Although some accept that excessive rents are just part of the cost of doing business in an urban area, others cry out “the rent is ‘too damn high.’” In the face of vacant storefronts and constant churn, small business advocates are increasingly turning to a common residential affordable housing tool: rent stabilization laws. The most developed proposal, New York City’s Commercial Rent Stabilization bill (“NYC Commercial Rent Stabilization”) gained the support of a majority of city councilmembers in late 2021 and remains active in the current session. This note will explore the legality of commercial rent stabilization based on the history of legal challenges to past residential and commercial rent regulations.
Over the past three decades, neuroscience has been increasingly presented as evidence in courtrooms. Neuro-evidence, a type of evidence testified to by neuroscience experts in criminal trials, has been not only featured in empirical and law review journals, but also captured in mainstream news articles. The relationship between neuroscience and law has generated many new and provocative questions for legal decision-making research. Concerns around the potential biasing effects or misleading persuasiveness of neuro-evidence on jurors’ perceptions and decisions have emerged. As a result, empirical studies have tested a variety of conditions to disentangle the specific influence of neuro-evidence on decision-making processes in the
The United States government needs to reform its ethical structure regarding the fringe benefits and conflict of interest laws that accompany taking on the mantle of leadership, because there is “much more to [the] high standard of public officials than merely staying within the law . . . It is a question for moral purity in public service.” In short,
If the current state of politics in America could be boiled down to done word, that word would be “polarized.” Democrats and Republicans alike are becoming increasingly divided on many of the key issues facing the country, such as the state of the economy, climate change, and racial justice. During the 2020 election, nearly 90% of both Biden and Trump supporters believed that if the opposing candidate were to win, it would lead to lasting harm to the U.S..