ZOOMING OUR WAY OUT OF THE FORUM NON CONVENIENS DOCTRINE

The effects of the pandemic have shed light on the evolution of technology in the legal space, including the use of technology in videoconferencing proceedings and facilitating court procedures. Despite the benefits associated with technology, the rapid adoption of videoconferencing proceedings in courts may have unprecedented impacts on the relevance and practicality of the forum non conveniens doctrine. Additionally, the drastically different approaches that federal courts have taken in response to the disproportionate geographic effects of the pandemic may give way to forum shopping. Plaintiffs may be more incentivized to bring their cases to forums that allow for videoconferencing proceedings as a strategic way to circumvent a defendant's potential forum non conveniens argument in a motion to dismiss. This Note argues that videoconferencing technology allows courts to effectively transcend the restrictions of geography while mitigating arguments about the relative convenience of different forums. Creating more uniform rules for videoconferencing proceedings will ensure easier predictability and uniformity in the forum non conveniens analysis. Specifically, this Note recommends that Congress and the courts mandate standardized technological videoconferencing requirements and adopt the original understanding of the forum non conveniens doctrine for lower courts to more explicitly consider the benefits of technology when making a forum non conveniens determination.

The Death of Law

This is a talk about the decline and fall of constitutional law, an overarching characteristic of the new millennium. I focus on the period from the end of the Cold War—once described as the end of history—to what I call the "Second Cold War” beginning in the second decade of this century and having escalated in the proxy war in Ukraine. The Second Cold War is also characterized by an aborted cooptation of China through the World Trade Organization (to tame China's seemingly unstoppable ascension to global supremacy) as well as a state of permanent emergency.

The Sabbath Observer, the Idiosyncratist, and the Religious Organization: How the EEOC Imagines Religion at Work

Charged with enforcing Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission plays an overlooked but profoundly important role in shaping American religious life. While scholars of religion, law, and American culture have devoted a great deal of energy to analyzing the ways that federal courts define religion for the purposes of protecting it, they have paid less attention to the role of administrative agencies, like the EEOC. In this article, I argue that the private workplace offers a critical site for understanding how the state regulates and manages American religious life. I look to the EEOC's regulatory guidelines and compliance manuals as important sources for understanding the shifting relationship between religion, law, and work in the United States. I identify three modes of religiosity—or three types of religious actors—existing in tension in the EEOC archive, each bearing a distinct genealogy: the Sabbath Observer, the Idiosyncratist, and the Organization. While gesturing to very different notions of what religion is, the figures of the Idiosyncratist and the Organization both assume that demands of religion and work can be neatly reconciled. They presume that religion can be seamlessly integrated into the workplace without disrupting the functioning of capitalism. However, for those concerned about economic inequality, corporate power, and neoliberal working conditions, I suggest that it may be useful to revisit the EEOC's Sabbath Observer, who insists on the right to collective forms of life and value outside of work and the market.

New development: Increasing vaccination uptake in repeated Covid 19 vaccination mandates

IMPACTSome countries are still struggling to vaccinate residents against Covid 19 despite the wide availability of vaccines. This situation becomes more complex when considering the possible need for regular booster shots. Repeated vaccine mandates that impose fines on vaccine refusers may increase vaccination uptake. However, the uptake may not be sufficient to lift all Covid 19 restrictions. This article recommends that policy-makers consider an alternative financial incentive system that relies on rewards in addition to fines. Theoretical and empirical evidence suggests that a combination can yield a stronger response than using rewards or fines alone.

MSMA: Building Consensus & Advocating for Patients and Physicians Shape Your Future & Get Involved!

From gun control to climate change, from abortion to cannabis legalization, we live in a highly polarized society in which many of us are reluctant to be too vocal. Less than three years later, our Missouri state legislature has passed a bill to enact a Correctional Center Nursery Program in our state women's prison, which has been shown in other states to reduce recidivism and be beneficial for mother-baby bonding. Term-limits are also creating a significant "churn" in our state legislatures, so we need to constantly educate and re-educate our representatives on medical and public health issues, as well as unintended consequences.

Did U.S. Governments Violate Individual Human Rights? A Thomistic Response to COVID-19 Government Mandates.

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, some Americans have claimed that U.S. governments have superseded their jurisdiction and violated individuals' human rights in the use of government mandates. Many citizens and politicians have also claimed that governments are utilizing the pandemic as a smoke screen to take individual rights away from citizens to gain further power. In light of such claims, I provide a Thomistic response to argue that state and local political authorities' use of public health mandates were other-regarding in seeking to protect the common good in an unprecedented health crisis. Further, I argue that the characterization of individual rights atomized from community has led to an improper understanding of political authorities, individual rights, and our duties to our communities. Rejecting the reductive, skeptical, individualistic, and atomistic views that many Americans have engendered, I provide a Thomistic political orientation that more adequately helps us think about political authorities' and citizens' responsibilities within our political communities.