Adoption Across Race: Disparate Treatment of Native Americans and African Americans

David Papke has a new paper on SSRN that contrasts the laws governing the adoption of Native American and African American children by whites. Once rare in this country, “transracial” adoptions became common over the latter decades of the twentieth-century. Such adoptions sparked concerns within both Native American and African American communities, but the legal system responded to the concerns quite differently. On the Native American side, the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 gave preference to Native Americans in custody contests over Native American children and undercut state-court jurisdiction over such proceedings in favor of tribal courts. But, on the African American side, the Howard M. Metzenbaum Multiethnic Placement Act has established a “color-blind” standard for adoptions. David observes, “Race is not supposed to be a consideration when whites seek to adopt African American children, and it has become increasingly common for whites to ‘adopt across race.’” (9)

What explains the different legal treatment of the two types of transracial adoption? David suggests two answers. The “formal” answer “involves the unique status of Native Americans under the law of the United States,” which regards tribes as sovereign nations of sorts. But a “more fundamental explanation” may have something to do with the unique force of racist attitudes towards African Americans and related negative beliefs regarding their parenting abilities.

David’s paper is entitled “Transracial Adoption: The Adoption of Native American and African American Children by Whites.”

Continue ReadingAdoption Across Race: Disparate Treatment of Native Americans and African Americans

The Uncertain Future of Multiemployer Benefit Plans

Multiemployer benefit plans, writes Paul Secunda, “once represented one of the greatest triumphs in American labor relations in providing employee benefits to workers of small employers in itinerant industries (such as in building and construction, trucking, retail, and the entertainment industry).” In a new paper on SSRN, Paul explores three major challenges facing multiemployer plans. First, in the wake of the global recession of 2007-2009, “benefit plans are increasingly underfunded and in danger of becoming insolvent.” Second, as a result of health benefits that are perceived as overly generous, some plans may face a large new excise tax under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010. Finally, recent judicial decisions have created uncertainty and increased liability risks when plan trustees deny claims.

Paul considers a variety of policy responses to some of these challenges, but it appears there are no easy fixes.

Paul’s paper, entitled “The Forgotten Employee Benefit Crisis: Multiemployer Benefit Plans on the Brink,” will appear in the Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy.

Continue ReadingThe Uncertain Future of Multiemployer Benefit Plans

New Issue of IP Law Review

The latest issue of the Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review is now out in print.  The contents include:

  • Mark Lemley’s Nies Lecture, “Can the Patent Office Be Fixed?”
  • Ysolde Gendreau’s lecture on copyright reform in Canada, “Canada and the Three-Step Test: A Step in Which Direction?”
  • Dalila Hoover’s article, “Coercion Will Not Protect Trademark Owners in China, but an Understanding of China’s Culture Will: A Lesson the United States Has to Learn”
  • Benedetta Ubertazzi’s article, “Intellectual Property Rights and Exclusive (Subject Matter) Jurisdiction: Between Private and Public International Law”
  • Brian Jacobs’ comment on intellectual property as security for financing
  • Colin Shanahan’s comment on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement
  • Syvil Shelbourne’s comment on rule of reason patent misuse analysis
  • Nicholas Smith’s comment on Medimmune v. Genentech

Abstracts and links for full-text downloads are here.  Congratulations to the editors for bringing Volume 15 to a successful conclusion!

Continue ReadingNew Issue of IP Law Review