Georgetown University Law Center

About: Georgetown University Law Center is a based out in . It is known for research contribution in the topics: Supreme court & Public health. The organization has 585 authors who have published 2488 publications receiving 36650 citations. The organization is also known as: Georgetown Law & GULC.

The Association of E-cigarette Flavors With Satisfaction, Enjoyment, and Trying to Quit or Stay Abstinent From Smoking Among Regular Adult Vapers From Canada and the United States: Findings From the 2018 ITC Four Country Smoking and Vaping Survey.

Abstract: AIMS: This study examined whether nontobacco flavors are more commonly used by vapers (e-cigarette users) compared with tobacco flavor, described which flavors are most popular, and tested whether flavors are associated with: vaping satisfaction relative to smoking, level of enjoyment with vaping, reasons for using e-cigarettes, and making an attempt to quit smoking by smokers. METHODS: This cross-sectional study included 1603 adults from Canada and the United States who vaped at least weekly, and were either current smokers (concurrent users) or former smokers (exclusive vapers). Respondents were categorized into one of seven flavors they used most in the last month: tobacco, tobacco-menthol, unflavored, or one of the nontobacco flavors: menthol/mint, fruit, candy, or "other" (eg, coffee). RESULTS: Vapers use a wide range of flavors, with 63.1% using a nontobacco flavor. The most common flavor categories were fruit (29.4%) and tobacco (28.7%), followed by mint/menthol (14.4%) and candy (13.5%). Vapers using candy (41.0%, p < .0001) or fruit flavors (26.0%, p = .01) found vaping more satisfying (compared with smoking) than vapers using tobacco flavor (15.5%) and rated vaping as very/extremely enjoyable (fruit: 50.9%; candy: 60.9%) than those using tobacco flavor (39.4%). Among concurrent users, those using fruit (74.6%, p = .04) or candy flavors (81.1%, p = .003) were more likely than tobacco flavor users (63.5%) to vape in order to quit smoking. Flavor category was not associated with the likelihood of a quit attempt (p = .46). Among exclusive vapers, tobacco and nontobacco flavors were popular; however, those using tobacco (99.0%) were more likely than those using candy (72.8%, p = .002) or unflavored (42.5%, p = .005) to vape in order to stay quit. CONCLUSIONS: A majority of regular vapers in Canada and the US use nontobacco flavors. Greater satisfaction and enjoyment with vaping are higher among fruit and candy flavor users. While it does not appear that certain flavors are associated with a greater propensity to attempt to quit smoking among concurrent users, nontobacco flavors are popular among former smokers who are exclusively vaping. Future research should determine the likely impact of flavor bans on those who are vaping to quit smoking or to stay quit. IMPLICATIONS: Recent concerns about the attractiveness of e-cigarette flavors among youth have resulted in flavor restrictions in some jurisdictions of the United States and Canada. However, little is known about the possible consequences for current and former smokers if they no longer have access to their preferred flavors. This study shows that a variety of nontobacco flavors, especially fruit, are popular among adult vapers, particularly among those who have quit smoking and are now exclusively vaping. Limiting access to flavors may therefore reduce the appeal of e-cigarettes among adults who are trying to quit smoking or stay quit.

How China Lends: A Rare Look into 100 Debt Contracts with Foreign Governments

Abstract: China is the world’s largest official creditor, but basic facts are lacking about the terms and conditions of its lending. Very few contracts between Chinese lenders and their government borrowers have ever been published or studied. This paper is the first systematic analysis of the legal terms of China’s foreign lending. The authors collect and analyze 100 contracts between Chinese state-owned entities and government borrowers in 24 developing countries in Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe, Latin America, and Oceania, and compare them with those of other bilateral, multilateral, and commercial creditors. Three main insights emerge. First, the Chinese contracts contain unusual confidentiality clauses that bar borrowers from revealing the terms or even the existence of the debt. Second, Chinese lenders seek advantage over other creditors, using collateral arrangements such as lender-controlled revenue accounts and promises to keep the debt out of collective restructuring (“no Paris Club” clauses). Third, cancellation, acceleration, and stabilization clauses in Chinese contracts potentially allow the lenders to influence debtors’ domestic and foreign policies. Even if these terms were unenforceable in court, the mix of confidentiality, seniority, and policy influence could limit the sovereign debtor’s crisis management options and complicate debt renegotiation. Overall, the contracts use creative design to manage credit risks and overcome enforcement hurdles, presenting China as a muscular and commercially savvy lender to the developing world.

Judicial Review before Marbury

Abstract: While scholars have long probed the original understanding of judicial review and the early judicial review case law, this Article presents a study of the judicial review case law in the United States before Marbury v. Madison that is dramatically more complete than prior work and that challenges previous scholarship on the original understanding of judicial review on the two most critical dimensions: how well judicial review was established at the time of the Founding and when it was exercised. Where prior work argues that judicial review was rarely exercised before Marbury (or that it was created in Marbury), this Article shows that it was far more common than previously recognized: there are more than five times as many cases from the Early Republic as the leading historical account found. The Article further shows that all of the cases in which statutes were invalidated fell into three categories: courts invalidated statutes that affected the powers of courts or juries, and they did so even when the legislation could plausibly be squared with constitutional text and prior practice; state courts invalidated state statutes for inconsistency with the federal constitution; and federal courts invalidated state statutes, and, again, they did so even when the statutes could plausibly be defended as constitutional. Scholars have missed this structural pattern, and the dominant view has been that only clearly unconstitutional statutes were invalidated. The Article shows, instead, that the early case law reflects a structural approach to judicial review in which the level of scrutiny was closely linked to the nature of the challenged statute and that courts aggressively protected their power, the power of juries, and the power of the national government.

Legal and Ethical Responsibilities Following Brain Death: The McMath and Muñoz Cases

Abstract: Death is imbued with social, cultural, and religious meaning. From a legal and scientific perspective, however, death is a definable event. A patient’s death makes it possible, even obligatory, to cease treatment and enables the harvesting of organs for transplantation to extend life for others. The clear line between life and death is important because physicians will not squander scarce medical resources or violate medical ethics by imposing treatment after the patient is dead. With a clear diagnosis, family members can also accept the death of a loved one and begin the process of mourning.

Danger Ahead: Risk Assessment and the Future of Bail Reform

Abstract: In the last five years, legislators in all fifty states have made changes to their pretrial justice systems. Reform efforts aim to shrink jails by incarcerating fewer people— particularly poor, low-risk defendants and racial minorities. Many jurisdictions are embracing pretrial risk assessment instruments—statistical tools that use historical data to forecast which defendants can safely be released—as a centerpiece of reform. Now, many are questioning the extent to which pretrial risk assessment instruments actually serve reform goals. Existing scholarship and debate centers on how the instruments themselves may reinforce racial disparities and on how their opaque algorithms may frustrate due process interests. This Article highlights three underlying challenges that have yet to receive the attention they require. First, today’s risk assessment tools lead to what we term “zombie predictions.” That is, predictive models trained on data from older bail regimes are blind to the risk- reducing benefits of recent bail reforms. This may cause predictions that systematically overestimate risk. Second, “decision-making frameworks” that mediate the court system’s use of risk estimates embody crucial moral judgments, yet currently escape appropriate public scrutiny. Third, in the long-term, these tools risk giving an imprimatur of scientific objectivity to ill-defined concepts of “dangerousness,” may entrench the Supreme Court’s historically recent blessing of preventive detention for dangerousness, and could pave the way for an increase in preventive detention. Pretrial risk assessment instruments, as they are currently built and used, cannot safely be assumed to support reformist goals of reducing incarceration and addressing racial and poverty-based inequities. This Article contends that system stakeholders who share those goals are best off focusing their reformist energies on other steps that can more directly promote decarceral changes and greater equity in pretrial justice. Where pretrial risk assessments remain in use, this Article proposes two vital steps that should be seen as minimally necessary to address the challenges surfaced. First, where they choose to embrace risk assessment, jurisdictions must carefully define what they wish to predict, gather and use local, recent data, and continuously update and calibrate any model on which they choose to rely, investing in a robust data infrastructure where necessary to meet these goals. Second, instruments and frameworks must be subject to strong, inclusive governance.