Suchergebnisse

284Jurisdiction — Personal — Crimes committed by British subjects on foreign ship on the high seas — Whether within the jurisdiction of the English courts — Definition of crime by reference to territory — Merchant Shipping Act 1894, Section 686(1) — Whether passengers persons "belonging" to shipSea — High seas — Jurisdiction — Crimes committed by British subjects on Danish ship — Whether triable in England — The law of England

Over forty years ago, the Supreme Court in Kelly v. Goldberg held that due process protections applied to statutorily provided welfare benefits. Since then, the welfare system has undergone massive changes, and has been transformed from a cash assistance program to a work-based temporary one, with participants required to work in exchange for benefits. One of the few vestiges of the old system preserved in the new is the requirement that participants be given an opportunity for an administrative fair hearing when benefits are reduced or denied. Although virtually all of the states have retained their pre-welfare reform fair hearing systems, we know little about whether, or how, these systems have adapted to the new demands wrought by welfare reform, including how useful such hearings are under a regime that emphasizes the denial of, rather than an entitlement to, assistance. This article reports on the first empirical study of fair hearings using a method of social science analyses called focused ethnography. The findings reveal that the current system works unevenly. Some administrative law judges act as "super bureaucrats" adopting the normative practices of the welfare system, including its focus on procedural compliance over substantive need, while other judges fully employ the tools of the adversarial system to decide disputes, thus acting as a check on agency error. However, even their efforts fall short in scrutinizing potential deficiencies in administrative systems and decision-making processes regarding the work rules and sanctions. A restructuring of the fair hearing system is required to enhance the efficacy of hearings post welfare reform, and to better serve its intended users. Specifically the present adversarial model should be replaced with the inquisitorial model, thus granting ALJs wider powers to define and investigate disputes. Additionally, the role of the agency representative should be redefined from agency advocate to a "friend of the court" responsible for seeking out opposing evidence and legal arguments. The proposed changes would allow for a fuller and fairer vetting of the types of disputes generated by a work based welfare system, and the administrative practices underlying them. It would also harness the skills, resources and knowledge of government officials in ways that would remedy appellants' deficiencies in these areas.

Introduction / Ezra Rosser -- When paupers became people : Edwards v. California (1941) / Clare Pastore -- Remaking the "law of the poor" : Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co. (1965) / Anne Fleming -- Sylvester Smith, unlikely heroine : King v. Smith (1968) / Henry Freedman -- Legal services attorneys and migrant advocates join forces : Shapiro v. Thompson (1969) / Elisa Minoff -- Dignity and passion : Goldberg v. Kelly (1970) / Melanie B. Abbott -- Litigating in the zeitgeist : Rosado v. Wyman (1970) / Wendy A. Bach -- A sweeping refusal of equal protection : Dandridge v. Williams (1970) / Julie A. Nice -- Privacy as a luxury not for the poor : Wyman v. James (1971) / Michele Estrin Gilman -- A tragedy of two Americas : Jefferson v. Hackney (1972) / Marie A. Failinger -- Denying the poor access to court : United States v. Kras (1973) / Henry Rose -- "The poor people have lost again" : San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez (1973) / Camille Walsh -- Reflecting and foreshadowing : Mathews v. Eldridge (1976) / John J. Capowski -- Chronicle of a debt foretold : Zablocki v. Red Hail (1978) / Tonya L. Brito, R. Kirk Anderson, and Monica Wedgewood -- The movement for a right to counsel in civil cases : Turner v. Rogers (2011) / Kelly Terry -- Public housing as housing of last resort : Department of Housing and Urban Development v. Rucker (2002) / Nestor M. Davidson

In Department of Housing and Urban Development v. Rucker, the United States Supreme Court upheld the agency's use of the "one strike" eviction policy, which requires housing authorities to issue leases with the condition that tenants who engage in any drug-related criminal activity are subject to eviction. Moreover, the court held that a tenant's ignorance of the activity is not a defense to eviction. Although this ruling appears consistent with the Court's decision in Goldberg v. Kelly, the seminal case delineating the government's ability to terminate public assistance, the one strike eviction policy nevertheless suffers from several problems that limit its effectiveness. In particular, housing authorities have excessive discretion when implementing the policy; the policy does not define "engaging" in drug-related criminal activity; and the policy fails to prevent non-residents from participating in drug-related criminal activity in the housing community. This Article proposes means of alleviating these problems to increase the effectiveness of the one strike eviction policy.

Almost 40 years ago, the Supreme Court, in the landmark case Goldberg v. Kelly (1970), provided welfare participants with a potentially potent tool for challenging the government welfare bureaucracy by requiring pre-termination hearings before welfare benefits were discontinued or reduced. In 1996, with the passage of the Personal Responsibility Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), the rights talk of Kelly was officially replaced with the discourse of individual responsibility. Using observational data of administrative hearings and interviews with administrative law judges and appellants, this study explores how fair hearings have been affected by this official re-conceptualization of rights. I find that hearings are not a panacea for challenging the more punitive aspects of welfare reform, but nor are they devoid of the possibility of justice. While hearings can replicate in style and substance the inequities, rigid adherence to rules, and moral judgments that characterize welfare relationships under the PRWORA, they can also be used as a mechanism for creating counter narratives to the dominant discourse about welfare. This study identifies two types of judges moralist judges and reformer judges and examines how their differing approaches determine which narrative emerges in the hearing room.

The 5-to-4 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Kelly v. South Carolina represents an important turning point in the death penalty sentencing procedure. Expanding on their prior ruling in Simmons v. South Carolina, the Supreme Court, in Kelly, determined that a defendant is entitled to a jury instruction regarding parole eligibility when the only alternative to a death sentence is life without parole and the implication of future dangerousness is present. In this article, the controversial Kelly decision is examined, and both the majority opinion and the two dissenting opinions are analyzed. The broad as well as the more specific implications and ramifications of this important decision are presented.