By Stephen J. Choi, Mitu Gulati

Curious about the merits of judges Donald Trump appointed in his first term as president, we looked in an earlier study at the performance during 2020 to mid-2023 of the judges Trump appointed as compared to those appointed by other presidents. On a set of three measures--productivity, quality and independence--the Trump judges performed as well, if not better, than judges appointed by Presidents Obama and Bush. As for President Biden's appointees, they did systematically worse than the Trump appointees. Biden judicial selections were, at the time we did our prior study, however, new judges. Maybe, we wondered, these judges would do better on our measures a year or two hence? What follows are our preliminary results on that question. Our short answer is that Trump judges continue to dominate the Biden judges. 

By I-An Su, John H. Blume and Stephen J Ceci

More than three decades ago, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruled that individuals who are not competent (alternatively referred to by the Court as insane) at the time of their scheduled execution cannot be put to death. Despite the years that have passed since the Court's decision and the literal life-or-death stakes involved, competency for execution (CFE) remains underexplored in the psychological, psychiatric, and legal literature. A number of important legal and ethical issues that arise when a person on death row maintains they are not competent to be executed are still unresolved even after the landmark Supreme Court cases such as Ford v. Wainwright (1986), Panetti v. Quarterman (2007), and Madison v. Alabama (2019). In this first-of-its-kind descriptive study, we analyzed the demographic and case characteristics of the 28 successful Ford claimantsindividuals in the United States who have been found to be incompetent to be executed and compared them to the general death row population and homicide cases nationwide. Our findings reveal some similarities but also some differences between these claimants and the general death row population and homicide cases: the successful Ford claimants are exclusively male (in keeping with the general prison population on death row), relatively older, and underrepresented among White and Latinx inmates (i.e., Black claimants are more successful than their White and Latinx counterparts at evading execution). Nearly all (96%) suffer from schizophrenia, with 79% experiencing psychiatric comorbidity, yet only 54% received any significant treatment before or after the criminal offense. The claimants' cases also involve a higher proportion of child victims, male family members, and female non-family member victims, as well as more multiple-victim cases (not indiscriminate) and fewer intraracial homicides. Fewer victims are male, and more are female. However, the cases do not align with typical male-on-male violent crimes or femicide patterns, such as those involving sexual or domestic violence. Additionally, systematic psycho-legal deficiencies are prevalent, including a low rate of mental health evidence (61%) presented at trials and some cases lacking psychiatric involvement in CFE evaluations. Temporal influence and drastic state variations on CFE evaluation are also noted. Although the small sample size limits generalizability, this small-scale descriptive study offers a number of important insights into the complexities of CFE decisions and lays the groundwork for future research and policy development.

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 Colleen Daniels, Naomi Burke‑Shyne. Catherine Cook and Anoushka Beattie

Neo‑colonialism and financing for the war on drugs: a review of current policy and recommendations for countries in the global north Colleen Daniels1*, Naomi Burke‑Shyne1^, Catherine Cook1 and Anoushka Beattie2 Abstract Globally, punitive drug control upholds racist and colonial structures. Marginalised and racialised communities, including Indigenous peoples, are disproportionately targeted and affected by punitive drug policy in law enforcement, judicial and carceral systems, and policy implementation. Power imbalances also exist at the international level, with high income countries exerting influence over drug policy in low- and middle-income countries. This paper examines that influence through financial and material aid, technical assistance, capacity building, educa‑ tion and awareness campaigns and the interaction between the vested interests of the private sector and the State, specifically via the Prison Industrial Complex and land and resource grabbing in conflict and post-conflict contexts. The global war on drugs entrenches power imbalances and reproduces mechanisms of racial control and subordina‑ tion. To begin to decolonise drug policy, the financial and material basis of these mechanisms must be illuminated and dismantled and this paper offers recommendations on how to move forward (Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, 1923; Carrier et al., 2020).

By Mirko Nazzari, Marco Calaresu, Moris Triventi

Business curfews are emerging as regulatory policy instruments to reduce crime in high-risk areas, yet rigorous evaluations remain limited. This study examines San Francisco’s Tenderloin Retail Hours Restriction Pilot, which required select businesses to close from 12:00 a.m. to 5:00 a.m. starting July 2024. Using a customized Bayesian Structural Time Series model, we estimate a 56% reduction (95% credible interval: −72% to −27%) in drug-related incidents during curfew hours over nine months, with no evidence of spatial displacement to nearby areas or temporal displacement within the Tenderloin Public Safety Area. Results hold under CausalARIMA sensitivity tests. Findings suggest curfews may reduce opportunities for street-level drug activity, but potential economic costs and questions about longterm sustainability underscore the need for careful policy design.

By Lisa N. Sacco, Zachary T. Neuhofer, Hassan Z. Sheikh

Change to Federal Definition of Hemp and Implications for Federal Enforcement

December 3, 2025 (IN12620)

On November 12, 2025, Congress and President Trump enacted a full-year FY2026 Agriculture appropriations act (P.L. 119-37, Division B), which contained a provision that reimposes federal controls over certain hemp products.

Both marijuana and hemp are varieties of the cannabis plant, and until 2018, hemp was considered to be marijuana as defined under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). From 1970 until 2018, the federal government's definition of marijuana included hemp and its derivatives, and widespread hemp production was generally prohibited. Under the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (2018 farm bill; P.L. 115-334), Congress amended the CSA definition of marijuana to reflect the differences in the chemical and psychoactive properties between hemp and marijuana, but it referred only to the level of delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) to distinguish between them and not the other cannabinoids found within the cannabis plant. Some interpreted this definition of marijuana and the new federal definition of hemp to mean that products containing less than 0.3% delta-9 THC in addition to other psychoactive compounds would not be considered marijuana and would legally be considered hemp—the so-called farm bill loophole

Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2025. 3p.

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.

The Blackstone Commentaries on Criminal Law are part of Sir William Blackstone's influential 18th-century work, Commentaries on the Laws of England. This comprehensive treatise, published between 1765 and 1769, is divided into four volumes. The fourth volume, "Of Public Wrongs," focuses on criminal law. The other volumes are "Of the Rights of Persons," "Of the Rights of Things," and "Of Private Wrongs. "”

In "Of Public Wrongs," Blackstone provides a detailed examination of the criminal laws of England, aiming to demonstrate their justice and mercy. Despite the severe penalties of the time, later known as the "Bloody Code," Blackstone's work sought to rationalize and justify the legal system's approach to crime and punishment.

The Commentaries were groundbreaking for their readability and accessibility, making complex legal principles understandable to a broader audience. They played a significant role in the development of both British and American legal systems and continue to be referenced in legal education and court decision

Edited by Murdoch Watney

The chapters in this volume focus on the future of law and related disciplines: human rights and access to medical care, corruption and money laundering in state procurement, counterfeit medical products, IPR waiver on COVID-19 vaccines, emergency powers, freedom of expression, prison healthcare, the impact on labour law, access to courts and digital court processes, access to education and the impact on insurance law are but a few possible topics which are addressed.

Johannesburg, UJ Press, 2022. 288p.

By Fred Butcher, Amanda B. Cissner, and Michael Rempel

  Mandatory minimum sentencing laws gained traction in the late 1970s and early 1980s amidst rising crime rates, a “tough-on-crime” push, and punitive enforcement related to the “War on Drugs.”. Under mandatory minimums, individuals receive a stipulated amount of prison time, with no accounting for the circumstances of the offense or the characteristics of the person charged. As minimums typically flow from the charge and a person’s criminal history, they confer outsized power on prosecutors; in plea negotiations, prosecutors can wield the threat of a higher charge with a minimum for someone hesitant to accept a plea. Judges also lose discretion, and defense attorneys lose opportunities to present mitigating circumstances. In 1984, the federal Sentencing Reform Act established the U.S. Sentencing Commission, requiring that federal courts impose sentences within a range specified by the Commission and eliminating parole for federal charges. Many states took their cue from federal efforts, introducing minimum sentences and restricting the ability of parole boards to reduce sentences through good-time or earned-time credits. Proponents viewed sentencing guidelines (including mandatory prison) as a limit on judicial discretion and a means to eliminate disparities in sentencing. They touted the idea of “truth in-sentencing”—giving people charged, crime survivors, and the public an accurate idea of how much time those sentenced would actually serve. Minimums also arose in response to the perception—ginned up at the time and since debunked—that the more rehabilitative approach of the 1960s had failed to tamp down crime rates and recidivism. Recent decades, however, have seen mandatory minimums fall into disrepute. Several decades of harsh sentencing policies contributed to the astronomical growth of the U.S. prison population, which peaked at 1.6 million people held on an average day in 2009, a total which omits about 750,000 additional people held in local jails that year. The rapid consolidation of mass incarceration over these decades did not increase safety; evidence points instead to a modest increase in recidivism among individuals subject to custodial sanctions. Similarly, mandatory minimums and other sentencing laws passed in the 1970s and 1980s increased (and here more than modestly) persistent racial disparities in the criminal legal system. Black Americans today continue to be disproportionately represented in prison populations and are more likely to be charged with offenses subject to mandatory minimums—leading to longer sentences—than white Americans.8 According to the most recent analysis by the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, among those detained in prisons nationwide, there were nearly identical Black and white populations (34% vs. 32%). Considering their representation in the general population, Black people are imprisoned at a rate five times greater than white people. Over the past two decades, numerous states, including New York, have weakened or eliminated mandatory minimum sentencing laws.10 Many of these reforms focused on eliminating minimums that apply primarily to drug offenses. This narrow focus has neglected much of the imprisoned population, as drug offenders make up a small percentage of those in prison. In 2022, the Vera Institute of Justice estimated just over half of New York’s approximately 300,000 prison sentences were the result of mandatory minimum sentencing laws. Declaring the laws “morally and fiscally unsustainable,” the organization called for their abolition.

New York: Center for Justice Innovation. 2022, 31pg