the Roberts Court is centrally informed by the context and circumstances surrounding Brown v. Board of Education. For the Court, Brown symbolizes all that is wrong with the history of race in the United States - legal segregation, explicit racial discord, and vicious and random acts of violence. Though Roberts Court opinions suggest that some of those vestiges still exits, the bulk of its jurisprudence indicate the opposite. With Brown’s basic factual premises as its point of reference, the Court has consistently argued that the nation has made tremendous strides away from the condition of racial bigotry, intolerance, and inequity. The article accordingly argues that the Roberts Court reliance on Brown to understand racial progress is anachronistic. Especially as the nation’s focus for racial inequality turned national in scope, the same binaries in Brown that had long served to explain the history of race relations in the United States (such as Black-White, North-South, and Urban-Rural) were giving way to massive multicultural demographic and geographic transformations in the United States in the years and decades after World War II. All of the familiar tropes so clear in Brown and its progeny could no longer fully describe the current reality of shifting and transforming patterns of race relations in the United States. In order to reclaim the history of race from the Roberts Court, the article assesses a case that more accurately symbolizes the recent history and current status of race relations today: Keyes v. School District No. 1. This was the first Supreme Court case to confront how the binaries of cases like Brown proved of little probative value in addressing how and in what ways race and racial discrimination was changing in the United States. Thus, understanding Keyesand the history it reflects reveals much about how and in what ways the Roberts Court should rethink its conclusions regarding the history of race relations in the United States for the last 60 years.