By JUSTICE (UK)

Despite the recommendations made in JUSTICE’s 2023 research paper on pre-trial remand decision-making in the Magistrates Court little substantive progress has been made to address the challenges identified. This report presents a targeted set of recommendations to address persistent issues in pre-trial remand decision-making within the Magistrates’ Courts of England and Wales. The proposals are designed to (i) ensure custodial remand is genuinely used as a last resort, (ii) enhance the quality and lawfulness of decisions, (iii) reduce unnecessary pre-trial detention, and (iv) foster a fairer justice system. The recommendations within this latest report are informed by a combination of quantitative data and qualitative evidence gathering, and have been tested through discussions with key individual and organisational stakeholders. Improving Diversity and Accessibility in the Magistracy a. The current lack of diversity in the magistracy undermines the perceived legitimacy and the quality of decision making. b. Structural barriers to joining and remaining in the magistracy should be removed, including simplifying the application process and eliminating the requirement for employer references at the pre-selection stage. c. Enhanced data collection on recruitment and attrition is required to identify obstacles faced by underrepresented groups, with the aim of building a magistracy that better reflects the communities it serves

By Allan Castle, Hayli Millar, Yvon Dandurand, Vivienne Chin, Shawn Bayes, Megan Capp, Richard Fowler, Jessica Jahn and Barbara Pickering.

What happens to children whose parents are incarcerated, remanded, or otherwise subject to the criminal justice system? Too often, the answer is: pain and distress due to separation from a parent, stigmatization, poor performance in school, social withdrawal, impoverishment, diminished life chances, health problems, and increased likelihood of the child themselves being incarcerated in adulthood. That these harms to children are unintended ‘collateral’ effects of justice decisions is immaterial. The effects are similar to those of many other more direct, adverse experiences a child may encounter. The adult criminal justice system in Canada is of course not alone in creating harmful outcomes for children, today or historically. For more than 150 years, the residential school system h caused devastating intergenerational harm to generations of Indigenous families. Provincial child welfare systems continue to be a focus of reform and devolution due to the harmful effects of past and current practices. In identifying the harms caused by institutions and systems, we must point out that harm to children is not only systemic in origin. Parental abuse or neglect driven by substance use, trauma or mental illness is common, even though many of those individual behaviours may in turn have systemic origins. Whether the harms experienced by children have systemic or individual causes, we now understand that many different actors and sectors must collaborate to protect children, as systemic and individual harms routinely overlap and multiply the damage done. For example, the trauma and loss of belonging associated with being removed from parental care due to parental incarceration may be expressed by self-harm or behavioral acting out at school. The disruption of parental incarceration can impede the delivery of routine health care, such as vaccinations. Child homelessness brings greater exposure toexploitation. Considering these overlaps, it is insufficient to act in isolation. Child advocates, Indigenous Nations and communities, non-profit services, child welfare and health authorities, educators and other systems – including the adult criminal justice system – all have a role to play in collaborating to protect children, prevent their stigmatization, and support their healthy development. The subject of this paper – the substantial impact of adult criminal justice system decisions on the dependent children of those coming before the system – has to date received little consideration by the system itself, whether in terms of research, case law, legislation, or legal principles. Moreover, there is no consensus within the system itself as to the degree of responsibility the system itself should bear in mitigating these harms. One recent superior court decision suggested that while lamentable, such child impact should be understood as an unavoidable consequence of serious criminality.  

By Daniel C. Chow

An immense supply chain pipeline constantly funnels millions of counterfeit goods from Alibaba’s e-commerce sites in China to third party sellers who sell these goods on Amazon to U.S. consumers. Amazon has acknowledged that it has a problem with counterfeits on its e-commerce sites, but its current responses to counterfeiting are primarily performative and intended to pacify disgruntled brand owners and frustrated consumers. Amazon’s responses will likely have little or no effect on counterfeits on its websites. This Article sets forth a direct and straightforward method for shutting down or seriously disrupting this pipeline based on using China’s existing laws. This method involves using verification methods required by China’s laws to ensure that only lawful and legitimate businesses, not counterfeiters, can open online accounts on Alibaba and other Chinese e-commerce platforms. Unless these steps are taken, counterfeits sold on Amazon and other e-commerce platforms will likely continue to plague brand owners, consumers, and the general public in the United States for the foreseeable future.

By Neal Feigenson and Brian Carney

You are the lawyer in a case in which the crucial incident was captured by dozens of smartphone, surveillance, and other cameras. Imagine your forensic video expert putting all of those videos into a generative artificial intelligence (GenAI)1 model that quickly synchronizes the audio and video streams, links relevant documents, and provides an outline for the strategy of your case—enabling you to understand exactly what happened in minutes instead of weeks and then suggesting ways to prove it at trial. The expert could also employ GenAI to enhance those videos, making relevant facts clearer by rendering blurry images more legible and inaudible conversations more intelligible, or even by creating important camera angles showing views not found in the original images. Or imagine, in a complex commercial dispute, feeding masses of documents and other data into a GenAI model that produces timelines and other visualizations of the relevant events, as well as lists of inherent contradictions in the evidence, which you could then use to prepare your arguments and illustrate your theory of the case in court. All of these tools and more will soon be available. Much has been written in the last half-dozen or so years about the prospect of images, video, and audio created with GenAI being used in court. Most of the concern has focused on deepfakes, andmassive data sources—primarily the Internet—in response to a user’s prompt.

By Smith, J., Camello, M., & Planty, M

  Generative artificial intelligence (AI) refers to AI1 used to create content, such as text, images, music, audio, and videos.2 Generative AI offers many potential benefits, enabling users to automate, augment, and accelerate a wide range of workflows, from simple administrative tasks like transcription and translation to more-complex functions such as investigation and decision support. In the criminal justice system, generative AI offers promising solutions to address human resource and budget challenges, allowing practitioners to focus on more-impactful work. Generative AI–integrated tools may enhance data analysis, improve detection and objective assessment of evidence, and streamline administrative processes. However, its integration, particularly in the criminal justice domain, raises some concerns, including potential biases, privacy issues, and the need for rigorous oversight to ensure effective implementation. It is unclear whether these tools can deliver on their promised efficiencies in practice, as evidenced by early research evaluating time savings of implementing AI-assisted report writing software.3 These concerns highlight the necessity for addressing bias and accuracy, maintaining strict data privacy and security protocols, and promoting transparency and accountability in AI-driven decisions and processes. This report is intended to help criminal justice decision-makers do the following: ¡ Understand what generative AI is and how it relates to the criminal justice system ¡ Identify how generative AI may be applied to tasks and jobs within the criminal justice system and the potential benefits, realities, and limitations ¡ Consider the technical, operational, and governance factors that may influence adoption and implementation ¡ Understand what makes up the generative AI technology stack and how models can be trained Key Takeaways • Generative AI represents an acceleration and advancement in technological innovation that already impacts the criminal justice system and will continue to do so—it is no longer a question of if or when, but how and to what extent. • Generative AI–powered software tools may offer many potential benefits, such as improving efficiency and augmenting capabilities across an extremely broad set of applications for criminal justice system stakeholders. Although these products hold promise, little empirical evidence currently supports or refutes promised benefits from these products. • Generative AI models can be deployed in various forms, including cloud-based models that centralize data processing and federated models that enable decentralized training across multiple locations, preserving data privacy and enhancing security for sensitive criminal justice applications. • Decision-makers should be aware of the substantial technical, operational, and governance risks associated with generative AI– powered software tools prior to implementation. • Responsible use of generative AI requires addressing bias and accuracy concerns, maintaining strict data privacy and security protocols, adhering to ethics and legal standards, and promoting transparency and accountability in AI-driven decisions and processes. • Generative AI technology is evolving faster than the legal or policy environment for AI—the criminal justice community must be proactive and must implement robust internal training and policy frameworks rather than relying solely on external legal or regulatory guidance.  

Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI International, 2025 28p.

Richard J. Condon Commissioner Division Of Criminal Justice Services

Police Use of Deadly Force in New York State: A Report to Governor Mario M. Cuomo (1985) offers one of the earliest systematic examinations of how and why lethal force was deployed by law enforcement across the state during a period of intense public scrutiny. Commissioned at a time when debates over police accountability, training standards, and civil rights were gaining national prominence, the report evaluates legal frameworks, departmental policies, and patterns of police–citizen encounters to assess the necessity and proportionality of deadly force incidents. Drawing on case reviews, agency surveys, and statistical analyses, it seeks to identify structural weaknesses and propose reforms aimed at reducing unnecessary violence and strengthening public trust.

Viewed from today’s perspective, the report stands as an important precursor to contemporary discussions about policing and the appropriate limits of state power. In the decades since its publication, nationwide movements such as Black Lives Matter, advances in data transparency, increased availability of video evidence, and evolving constitutional standards have intensified scrutiny of deadly force practices. Modern debates continue to revolve around issues the 1985 report identified early on: the need for clear and consistent use‑of‑force policies, robust training in de‑escalation, improved data collection, and stronger mechanisms of accountability. As current policymakers and communities grapple with how to balance public safety, civil liberties, and equitable treatment, this historical report offers valuable insight into the longstanding nature of these challenges and the enduring need for thoughtful, evidence‑based reform.

If you'd like, I can also turn this into a full foreword, integrate it into a larger document, or tailor the tone for academic, policy, or public audiences.

NY. Division Of Criminal Justice Services. 1985. p.273.

By M. D. Vattel. Introduction by Graeme R. Newman

A foundational work of international law, still resonant today.

First published in the eighteenth century and issued in authoritative English editions throughout the nineteenth, The Law of Nations by Emer de Vattel shaped how statesmen, jurists, and diplomats understood the rights and duties of sovereign powers. In this monumental treatise, Vattel applies the principles of natural law to the real conduct of nations, addressing war and peace, treaties and alliances, commerce and neutrality, diplomacy, and the limits of lawful power.

Rejecting both utopian idealism and brute realpolitik, Vattel argues that true national interest is inseparable from justice, restraint, and respect for sovereignty. Nations, like individuals, are bound by moral obligations arising from their coexistence in a shared international society. His careful analysis of war, intervention, and treaty obligations established enduring standards that influenced constitutional debates, foreign policy doctrine, and the development of modern international law.

This edition preserves a work that continues to illuminate contemporary conflicts and global challenges. Clear-eyed, systematic, and profoundly influential, The Law of Nations remains essential reading for anyone seeking to understand how lawful order, moral principle, and power intersect in the affairs of nations.

The theses advanced in The Law of Nations remain strikingly relevant to contemporary international disputes, particularly those involving intervention, recognition of governments, and claims of humanitarian necessity. Vattel’s insistence on sovereignty as the cornerstone of international order places clear limits on the legitimacy of external interference in the internal affairs of states. While he allows that extreme cases—such as manifest tyranny threatening the very existence of a people—may raise difficult moral questions, he consistently warns that powerful states are prone to disguise ambition and interest under the language of justice.

This caution is especially pertinent when considering recent controversies surrounding efforts by the United States to promote regime change in Venezuela, including diplomatic, economic, and political measures aimed at displacing the government of Nicolás Maduro. From a Vattelian perspective, such actions raise fundamental questions about lawful authority, the limits of collective judgment, and the distinction between moral condemnation and legal right. Vattel argues that no nation may unilaterally assume the role of judge over another sovereign without undermining the mutual independence on which international society depends. To do so, he suggests, risks converting international law into a mere instrument of power.

At the same time, Vattel’s framework does not deny the reality of gross misrule or humanitarian suffering. Rather, it demands rigorous scrutiny of motives and means. Economic coercion, diplomatic isolation, and recognition of alternative authorities would, in his analysis, need to be justified not by ideological preference or strategic advantage, but by clear evidence that such measures genuinely serve the common good of nations and do not erode the general security of the international system. His emphasis on proportionality, necessity, and respect for established sovereignty stands in tension with modern practices of intervention that rely on contested doctrines of legitimacy.

Viewed through this lens, contemporary debates over Venezuela illustrate the enduring force of Vattel’s central warning: that the stability of international relations depends less on the moral claims of individual powers than on shared restraint. His work reminds modern readers that the erosion of sovereignty in one case—however rhetorically justified—sets precedents that may ultimately weaken the legal protections upon which all nations, strong and weak alike, rely.

P.H. Nicklitn etc. Philadelphia. 1829. Read-Me.Org Inc. New York-Philadelphia-Australia. 2026 p.424.

By Kerri Raissian, Jennifer Necci Dineens

Insurance companies may be in a unique position to mitigate firearm-related deaths, injuries, and other harms in the United States. Insurers have played a prominent role in helping reduce injury and death in at least two other significant areas: automotive accidents and swimming pool drownings. In those cases, insurance firms were able to make meaningful societal change simply by compelling their customers to wear seatbelts and put fences around their pools. Firearms may be more difficult for insurance companies to detect than automobiles or swimming pools. For example, firearm owners are not required to declare their firearms (nor are we advocating for this), and so an insurer may not have accurate information regarding the presence of firearms. However, insurance companies face similar knowledge gaps with other behaviors, too (e.g., smoking or past drug-use behaviors). Insurance companies have a history of innovating with regard to risky behaviors to limit risk, and in many ways, firearms are no different. 

The National Institute for Health Care Management Foundation estimates gun injury had an economic cost of $557 billion in 2022.1 Meanwhile, there is mounting evidence that measures like secure storage and safety counseling significantly improve firearm safety in a cost-effective manner. So, why have insurance firms declined to act? It appears the insurance markets do not believe the proper incentives exist to bring about voluntary, preventive action. Yet if they did act, the societal benefits would likely outweigh the costs. Given this potential cost-benefit calculation, legislators, regulators, and insurance industry leaders should explore interventions to spur safety innovation. The range of actions could include: 

• Conducting research to better understand how firearms relate to insurer damages and the potential to mitigate those risks 

• Voluntarily encouraging policyholders to consider options such as secure storage or safety counseling 

• Taking legislative and regulatory steps to encourage or subsidize voluntary innovations and improve incentive structures 

• Potentially imposing mandates 

This paper explores the different types of firearm-related harms in America and the various opportunities and mechanisms by which insurance markets could potentially work to reduce those harms.

Washington, DC: Niskanen Center, 2025. 13p.

By Vanessa Ann Gunther

In 1769, Spain took action to solidify control over its northern New World territories by establishing a series of missions and presidios in what is now modern California. To populate these remote establishments, the Spanish crown relied on Franciscan priests, whose role it was to convince the Native Californian population to abandon their traditional religious practices and adopt Catholicism. During their tutelage, the Indians of California would be indoctrinated into Spanish society, where they would learn obedience to the church and crown. The legal system of Southern California has been used by Anglo populations as a social and demographic tool to control Native Americans. Following the Mexican-American War and the 1849 Gold Rush, as California property values increased and transportation corridors were established, Native Americans remained a sharply declining presence in many communities, and were likely to be charged with crimes. The sentences they received were lighter than those given to Anglo offenders, indicating that the legal system was used as a means of harassment. Additionally, courts chronicled the decline of the once flourishing native populations with each case of drunkenness, assault, or rape that appeared before the bench. Nineteenth-century American society had little sympathy for the plight of Indians or for the destruction of their culture. Many believed that the Indians of Southern California would fade from history because of their inability to adapt to a changing world. While many aspects of their traditional culture have been irreparably lost, the people of southern California are, nevertheless, attempting to recreate the cultures that were challenged by the influx of Europeans and later Americans to their lands.

East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 2006. 

Across the country, an array of new state and federal surveillance bills pose an unprecedented and existential threat to privacy, safety, and the promise of an open internet. This legislative wolf dressed in sheep’s clothing is framed around a noble goal: protecting children. Sadly, these laws are just the latest example of misguided tech policies built on a fundamental misunderstanding of the thing lawmakers seek to regulate—harming the very communities officials seek to protect.

The key flaw of these state surveillance bills is that they create a two-tiered internet, one for children, and one for adults. This is an intuitive step, but one that simply cannot be implemented in practice, as there is no effective, let alone privacy-preserving way, to determine users’ identities. These laws mandate or coerce the use of new, invasive measures that verify users’ legal name, age, and address for nearly every internet service they use. Suddenly, every online purchase and search engine query will come with state-mandated tracking, and anonymity will be a thing of the past. This change would be invasive and insecure for every user, but it would pose a particularly potent threat to undocumented communities, LGBTQ+ communities, and those seeking reproductive care. The data would be a ticking time bomb, a powerful new surveillance source for police, prosecutors, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and private anti-choice groups.

By Dércio de Assis, Arpita Ghosh, Sonia Oreffice, Climent Quintana-Domeque 

Do non-fatal strangulation laws save lives? Non-fatal strangulation (NFS) is a common and dangerous form of intimate partner violence (IPV) and a predictor of homicide, yet it was historically neglected by the criminal justice system. Since the year 2000, most U.S. states have enacted laws enlisting NFS as a standalone criminal offense. We compile a novel dataset on state NFS statutes and link it to the FBI Supplementary Homicide Reports from 1990 to 2019 to estimate the causal effects of these laws on IPH rates. Using a difference-in-differences strategy, and an estimator that accounts for staggered adoption and treatment heterogeneity, we find that NFS laws led to significant reductions in IPH rates. We estimate that these laws reduce female-victim IPH by 14% and male-victim IPH by 36%, among victims aged 18-34. No significant effects are observed for victims 50 and above or for homicides committed by strangers. Event-study estimates support the parallel trends assumption. Our findings suggest that NFS laws can disrupt the escalation of IPV and reduce lethal outcomes.

  IZA DP No. 18006  Bonn:  IZA – Institute of Labor Economics, 2025. 61p.

By David Bewley-Taylor,  Matthew Wall, Jack Tudor, and Alison Ritter 

Background

The Global Drug Policy Index (GDPI) is an instrument that attempts to comparatively evaluate national drug policies at a global scale. This paper assesses the validity and reliability of this new Index, speaking to the wider question of whether such a comparative evaluation can be achieved in a methodologically robust manner.

Method

We review the validity of the Index through analysis of the conceptual logic of the GDPI. Construct validity is assessed using Cronbach’s alpha statistics alongside exploratory factor analysis (EFA). The reliability of the Index is assessed using uncertainty analysis where we systematically analyse how Index rankings vary across simulations with randomly perturbed weighting schemes. In addition, we explore the reliability of experts’ assessment of policy implementation, reporting on a common vignette undertaken by all country-expert evaluators.

Results

The analysis of conceptual validity is a reproduction of the logic supporting the contention that the project’s underpinning normative document (a report produced by the UN system coordination Task Team on the Implementation of the UN System Common Position on drug-related matters) represents a solid starting point of what will be a sustained, iterative research process to develop a valid conceptual and operational basis for comparative evaluation of national drug policies. The empirical analysis of construct validity reveals that operationalising the Common Position creates a set of variables with a coherent multidimensional structure that is amenable to aggregation into an overall index. While the performance of states under simulations of different weighting schemes was highly consistent, country expert evaluation in developing state codes on policy implementation can be inconsistent, even when they are provided with a common description designed to capture variance on their rating scale. Cronbach’s alpha indicates that the variables encompassed by the GDPI measure a coherent construct, while EFA results provide support for three of the a priori dimensions used in the creation of the Index.

Conclusions

We conclude that the GDPI project demonstrates that robust comparative evaluation of drug policy at a global scale is possible. However, we also reveal that this project will necessarily be subject to continuous refinement – especially when it comes to standardising expert country evaluations. We outline practical challenges and suggestions for future work in this direction.

International Journal of Drug Policy Volume 143, September 2025

By Rebecca Gambler  

DHS is responsible for securing the nation’s borders against the trafficking of drugs. This includes illicit fentanyl, which continues to be the primary cause of overdose deaths in the U.S. The James M. Inhofe National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2023 requires DHS to, among other things, establish a program to collect data and develop measures to assess the effectiveness of efforts to detect and deter illicit fentanyl, including its analogues and precursor chemicals, from being trafficked into the U.S. The Act includes a provision for GAO to review the data collected and measures developed by DHS’s program. This report examines (1) DHS data on seizures of illicit fentanyl, its precursor chemicals, and production equipment from FY 2021 through 2024; (2) DHS efforts to combat the trafficking of these items into the U.S.; and (3) the extent DHS has assessed the effectiveness of its efforts. GAO analyzed DHS, CBP, and HSI documents and data on fentanyl-related seizures and investigations for FY 2021 through 2024. GAO also interviewed DHS, CBP, and HSI officials, including CBP and HSI field officials during visits to four locations. What GAO Recommends GAO recommends that DHS (1) establish a statutorily required program to collect data and develop measures to assess efforts to combat fentanyl trafficking into the U.S., (2) ensure the entity it tasks with establishing the program has access to needed information, and (3) develop performance goals and measures for its strategic goals. DHS concurred with the recommendations.  

Washington, DC: United States Government Accountability Office  - GAO, 2025. 58p.

By Aya Gruber  

Sex crimes are the worst crimes. People generally believe that sexual assault is graver than nonsexual assault, uninvited sexual compliments are worse than nonsexual insults, and sex work is different from work. Criminal codes typically create a dedicated category for sex offenses, uniting under its umbrella conduct ranging from violent attacks to consensual commercial transactions. This exceptionalist treatment of sex as categorically different rarely elicits discussion, much less debate. Sex exceptionalism, however, is neither natural nor neutral, and its political history should give us pause. This Article is the first to trace, catalog, and analyze sex exceptionalism in criminal law in the United States. Through a genealogical examination of sex-crime law from the late eighteenth century to today, it makes several novel contributions to the debate over how criminal law should regulate sex. First, this Article casts doubt on the conventional account that rape law’s history is solely one of sexist tolerance, an account that undergirds contemporary calls for broader criminal regulations and higher sentences. In fact, early law established rape as the most heinous crime and a fate worse than death, but it did so to preserve female chastity, marital morality, and racial supremacy. Sex-crime laws were not uniformly underenforced but rather selectively enforced—a tool used to entrench hierarchies and further oppressive regimes from slavery to social purity. Second, this Article employs this history to suggest that it is past time to critically examine whether sex crimes should be exceptional. Indeed, in the 1960s and 1970s, the enlightened liberal position was that rape law should be less exceptional and harmonized with the law governing “ordinary” assault 

Stanford Law Review, Vol. 75, 2023

By Erica Zunkel and Alison Siegler

While state drug law reform is moving apace, federal drug law reform has moved much more slowly. Many, including the Judicial Conference of the United States and the United States Sentencing Commission, have urged Congress to enact substantive federal drug law reform for years. But Congress has not acted. As a result, the federal system continues to single out drug offenses for harsh treatment at the bail stage and the sentencing stage—the front end and back end of the federal mass incarceration crisis. In this paper, we argue that federal judges have a critical role to play in future federal drug law reform in light of Congress’ long-standing failures to meaningfully change the laws. At the front end, judges should encourage the release of more people on bail by closely scrutinizing prosecutors’ motions for temporary detention and giving little weight to the Bail Reform Act’s presumption of detention. Data shows that the statutory drug presumption is overbroad and does a poor job of determining who is a risk of flight or a danger to the community. At the back end, judges should issue categorical policy disagreements with the drug sentencing guidelines and the career offender sentencing guideline using the Supreme Court’s blueprint in Kimbrough v. United States. Judges should issue sentences below these guidelines because they are not based on empirical evidence, over-punish drug offenses, and result in racial disparities. At both ends, judges should rest their decisions on the evidence that the drug presumption, the drug sentencing guidelines, and the career offender sentencing guideline are flawed. While judicial action is not a cure for Congressional inaction, it would send a clear message from one co-equal branch of government to another that substantive reform is urgently needed 

By Robert French

This Report to the Government of South Australia follows a legal examination to determine whether the State of South Australia could legislate a ban on access to social media services by children who have not attained the age of 14 and to restrict access to social media services by children between the ages of 14 and 16 by requiring parental consent to their access. The Report also considers a legislative model for achieving that end.

The examiner considered:

• How South Australia can achieve the objective of social media prohibition for children within Australia’s constitutional framework.

• The existing legislative and regulatory landscape in South Australia including effectiveness of current legislative and regulatory levers for limiting access to social media for children.

• Opportunities for legislative or regulatory reform in South Australia to prevent access to social media accounts for children under 14 and require parental consent for children aged 14 and 15.

• How actions taken in South Australia to limit social media access for children could be effectively enforced.

• How existing technology to limit access to social media such as ‘age assurance’ mechanisms could be utilised to complement legislative and/or regulatory change.

The report concludes whatever regime is established by the South Australian Government, it will not be perfect. Effecting compliance across the industry will be challenging. The legislation would apply to existing as well as prospective users of social media services. There will undoubtedly be workarounds by knowledgeable child users. However, the perfect should not be the enemy of the good. One non-legal beneficial effect of the law may be to arm parents with the proposition that it is the law not them that restricts access to social media for children in South Australia.

Adelaide: Government of South Australia, 2024  277p.

By Ian Ayres and  Fredrick E. Vars

In a substantial majority of states, invitees may bring concealed weapons onto private property unless the owner expressly tells them that firearms are not allowed. Five states after the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision flipped the presumption, enacting statutes that prohibit bringing firearms onto other people’s property without the owner’s express consent. These statutes have been attacked as violating the Second Amendment. While the Ninth Circuit upheld the constitutionality of the “no guns” default, the Second Circuit and other lower courts have enjoined application of the law with regard to private property open to the public. This Article, after analyzing the reasoning of the courts, proposes a legislative fix. States can enact “affirmative choice” rules which require commercial establishments, as a condition of doing business, to state whether or not they want their customers to be allowed to bring concealed firearms into their stores. An affirmative-choice requirement avoids constitutional concerns that some courts have had with a “no guns” presumption because the ability to bear arms on private property would only be restricted when the landowner so chooses. Without state action restricting gun rights, the statutes would not meet the Bruen threshold requirement. The Article explains why affirmative-choice laws are likely to better effectuate the preferences of landowners and why such laws would not pose compelled speech concerns.

Yale Law School, Public Law Research Paper,

By William R. Slomanson

As a result of the 2012 Sandy Hook massacre of 20 first graders and 6 staff members, a number of states responded with a various programs seeking to avoid reoccurrences. They have not yet succeeded in completely restraining the ensuing gun violence. But states like California have robustly responded with generically designated “Extreme Risk Protection Orders” (ERPO). One version of the ERPO is the comparatively new GVRO (California 2014).

The validity of any gun law begins with the threshold issue applicable to all jurisdictions: the individual’s Second Amendment right to bear arms. The U.S. Supreme Court’s blockbuster 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022) conjured a new test for gun litigation. Bruen thus held that “the government must demonstrate that the [challenged] regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

The Court’s ensuing 2024 building block connected both domestic and gun violence retraining orders. United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. ____, 144 S.Ct. 1889 (2024). There was no gun violence restraining order (GVRO) against Mr. Rahimi. But he did violate an analogous domestic violence restraining order (DVRO). Rahimi thus furnished the yardstick for measuring constitutional attacks on GVROs.

One may obtain various restraining orders in California, as listed in this essay. It focuses on Cal. Pen. Code § 18125 sets forth and analyses the statute’s three-option core. This essay also presents the associated GVRO Judicial Council forms. The next subsection provides selected case law regarding the GVRO regime’s key applications. Subjects covered include the Confrontation Clause; judicial assessments of the substantial evidence needed for a GVRO; hearsay evidence options; expert witnesses; oral v. written GVRO applications; notification requirements; and sanctions for misuse.Thomas Jefferson School of Law Research Paper 4930668, 38 California Litigation Reporter (forthcoming Nov. 2024)

By Maria M. Orsini, Peter Leasure, & Jana Hrdinova

After Ohio voted to legalize recreational marijuana in November 2023, and before recreational marijuana became available for sale in Ohio in August 2024, the Drug Enforcement and Policy Center surveyed Ohio’s K-12 school principals to inquire about how they anticipated marijuana legalization would impact their schools and their students. In spring 2025, the center again surveyed Ohio’s principals to explore their perceptions of how marijuana legalization has impacted their schools and students now that recreational marijuana sales have commenced. This second survey, which used a nearly identical online survey instrument, was distributed to principals to allow for a comparison of anticipated impacts prior to the beginning of marijuana sales and actual experiences after marijuana sales started. Overall, results from the 2025 survey aligned fairly closely with principals’ anticipated concerns in 2024, with a few areas seeing a lower level of experienced impact such as on dropout rates, students’ behavior at school, and overall school safety. While these results suggest that principals overall anticipated a worse impact of marijuana legalization prior to the beginning of recreational sales than what they experienced after sales commenced, this conclusion has two important caveats. First, while the perceived impacts on students are lower in a few areas than the anticipated impacts from 2024, this result does not mitigate the fact that at the high school and middle school levels, principals in 2025 reported concerning observations with respect to the increased use of marijuana among their students, students’ academic performance, health, and impact on school safety, among other things. Second, our survey recorded responses from a relatively small number of Ohio’s principals and only asked about their perceptions, which does not allow us to draw any definitive conclusions about the actual effects of marijuana legalization. If state legislators and voters want to explore the concrete impact of marijuana legalization on students, it is crucial to collect and study actual student data on metrics related to academic performance, behavioral issues, mental and physical health, marijuana and other drug use, and school completion. 

Ohio State Legal Studies Research Paper No. 928,

By Mark S. Brodin

Reflecting back a decade later, what is the legacy of Trayvon Martin’s case, a teenage life violently cut short, and a legal system that accepted his death without consequence? Among other things, there is “The Trayvon Generation,” poet Elizabeth Alexander’s ruminations on the young African Americans who have grown up in the haunting shadow of this killing, and the anguished mothers who cannot protect their children from such a fate. “[T]o African Americans and other racialized minorities, Martin’s death became emblematic of the extreme outcomes of racial profiling enmeshed in a history of criminal laws arbitrarily targeting Black men.”

I begin with a close look at the Zimmerman trial, expanding on my earlier Howard Law Journal article with new access to an official audio-visual transcript. Then I put the case in its historical context by surveying the American tradition of vigilantism and its incarnation in the “neighborhood crime watches” (like Zimmerman’s) that have become so pervasive. Next, I contrast the response of the legal system to black as compared to white self-defense in notable cases. I conclude with an appraisal of our self-defense law -- doctrine and practice -- and the compelling need to reform it in light of what we have learned about implicit bias, unconscious stereotyping, and their role split-second panicked decision-making.

106 Marquette Law Review 593 (2022)