Northeastern University Law Review
What is a “Meaningful Opportunity?” Disparities ...

BY EILIDH CURRIE

When it comes to criminal culpability, the Supreme Court has consistently treated children in a manner different than adults. Because of this understanding, the Court has recognized that sentences of life without parole may be too harsh for minors. The Court has banned mandatory juvenile life without parole (JLWOP) but permits courts to issue discretionary JLWOP sentences. The Supreme Court also permits courts to impose lengthy sentences, often called “virtual” or “de facto” life sentences. However, when issuing these lengthy sentences, courts must ensure that a minor retains a meaningful opportunity for release. Striking this balance is a challenge for sentencing courts: how long of a sentence is too long? Which sentences equate to JLWOP? What is a meaningful opportunity?…

How Restoration and Expansion of the 1603 Grants Program Could Help Build America’s Renewable Energy Infrastructure

By Ryan J. Dobens

Many Americans are now yearning to create an energy infrastructure with renewable energy at the foundation. Environmental concerns have caused policy makers to join other advocates and provide subsidies for various renewable and energy efficient technologies through the tax code. Part I of this article reviews the history of modern energy tax incentives.  Part II discusses the efficacy of the expired grants in lieu of tax credits (“1603 Grants”) program that was adopted by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (“ARRA”), and concludes that the program was effective and should be restored.  Part III addresses the possibility of expanding the 1603 Grants program to individuals who wish to pursue renewable energy at their personal residences. The restoration of the 1603 Grant program—and the extension of such grants to individuals—would even the playing field for American families interested in pursuing a greener future and continue progress toward making U.S. energy consumption sustainable over the long term.

Overprescribed and Underserved: Psychotropic Medication and Foster Care in the U.S.

By Jessalyn Schwartz

By the time children and adolescents reach the foster care system, they have experienced myriad challenges which may cause compound mental health and behavioral issues. Accordingly, foster care youth often have trouble understanding their situations, managing their emotions, communicating their needs, and advocating for their own well-being. These children are being prescribed medications too often, too young, and far too much. Approximately thirty-seven percent of children in the foster care system take at least one psychotropic medication, with approximately twenty percent of these children taking two or more medications at any given time. In many states, the percentages are much higher and the use of medication increases with the age of the child.

Kid Row: The Case Against Sentencing Juveniles to Life Without the Possibility of Parole

By Eliza Lockhart-Jenks

In June 2012, the United States Supreme Court acknowledged that adults and juveniles—even those convicted of major offenses—are fundamentally different and entitled to different sentencing standards.  In Miller v. Alabama , the Supreme Court decreed that courts must consider mitigating factors in a juvenile’s life when the juvenile faces a possible sentence of life without parole (LWOP); in other words, mandatory LWOP sentences will no longer apply to minors.  Before this decision, state legislatures could and, in many cases, did mandate LWOP sentences for certain crimes, regardless of the offender’s age.  In Miller, the Supreme Court held that the failure to consider mitigating factors, including age, when sentencing a juvenile to LWOP constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. 

The NFL in Los Angeles? Eminent Domain and the Revitalization of Rule 4.3: A look at tools that may keep a city from losing its NFL team

By Michael J. Cullen

Sports fans are well-accustomed to their franchises relocating. In the National Basketball Association, it is why a city with no lakes - Los Angeles, California - has a team called the Lakers, and a city not known for its jazz scene - Salt Lake City, Utah - has a team called the Jazz. In the 1990s, the National Football League (NFL) saw a huge upswing in relocations. In particular, 1995 was a significant year for NFL franchise relocation: the Cleveland Browns moved to Baltimore and became the Ravens, the Houston Oilers moved to Nashville and became the Titans, and the Raiders returned to their original home in Oakland. Most NFL fans are aware of Los Angeles’ attempts to be the destination of the next franchise relocation. While relocating to Los Angeles would undoubtedly increase a team’s profits, franchise relocation negatively affects fans and the city losing its team. “This is the picture of the current NFL: the owners make demands upon their cities for public subsidies, and if their demands are not met, they flee to another city willing to offer them favorable terms and unlimited control.”

The Shaky Foundation of Expansion in the Face of Drought: Reclaimed Water Encouraging Irrational Growth

By Clark Wheeler

This article seeks to supplement the ongoing debate concerning reclaimed wastewater programs. Highlighting a series of legal challenges to a snow-making program in Arizona using reclaimed water, I argue that widespread reclaimed water usage is problematic, both as a potential environmental calamity and as a support mechanism for irrational urban development. Reclaimed water may ultimately serve as a supplemental resource that, when combined with subsidized water programs, allows municipalities to continue to grow without recognizing the true cost of water resources. If the summer drought of 2012 is a forecast of future events, then challenging decisions lie ahead concerning the growth of cities as their fresh water sources evaporate. Legal challenges against reclaimed water systems will allow municipalities and states to begin stricter regulation of water usage in arid climates, and may address the impending reality of long-term drought conditions in a rational manner.

Flood Plans: A Comparison of New Jersey’s Use of the National Flood Insurance Program and New York’s Buyout Program

By Ariella N. Sparr

In the wake of Hurricane Sandy, state and federal governments are creating plans to protect coastlines from future devastation with uncertain outcomes for homeowners. The Governors of two of the hardest hit states, New York and New Jersey, have announced two different plans for the devastated property on their shores. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie proposed that homeowners either spend tens of thousands of dollars to elevate their homes, or pay up to $31,000 per year for federally-funded flood insurance. In lieu of federal flood insurance, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo proposed a buyout program for certain coastal areas destroyed by the storm. Under this plan, Governor Cuomo proposes to offer the pre-devastation market value of the property to homeowners, and re-purpose the land as dunes, wetlands, natural buffers or public parkland to protect the coast. While homeowners could benefit from both plans, the question arises, which of these programs offers better remedies to homeowners?