IUScholarWorks

DISCOVER, SHARE, AND PRESERVE RESEARCH AND CREATIVITY

IUScholarWorks

Indiana University’s institutional repository provides long-term access to the scholarly and creative work of IU faculty, students, and staff.

Communities in IUScholarWorks

Select a community to browse its collections.

Now showing 1 - 6 of 6

Recent Submissions

The 14th Circuit
(2024-05-11) Krishnan, Jayanth K.
2025 will mark the fifteenth anniversary of Professor Stephen Legomsky’s landmark article proposing “radical surgery” on American immigration adjudication. Professor Legomsky argued for creating an Article III Court of Appeals for Immigration (CAI), replacing both the Justice Department’s Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and the immigration jurisdiction of the regional circuit courts. For Professor Legomsky, his restructuring would: (1) reduce costs, delays, and needless duplications inherent in how the BIA and regional circuits functioned; (2) enhance uniformity of immigration case law; (3) ensure greater independence by a now nationwide Article III appellate court; (4) allow for this new court to regain key subject matter jurisdiction stripped in 1996; and (5) appeal to ideologically diverse stakeholders. However, as the years have passed, reformers have eschewed Professor Legomsky’s plan and pursued a different route: advocating for Congressional, Article I immigration courts. While supportive of this latter call, this study nevertheless contends that more drastic measures are required to solve the immigration adjudication crisis. It thus resurrects, defends, and – crucially – adapts Professor Legomsky’s CAI to the present moment. To begin, with the existence of the eleven regional circuit courts, the DC Circuit, and the Federal Circuit, this study refers to the proposed appellate immigration court as the 14th Circuit. More substantively, the focus is on certain queries Professor Legomsky adjacently addressed, but which are now extremely significant. For example, might a 14th Circuit put at risk favorable judgments serving as good law in places like the Second and Ninth Circuits? Why would advocates who have fought to secure the rights of immigrants in these regions cede jurisdiction to an otherwise unknown court? Furthermore, who should sit on this court? Why is such a court necessary at all? And what is the political feasibility of passing this measure today? Upon answering these questions, this study concludes that, if constructed properly, a 14th Circuit for immigration could well accomplish major reforms – at a reduced cost and with less delay. This court could also accommodate conflicting political priorities that have stifled progress and provide for a fairer process for this country’s perpetually vulnerable noncitizen population.
Tech Oligarchs and Corporate Vigilantism
(Michigan State Law Review, 2026-10-02) Marinotti, João; Lubin, Asaf
Big Tech’s unchecked power has evolved from a regulatory crisis into one concerning the rule of law itself. Shielded by the First Amendment, Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, corporate law, and contract law, technology giants have circumvented traditional government oversight, amassing a level of power that eclipses even that of some sovereign states. No longer guided by cautious boards of directors, today’s tech empires are often ruled by impulsive billionaire CEOs, who, through a single policy change or algorithmic tweak, can upend individual rights, destabilize global markets, and erode democratic governance itself. The scale of such dangers escalates as tech oligarchs inch closer to the levers of government power—occupying advisory roles, funding political campaigns, and, in some cases, directing state policy itself. What was once a culture of innovation—”moving fast and breaking things”—has metastasized into corporate vigilantism. Major platforms and their oligarchs have effectively privatized a pseudo-sovereign bundle of rights, a set of enforcement powers that range from digital dispossessions to cyber countermeasures and algorithmic bans. A rogue corporate leader, invoking the rhetoric of cybersecurity, platform integrity, or foreign cyber interference, can now leverage the unprecedented power of modern tech giants with few legal restraints. Yet the legal system already possesses the tools to rein in this unchecked power. Private law, long used to set the lawful boundaries of individual self-help, offers a doctrinal basis to distinguish between legitimate acts of corporate discretion and unlawful corporate vigilantism. This Article argues for reviving private law principles to impose meaningful constraints on tech companies’ growing pseudo sovereign authority. Only by reaffirming the doctrinal boundaries that have historically constrained private unilateral discretion can courts, legislatures, and even corporate actors themselves restore the balance between innovation, autonomy, and public accountability. If left unaddressed, the unfettered expansion of corporate vigilantism will not only entrench Big Tech’s market dominance but also erode the foundational legal principles that separate private enterprise from state power.
Reproductive Wrongful Convictions: The Making of "Unfit" Mothers
(UCLA Law Review, 2026) Beety, Valena Elizabeth
This Article draws a straight line from wrongful convictions of women in the past to criminal charges based on pregnancy and parenting behaviors today. Faulty forensic evidence and biased evidence based on sex-stereotypes have, in combination, been used to convict innocent women, particularly in situations where an accident or health event was misconstrued to be a criminal act. Seventy-four percent of known exonerated women were wrongly convicted where no crime occurred. Similarly, in criminalizing pregnancy behaviors, police, medical personnel, or prosecutors erroneously label a non-criminal event, such as a miscarriage or stillbirth, as criminal. Criminal charges are being brought against new mothers who test positive for their own legally prescribed medicine, for morphine that was given to them by the hospital for pain during labor, or for a controlled substance when the child is born healthy and unharmed. This Article conceptualizes “reproductive wrongful convictions,” and exposes how marginalized women are being labeled as “unfit” and are particularly vulnerable to these charges. Historically and today, the “unfit” label applies to women with disabilities as well as women from race and class subordinated communities. Through interviews with women wrongly convicted of harming their children, the Article includes the experiential knowledge of participants in the medical and legal systems, relying on varied epistemic backgrounds to conceptualize transforming the law. In addition, the Supreme Court’s recent case Andrew v. White demands a greater reckoning of the due process violation that occurs when courts admit character evidence that overwhelmingly relies on sex-based stereotypes and justifies incarceration of the defendant, whether she has committed the charged offense or not.
SciStory: Designing AI-Supported Inquiry in Science Learning Games
(IUScholarWorks, 2025-12-11) Humburg, Megan; Danish, Joshua; Kim, Yeojin; Hmelo-Silver, Cindy; Dragnić-Cindrić, Dalila; Ryan, Zach; Glazewski, Krista; Lester, James
This design case explores how an AI-supported, narrative-centered science learning game (SciStory: Pollinators) was designed over multiple iterations to support middle schoolers’ socioscientific learning, engagement, and persuasive writing. The case highlights how AI-driven conversational agents were designed to support student-led socioscientific inquiry, and the tensions our team explored as we integrated agents into a story game about community food systems, pollinators, and neighborhood land use.
Agentic AI at GHA: Physician Heal Thyself
(2025-09-01) Wheeler, Brad
Custom written case for MBA students to illustrate the strategic, technical, and financial decisions for uncertain investment in a major Agentic AI transformation.

This site is a Designated Archival Repository that preserves materials in their original, read-only form; as a result, some content may not meet current accessibility standards.