Disinherited by the State? Civil Asset Forfeiture and Successors’ Rights in Connecticut
Antonella Portugal
Civil asset forfeiture (CAF) allows the government to seize property suspected of being connected to criminal activity, often before any criminal conviction is secured. This Note examines the scope of CAF laws in Connecticut, with the aim of ascertaining what rights, if any, successors have to reclaim property seized but not yet forfeited at the time of the owner’s death. Tracing the legislative history and judicial interpretation of CAF in Connecticut, I synthesize the current legal landscape as to the rights of claimants in forfeiture proceedings. While Connecticut has taken steps to reform its CAF statutes and the courts have addressed key constitutional challenges, I argue that the current CAF regime insufficiently protects successors’ rights and exacerbates systemic inequities. CAF disproportionately impacts race–class subjugated communities, particularly within the context of the War on Drugs and federal equitable sharing programs. Connecticut lawmakers should look toward addressing these key social issues by moving away from CAF proceedings, protecting the rights of innocent heirs, and eliminating the financial incentives in CAF practice that perpetuate inequity.
Read more here.
The (Quorum) Call is Coming from Inside the House: Incongruity Between the Current Interpretation of the Quorum Clause and the Supreme Court’s First Congress Canon
Sam Mahler
Since the start of the twenty-first century, Congress members have faced more threats to their safety than at any other point in American history. Up to this point, none of the attacks have been successful in killing a majority of the members. However, such a prospect comes with the possibility of a reality where all Congressional action is stalled until replacement elections are held and new members are seated. (more…)
The Current State of Guardianship Law Furthering a Need for Supported Decision-Making in Connecticut
Julia R. Vassallo
Despite living in a society that values autonomy and individual thought, people with disabilities in the United States are continually subjected to oppression and discrimination, often in the name of a “well-intentioned” paternalistic desire to protect such individuals. Legally recognized protective orders, including guardianships and conservatorships, are often used to restrict the autonomy of people with disabilities, including individuals with intellectual and/or developmental disabilities, individuals with mental health disorders, and aging individuals experiencing Alzheimer’s or other degenerative diseases that have the ability to impact an individual’s cognitive functioning. While guardianships and conservatorships may be appropriate in a number of circumstances, for the majority of the disability community, such mechanisms are overbroad, stripping people with disabilities of the ability to make decisions regarding their own legal, health, financial, and personal affairs. (more…)
The Mature Minor Doctrine and COVID Vaccination in Connecticut
Brianna Cyr
The mature minor doctrine is an exception to the common law rule of parental informed consent for a child’s medical decisions. The mature minor doctrine is applicable as either doctrine or statute in some states, but not all. Connecticut currently upholds the common law view for a minor child’s medical decision-making authority. Consequently, one prominent topic of discussion in recent years deals with the Covid-19 pandemic and the public policy discussions over nationwide vaccination efforts. Many minors, children legally under the age of eighteen, are looking to make their own medical decisions when dealing with vaccination for the Coronavirus. By expanding the parameters of the mature minor doctrine, and implementing it into Connecticut statute, mature minors can be given the autonomy to acquire, or resist, vaccination despite their parent’s wishes. (more…)