Property scholarship has long derided metes and bounds systems of land demarcation, largely accepting that standardized boundaries best facilitate economic growth. Through a case study of colonial New Haven, Connecticut, this Article suggests that metes and bounds descriptions actually provided early Americans significant social and economic benefits.
Localism discourse has long confronted a fundamental problem: how can we remain committed to decentralized decision-making while checking the excesses of local parochialism? This Essay proposes a new approach in our polarized era, emphasizing the joint role state individual rights and the often-ignored concept of the general welfare might play.
A vast divide exists in the national imagination between the racial struggles of the civil rights era and those of the present. Drawing on the work of Elizabeth Gillespie McRae and Jeanne Theoharis, this Review argues that complexifying this oversimplified history is critical to contemporary racial equality work.
The decentralized structure of the federal criminal-justice system has generated significant criticism. This Note offers a novel explanation and defense of this structure, arguing that decentralization is a feature of congressional design, not a bug of congressional abdication.
The recent protests over Confederate memorials illustrate a gap in cultural-property law. Because cultural-property law presses inexorably toward preservation, it has no framework for addressing when a nation might be justified in destroying its own cultural property. This Note provides a framework for permitting the destruction of monuments that celebrate a violation of international human rights law.
This Essay argues that section 1115 waivers in the Medicaid program have increasingly bee misused, opening the door to ideologically motivated cuts or preconditions on coverage, and suggests a response.
This Response to Andrew Woods makes two points. First, it shows why the “fragmentation” charge frequently levied against sovereignty-based approaches to internet governance is misplaced. Second, it questions the efficacy of Woods’s normative theory of judicial comity.
People who have experienced incarceration have unique insights into the criminal system—insights that are often missing from legal scholarship and criminal justice policy. This Collection begins to bridge that gap.
This Essay exposes connections between two controversial cases that unsettled two ostensibly distinct areas of constitutional law—Wayfair v. South Dakota and J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro—arguing that Wayfair’s underlying logic warrants narrowing or overruling Nicastro.
Intellectual property is not a monolith. It rewards innovators with temporary exclusive rights to their creations, and it conditions consumers’ access to such goods through proprietary pricing. Using this insight, this Article develops a more accurate framework for analyzing the innovation policy landscape than any in the existing literature.
This Article recovers an institutional experiment in the early history of the Fair Labor Standards Act as an example of democratic and egalitarian administrative law. The Act’s wage boards, the Article suggests, offer an alternative, participatory vision of governance in today’s age of growing political and social inequality.
Charles Black’s Impeachment: A Handbook has become the authoritative guide on the subject of presidential impeachment. This year, the Yale University Press published a new edition of the classic, incorporating new material by constitutional theorist Philip Bobbitt. Bobbitt’s contribution to the new edition appears in this Essay.
The DoubleJeopardy Clause prohibits the government from prosecuting or punishing adefendant multiple times for the same offense. Double jeopardy protections, however, come with a major exception. Under the dual sovereignty doctrine, different sovereign states can prosecute a defendant multiple times for thesame offense. This Note argues that the due process
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.