An increasing number of judges argue that courts are flatly prohibited from taking class into account when interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment. Contesting that claim, this Article traces the persistence of class-related concerns in Fourteenth Amendment doctrine from the Warren Court to the present day.
From the early twentieth century to the present, the concept of transparency in American law has drifted across the political spectrum. Originally linked with progressive causes, it is now associated primarily with libertarian or neoliberal aims. This Article traces this multigenerational transformation.
This Note argues that the Constitution gives Congress exclusive authority over office creation. This exclusive power has important and surprising implications for a series of live constitutional questions, such as the constitutionality of qualifications clauses, for-cause removal provisions, and temporary appointments, as well as the employee/officer distinction.
Federal courts have long resolved intercircuit suppression disputes using a choice-of-law framework and applying the precedent of the circuit where the search occurred. This Comment shows that this approach is fundamentally mistaken. Choice-of-law problems only arise when different laws, not different interpretations of the same law, are involved.
Can President Trump unilaterally withdraw the United States from any and all international agreements to which the United States is a party? This Essay argues that constitutional, functional, and comparative-law considerations dictate that the answer is a resounding “no.”
The 2017 Tax Act, sometimes called the Tax Cuts & Jobs Act, has been heralded by some as historic reform and by others as Armageddon. This Collection analyzes the Act, exploring the process by which it was passed, the values that undergird its policies, and how specific provisions will affect
The American Law Institute is currently engaged in drafting a new restatement on the subject of Conflict of Laws. In this exchange, Lea Brilmayer & Daniel B. Listwa debate the merits of the new restatement with Kermit Roosevelt III & Bethan R. Jones.
Through an analysis of the challenges facing the “new working class,” this Essay argues that in order to advance their clients’ interests, progressive lawyers must redefine public interest law such that it centers on a commitment to developing left political power.
Most criminal system reform efforts neglect the collateral consequences experienced by individuals with pending criminal cases. This Essay argues that meaningful reform requires enhanced protections for current employees and applicants with open criminal cases.
Conversation about Masterpiece Cakeshop has focused on the Court’s holding that decisionmakers must treat those seeking religious exemptions with respect. This Essay brings to light the case’s broader guidance on religious exemptions under the Free Exercise Clause and what that means for judicial and legislative actors going forward.
The American Law Institute is currently engaged in drafting a new restatement on the subject of Conflict of Laws. In this exchange, Lea Brilmayer & Daniel B. Listwa debate the merits of the new restatement with Kermit Roosevelt III & Bethan R. Jones.
The #MeToo movement has prompted a national dialogue about sexual harassment. This Companion Collection, launched in collaboration with the Stanford Law Review, aims to draw lessons from the #MeToo movement for activists, scholars, policymakers, lawyers, and judges. Across the two journals, the Collection offers twelve scholars’ insights on the
Conversation about Masterpiece Cakeshop has focused on the Court’s holding that decisionmakers must treat those seeking religious exemptions with respect. This Essay brings to light the case’s broader guidance on religious exemptions under the Free Exercise Clause and what that means for judicial and legislative actors going forward.