BREAKING THROUGH THE SPEECH OR DEBATE CLAUSE SHIELD: HOLDING LAWMAKERS ACCOUNTABLE FOR INSIDER TRADING
Lia R. Newman
Congress trades on secrets. Then it hides behind shields it built for itself. Thirteen years after passing the STOCK Act, lawmakers continue to buy and sell stocks in sectors they oversee—often within days of closed-door briefings or pivotal legislative actions. Yet no successful prosecution has followed. While the Speech or Debate Clause––which Members of Congress improperly hide behind––offers one layer of protection for Members of Congress, it is not the sole barrier to accountability. More fundamentally, Congress has created an oversight system that is inherently flawed: the STOCK Act relies on an ethics framework that is self-written, self-investigated, and selfunderenforced. To pierce this shield, I propose a two-part enforcement model: (1) a conflict-of-interest-based presumption that attaches when lawmakers trade around sensitive legislative activity without recusal or blackout participation, and (2) an evidentiary strategy that builds insider trading cases using circumstantial indicators, avoiding any reliance on protected legislative acts.
Virginia Journal of Criminal Law Volume 12
For fifty years, federal laws criminalizing the possession of a firearm by a felon have unfairly targeted communities of color by design and application. In 2022, the Supreme Court created a new test for the validity of a firearm regulation under the Second Amendment. The government must now demonstrate that challenged laws are consistent with our nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. This test exposes felon-in-possession laws to constitutional challenges, which have been brought in great volume nationwide with mixed success. This Note compiles the arguments used by the federal government to establish felon-in-possession laws as consistent with historical tradition and presents multiple counterarguments for each line of reasoning. A well-prepared defense attorney can use these counterarguments to dismiss the criminal charges that lead to the annual incarceration of thousands.
A DEFENDER’S GUIDE TO DISMISSING FELON-IN-POSSESSION CHARGES
Jimmy Donlon
A BUREAUCRAT VERSUS THE MOST DANGEROUS MAN IN AMERICA
Mitchell A. Del Bianco
This Article recounts how the policy entrepreneurship of Harry J. Anslinger’s policy entrepreneurship made federal drug enforcement policy and how his shadow loomed large over one of the era’s twentieth century’s most flamboyant notorious defendants: Dr. Timothy Leary, the countercultural provocateur branded by President Richard Nixon as “the most dangerous man in America.” Even after Leary’s Supreme Court victory overturned struck down provisions of the Marihuana Tax Act, Anslinger’s legacy ensured that Leary, like many others, remained ensnared in a system purpose-built for the punishment of drug offenses. Through the entwined stories of Anslinger and Leary, this article reveals how individual bureaucrats can shape law and policy, harness administrative power, and outlast their own institutions. Far from being inevitable, America’s war on drugs emerged from the ambitions and idiosyncrasies of a bureaucrat who turned a small agency into a juggernaut.