Jason Iuliano

An Empirical Assessment of Student Loan Discharges and the Bankruptcy Undue Hardship Standard

Jason Iuliano — Sun, 14 Aug 2011 15:55:22 PDT

For years, academics have asserted that the undue hardship standard for discharging student loans in bankruptcy is both unduly burdensome and applied in an inconsistent manner. By reviewing a nationwide sample of more than two hundred student loan bankruptcy disputes, this study shows that neither criticism is warranted. First, judges granted hardship discharges to nearly forty percent of the debtors who sought them. Second, successful debtors differed from their unsuccessful counterparts in three important respects. They were (1) less likely to be employed, (2) more likely to have a medical hardship, and (3) more likely to have lower annual incomes the year before they filed for bankruptcy. The real problem with undue hardship is not its harsh requirements or inconsistent application; rather, it is that more people do not seek to discharge their student loan debt. Incredibly, only 0.1 percent of student loan debtors in bankruptcy attempt to discharge their student loans. This statistic is even more surprising in light of the fact that a debtor does not need to hire an attorney to be successful. In fact, debtors without an attorney were more likely to discharge their student loans than debtors with an attorney. Ultimately, the low rate of filing shows that, although the system is broken, its flaws stem from a failing not previously discussed in the literature. Simply put, the student loan problem would be much less severe if more bankrupt debtors actually tried to discharge their student loans.

Is Legal File Sharing Legal? An Analysis of the Berne Three-Step Test

Jason Iuliano — Mon, 16 Aug 2010 02:55:11 PDT

“Just legalize file sharing.” This solution, long favored by peer-to-peer users everywhere, has recently been embraced by many academics. Although the phrase conjures up visions of a lawless wasteland where copyright is meaningless, such is not the case. Scholars have managed to develop alternative compensation systems that both legalize file sharing and increase artists’ earnings. These plans are well constructed, but one important aspect has been given little attention: under international law, is it legal for a country to legalize file sharing? Since the U.S. is a signatory to several copyright treaties, all domestic reforms have to accord with our international obligations. In particular, any limitations on copyright must pass the Berne three-step test, a notoriously nebulous standard. This Article argues that a carefully constructed alternative compensation system would pass the test and satisfy international copyright law. To reach this conclusion, the paper develops a framework for the Berne three-step test that has applications beyond the file sharing domain.

Killing Us Sweetly: How to Take Industry out of the FDA

Jason Iuliano — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 23:11:07 PST

For more than a century, the Food and Drug Administration has claimed to protect the public health. During that time, it has actually been placing corporate profits above consumer safety. Nowhere is this corruption more evident than in the approval of artificial sweeteners. FDA leaders’ close ties to the very industry they were supposed to be regulating present a startling picture. Ignoring warnings from both independent scientists and their own review panels, FDA decision makers let greed guide their actions. They approved carcinogenic sweeteners such as saccharin, aspartame, and sucralose while simultaneously banning the natural herb stevia because it would cut into industry profits. This Article proposes two reforms that can end these corrupt practices and take industry out of the FDA. By strengthening conflict of interest regulations and preventing companies from participating in safety trials, the FDA will be able to gain the independence it needs in order to regulate the food and drug industries.

Eliminating Earmarks: Why the Congressional Line Item Vote can Succeed Where the Presidential Line Item Veto Failed

Jason Iuliano — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 02:02:00 PDT

Congressional earmarking is an issue of growing concern in the United States. Although, at present, it only accounts for a small percentage of federal expenditures, recent trends indicate that such pork-barrel spending will soon be a significant contributor to the national debt. The federal government must work to control this problem before it becomes unmanageable. One recent attempt to reduce the number of earmarks was the Line Item Veto Act of 1996. However, on both constitutional grounds and in practice, this measure failed. Instead of acknowledging these shortcomings and crafting innovative solutions, lawmakers have repeatedly introduced bills that would once again grant the president the line item veto power. This Article, in contrast, develops an entirely new process — the congressional line item vote. This reform forces House members to vote on individual provisions of a bill. If implemented, the congressional line item vote would decrease the deficit, eliminate earmarks, reduce log-rolling, and increase congressional accountability.