By Steven M. Klepper

The Supreme Court of Maryland adopted the federal Daubert standard for admission of expert testimony in 2020.1 Given that Daubert rulings are discretionary, the abuse-of-discretion standard governs appellate review of expert testimony.2 During the summer of 2023, the Supreme Court of Maryland issued three opinions holding that trial judges abused their discretion—at least in part—when they admitted or excluded expert testimony.3 In the last of the three cases, Justice Brynja Booth authored a concurring opinion noting how the Court was applying less deference than in other discretionary contexts, and she urged her colleagues to clarify the nature of review.4 This article posits that Daubert errors fall into two main categories: procedural and substantive. Procedural errors occur when a trial court misunderstands an aspect of the Daubert framework.5 In effect, the trial judge has misread Maryland Rule 5-702, which governs expert testimony. 6 A misreading of an evidentiary rule is a legal error that is reviewed de novo, meaning without deference. 7 Substantive error occurs when a trial judge follows the Daubert framework but reaches a result to which an appellate courts cannot defer because either the trial judge has abused their8 discretion in the traditionalsense or the Supreme Court of Maryland has decided to draw a boundary circumscribing all trial judges’ discretion.9 Such vocabulary not only accurately describes the nature of judicial review but also reduces friction between trial judges and appellate courts

By Gil Eyal and Zheng Fu   

What makes a law or regulation legitimate? This article develops a sociological approach that locates legitimacy not outside the law but in the work performed by a network of actors that cuts across the boundaries of the state. Drawing on Weber, Habermas, and Szelenyi, we suggest that legitimacy should be understood as the element that increases the probability of compliance with legal commands. We argue that this element cannot be a psychological “belief in legitimacy” but should be understood as work performed by the staff to construct and repair the discursive mechanisms that make legal commands defensible. We then draw on Actor-Network Theory to analyze this work as translation and offer two empirical examples: labor legislation in China and vaccine mandates in the United States. Throughout, we compare our approach with different lines of research in the law and society literature, noting where our conclusions converge and where they represent potential revisions to this literature.

By Yvon Dandurand and Megan Capp

This article examines the erosion of rule-based, multilateral international cooperation against illicit trade and financial crime amid declining state commitment to the rule of law. It argues that while global cooperation remains essential, a new framework and leadership are needed to respond effectively to transnational crime in an increasingly fragmented international order.

Journal of Illicit Trade, Financial Crime, and Compliance. 2026.  (653a23)

By Joseph Blocher and Reva Siegel

This Article examines the ambitions of history-and-tradition review in and beyond the Second Amendment. In Bruen and Rahimi the Roberts Court rejected means-end review in favor of a historical-analogical approach, claiming to constrain the exercise of judicial discretion, and thus to promote the democratic decisions of the founders. But our examination of these cases shows that the Court has created new opportunities for judges to advance their values in considerably less transparent ways. We identify contexts in which Second Amendment doctrine enables judicial discretion, key among them that it allows judges to reason about gun rights and regulation at disparate levels of generality, extending rights protection to modern guns while requiring gun laws to resemble ancient analogues. When applied in this asymmetric fashion, the historical approach deregulates in ways that are neither acknowledged nor justified. An eight-member majority objected to this strategy in Rahimi and voted to uphold a federal gun law. Yet numerous Justices wrote separately to limit Rahimi’s reach—and, a year later, to suggest that the Court should take a case involving an assault-weapons ban to clarify the method set forth in its earlier cases.

Our close reading of the history-and-tradition (HAT) cases shows that there is a persistent gap between what the Court says and does—between the judicial constraint the Roberts Court promises and the actual decisions it delivers. Understanding this dynamic in the Second Amendment cases helps us recognize it in the First Amendment and Substantive Due Process cases as well.

We can better appreciate the Court’s reasoning in extending HAT review if we excavate the arguments advanced in the decade between Heller and Bruen for substituting the HAT approach for means-ends review. This retrospective shows us that HAT approaches exhibit the very problems imputed to means-ends review: HAT review is not grounded in original understanding and employs shifts in generality to provide judges discretion to enforce value-based understandings. We can see this dynamic unfolding inside and outside the Second Amendment context.

HAT decisions pose distinctive threats to democracy. First, Bruen has implemented HAT through judicial review with a strong presumption of unconstitutionality, a counter-majoritarian practice lacking precedent at the founding. Second, HAT review is not transparent, obscuring reasons for judicial decisions from the people and thus obstructing democratic dialogue. Third, the HAT framework encourages judges to decide the constitutionality of public safety laws on grounds that ignore the public’s most urgent reasons for enacting the laws.

This reading of the Court’s Second Amendment cases indicates that the push to adopt HAT approaches in First Amendment, Due Process, and other areas of constitutional law is likely to compound the problems it is supposed to solve, while insulating the Court’s control of the Constitution from the public governed by it.

By Everytown for Gun Safety, Everytown Research & Policy

For centuries, self-defense laws have given people the right to protect themselves. Shoot First laws, also known as Stand Your Ground laws, go beyond these long-standing principles, aggressively altering criminal law to shield a person who claims self-defense from being arrested, prosecuted, or convicted for using deadly force. In 2005, Florida enacted the first modern Shoot First law, an effort backed by the National Rifle Association (NRA), during a time when they were making concerted efforts to reverse declining gun sales.2 Working with the gun lobby, the American Legislative Exchange Council pushed to turn Florida’s law into a template for a national campaign.3 Now in 29 states,4 these laws change the nature of self-defense, turning everyday disputes into deadly confrontations. Far from empowering victims, Shoot First laws lower the threshold for justifiable homicide, encouraging the escalation of petty arguments and armed vigilantism. 

Although the gun lobby created these laws under the pretense of empowering and protecting victims of crime, the data overwhelmingly shows that the statutes have failed at this. Research on Shoot First laws indicates that they increase gun deaths, leading to hundreds of deaths every year that would not have occurred otherwise. These laws also consistently fail to protect vulnerable communities; in addition to increased risk of victimization in Shoot First states, convictions are unfairly skewed against people of color and women. 

In the decades since the first Shoot First law was enacted, no research shows that these laws lead to better outcomes for anyone. Shoot First was created to solve a problem that does not exist—and Americans are paying the price. 

By Greg Oxley and William Downs

The UK has some of the strictest gun laws in the world. People who want to own guns for legitimate reasons (for sport or as part of the rural economy) must get a licence from the police. The use of firearms in crime is taken very seriously and firearms offences carry heavy penalties.The law on firearmsThe law governing firearms regulation in the UK is very complex. It includes several pieces of primary and secondary legislation. The legislative framework has been criticised for being incoherent and difficult to find.The Law Commission (the independent body responsible for reviewing the law) published a review of firearms law in 2015 and recommended it be codified so that the legislation is clear, consistent and can be understood by ordinary people. It also recommended several key terms be defined by new legislation. Part 6 of the Policing and Crime Act 2017 went some way to implementing the Law Commission’s recommendations to define key terms but stopped short of codifying the law.The Home Office maintains a collection of resources relating to firearms licensing, including the Statutory guidance for police on firearms licensing which helps police chiefs carry out checks when assessing someone’s suitability to own firearms or become a registered firearms dealer and the Home Office guide to firearms licensing law which is designed to educate the police, gun owners and the public about firearms law.

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