The Value of ‘Integration’ in European Law—The Implications of the Förster Case on Legal Assessment of Integration Conditions for Third‐Country Nationals

The European Court of Justice's Förster judgment can lead to a reduction of legal uncertainty caused by integration requirements for third‐country nationals. The judgment has created a strong ‘assumption of integration’ after five years of legal residence because it equalised integration requirements for European students to access the welfare system of host Member States with a requirement of five years legal residence. Almost all pieces of European legal migration law also contain five‐year residence requirements after which the status of third‐country nationals improves. However, these improvements are mostly subjected to the fulfilment of additional integration requirements. To keep coherence with European law, courts will not be able to disregard the Förster‘assumption of integration’ when assessing the legality of integration conditions for third‐country nationals put in place in addition to residence requirements.     

Do Harsher Prison Conditions Reduce Recidivism? A Discontinuity-based Approach

We estimate the causal effect of prison conditions on recidivismrates by exploiting a discontinuity in the assignment of federalprisoners to security levels. Inmates housed in higher securitylevels are no less likely to recidivate than those housed inminimum security; if anything, our estimates suggest that harsherprison conditions lead to more post-release crime. Though smallsample sizes limit the precision of our estimates, we arguethat our findings may have important implications for prisonpolicy, and that our methodology is likely to be applicablebeyond the particular context we study.     

Cause and response: vulnerability and climate in the Anthropocene

Causal analysis of vulnerability aims to identify root causes of crises so that transformative solutions might be found. Yet root-cause analysis is absent from most climate response assessments. Framings for climate-change risk analysis often locate causality in hazards while attributing some causal weight to proximate social variables such as poverty or lack of capacity. They rarely ask why capacity is lacking, assets are inadequate or social protections are absent or fail. This contribution frames vulnerability and security as matters of access to assets and social protections. Assets and social protections each have their own context-contingent causal chains. A key recursive element in those causal chains is the ability – means and powers – of vulnerable people to influence the political economy that shapes their assets and social protections. Vulnerability is, as Sen rightly observed, linked to the lack of freedom – the freedom to influence the political economy that shapes these entitlements. In the Anthropocene, human causes of climate hazard must also now be accounted for in etiologies of disaster. However, attention to anthropogenic climate change should not occlude social causes of (and responsibility for) vulnerability – vulnerability is still produced in and by society.     

The Influence of Amicus Curiae Briefs on U.S. Supreme Court Opinion Content

We address fundamental questions about the ability of interest groups to shape public policy by examining the influence of amicus curiae briefs on U.S. Supreme Court majority opinion content. We argue that the justices will incorporate language from amicus briefs into their opinions based on the extent to which the amicus briefs contribute to their ability to make effective law and policy. Using plagiarism detection software and other forms of computer assisted content analysis, we find that the justices adopt language from amicus briefs based primarily on the quality of the brief's argument, the level of repetition in the brief, the ideological position advocated in the brief, and the identity of the amicus. These results add fresh insight into how interest groups influence the development of federal law by the Supreme Court.     

Beyond the anti-kickback statute: new entities, new theories in healthcare fraud prosecutions

The authors analyze existing and developing trends in healthcare fraud litigation. They first review the traditional use of the Medicare-Medicaid Anti-Kickback Statute to prosecute such fraudulent activity. They then consider newer theories that have been employed, or may be employed, in cases involving payors, middlemen, agents, and fiduciaries. These include the use of the Civil False Claims Act, the Federal Travel Act, and the Public Contracts Anti-Kickback (sometimes incorporating violations under state commercial bribery and similar state legislation to form the basis of a federal claim or prosecution). The Article then turns to a discussion and warning of attorneys' potential liability for a client's kickback arrangements. Finally, the Article takes a very brief look at relationships under Medicare Part D that may well prove to be a fertile area of problematic conduct, public and congressional scrutiny, and prosecutions utilizing some of these theories.