Print Archive

In recent years, many states passed constitutional amendments prohibiting modern day slavery in the form of forced prison labor allowed by the Thirteenth Amendment. However, the state amendments' text alone has not ended prison slavery in those states. This Article examines why. It grounds its discussion in the history of American slavery after the Civil War as well as the various attempts of legislation, litigation, and constitutional amendments to dismantle forced prison labor. Drawing on this discussion, it suggests how organizers might craft these amendments and how judges and lawyers should interpret them. It argues that, ultimately, amending constitutional text alone is not enough. To achieve their goals amendments must work in tandem with litigation, governmental structural reform, and the inevitable political battles that arise over the shape of the criminal legal system.

Historic discrimination in the process of siting and constructing physical infrastructure has sacrificed the Black communities that bear the costs associated with new roads, power lines, and sewage plants while receiving few of the benefits. This Essay advances a "community equity" framework to recognize and protect the sources of value that people hold in their communities. This approach looks beyond the traditional domains of civil rights and land use law. Instead, it embraces analogies in public nuisance and common law torts doctrines as mechanisms for recognizing community harms above and beyond the aggregate of individual claims.

In Woodford v. Ngo , the Supreme Court cemented the judicial assumption that most prisons have effective and navigable internal grievance procedures within the doctrinal rules surrounding the Prison Litigation Reform Act's (PLRA) exhaustion requirement. Reliance on the assumption has contributed to a body of PLRA exhaustion doctrine that maps poorly onto the factual realities of the prison context and requires constant clarification by the Supreme Court. Indeed, the Supreme Court has been called upon twice in the past decade to sort out the mess of doctrinal rules governing PLRA exhaustion, first in Ross v. Blake and just this year in Perttu v. Richards . Examining the Court's path to Ross and Perttu , this Comment argues that the Court's reliance on the assumption mandated in Woodford blinded it to the potential constitutional problems generated by Ross, which led to the circuit split at issue in Perttu . Thus, the Court must clarify the boundaries of PLRA exhaustion for the second time in fewer than ten years. Efficiency is one of the core purposes of PLRA exhaustion, and the Supreme Court’s perpetual cycle of clarifying (and reclarifying, and reclarifying again) its construction of a single statutory provision fails to serve that end.

In Snyder v. United States , the Supreme Court held that a federal criminal statute covers only bribes, not gratuities. The key issue in factually similar cases is whether a quid pro quo agreement occurred. The Snyder Court provided no guidance on this issue. This Comment responds by turning to antitrust law. Antitrust faces the same problem as bribery law: determining whether an illegal agreement occurred when both parties benefit from it. Antitrust has developed several “plus factors” to explain what circumstantial evidence suffices to prove an illegal agreement. This Comment uses that antitrust framework to propose ten bribery plus factors.

In 1977, a company convicted of conspiring with the mob asked President Carter for a pardon. The government speculated that the President could so exercise the pardon power, but ultimately no pardon ever issued. Nearly fifty years later, President Trump has pardoned a company convicted of violating the Bank Secrecy Act. People are again speculating that the pardon power covers companies, but few can offer evidence either way. History shows that the pardon power covers companies. Before the Founding, the King would often pardon corporations. Both the city of London and the Massachusetts Bay Company were pardoned before the Founders were even born. This tradition was the background against which the Pardon Clause and many of its state analogs were drafted. That the President can pardon companies might feel surprising or even unsettling. But the prerogative fits comfortably into the nation's separation of powers. Congress can make exercising the power less attractive by withholding refunded fines or shifting crimes to civil infractions. These checks come with more tradeoffs when exercised int he context of human beings, which might explain why Congress has not exercised them so far.

In 1977, a company convicted of conspiring with the mob asked President Carter for a pardon. The government speculated that the President could so exercise the pardon power, but ultimately no pardon ever issued. Nearly fifty years later, President Trump has pardoned a company convicted of violating the Bank Secrecy Act. People are again speculating that the pardon power covers companies, but few can offer evidence either way. History shows that the pardon power covers companies. Before the Founding, the King would often pardon corporations. Both the city of London and the Massachusetts Bay Company were pardoned before the Founders were even born. This tradition was the background against which the Pardon Clause and many of its state analogs were drafted. That the President can pardon companies might feel surprising or even unsettling. But the prerogative fits comfortably into the nation's separation of powers. Congress can make exercising the power less attractive by withholding refunded fines or shifting crimes to civil infractions. These checks come with more tradeoffs when exercised int he context of human beings, which might explain why Congress has not exercised them so far.

When prisoner officials burden the free exercise rights of prisoners, prisoners can seek recourse under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. However, due to the specialized and restrictive nature of prisons, courts adjudicate these claims under a reasonableness test set out in the case Turner v. Sadfley instead of a strict scrutiny standard. While circuits agree on using the Turner test for prisoner free exercise claims, there is a deep circuit split on the proper threshold test for these types of claims. While some circuits hold that inmates need to show that their religious practice was substantially burdened, other circuits hold that inmates just need to show that their religious practice was sincere. These threshold tests produce significant differences in how prisoner free exercise claims are litigated in court. After exploring the relevant Supreme Court guidance, this Comment aims to settle the split by examining each threshold test on its respective merits, considering neutral criteria such as screening ability, adherence to judicial capacity, and workability.

The constitutional text seems to be missing a host of governmental powers that we take for granted. The Supreme Court has suggested the United States automatically acquired powers “equal to the right and power of the other members of the international family”—powers that inhered in the government “as necessary concomitants of nationality.” Although the Curtiss-Wright decision has been heavily criticized, this Article shows that the “concomitants of nationality” idea reflects an important and longstanding feature of U.S. constitutional law: a presumption that the nation acquired the full complement of sovereign powers allocated to nations under international law.

In this Article, Yaron Covo argues that disability rights law in the United States is shaped not only by civil rights statutes but also by contract law doctrines. Contract law surfaces in the disability rights context through judicial determinations of accommodations negotiations and spending clause language in disability rights statutes. The Article argues that this intertwining has eroded rights under statutes meant to promote equality and protect vulnerable classes. The Article concludes with two recommendations: replacing the “individualized” negotiation model with a uniform model and adding certain mandatory rules and defaults in the disability rights context.

The widely understood alignment between political ideology and legal methodology—conservativism and constraint versus liberalism and discretion—explains judicial behavior with diminishing accuracy. In this Essay, Richard M. Re describes a "legal realignment" comprising moves toward conservative discretion and liberal constraint at the U.S. Supreme Court. The Essay develops a model of ideological change at the Court by describing the tendency for governing coalitions and opposition parties to embrace discretion and constraint, respectively. The Essay continues by detailing the mechanisms through which individuals and generations of legal thinkers undergo ideological shifts before concluding with what the model portends for the U.S. judiciary.

The Free Exercise Clause is a broadly worded constitutional prohibition against government intrusion on religious exercise. To construct limits, courts have consistently required government officials to demonstrate the necessity of state action burdening religion. Yet government officials regularly fail to produce evidence of necessity, leaving judges to intuit or assume whether necessity exists. In this Comment, Brady Earley offers a better way. Using a method known as difference-in-differences (DiD), lawmakers can draw upon the experience of existing state laws to enact laws justified with evidence. The Comment demonstrates the value of DiD with a current free exercise controversy involving the Old Order Amish and their objection to Ohio’s flashing light requirement for buggies. Applying DiD to this conflict reveals that Ohio’s buggy light law led to an estimated 23% reduction in buggy-related crashes compared to Michigan and Kentucky—states with less restrictive buggy requirements. Beyond this case study, the Comment also discusses how DiD can help address recent Supreme Court conflicts over tax exemptions for religious organizations, LGBTQ-themed books in schools, and religious charter schools. These examples grapple with the problems and the showcase the possibilities of a data-driven method to address necessity in free exercise.

Complete preemption is a jurisdictional doctrine in which a federal statute so wholly envelops certain state law claims that those claims effectively cease to exist. Aside from an explicit complete preemption hook, the Supreme Court has recognized just one way for a federal statute to completely preempt state law claims: it must provide an exclusive federal remedy and also have a special nature that makes it extra federal. In this Comment, Ryan Jain-Liu tracks the historical evolution of U.S. bankruptcy to make this second showing. In doing so, this Comment observes two entwined trends in the history of U.S. bankruptcy: bankruptcy simultaneously became more remedial—and thus more voluntary—as the federal government asserted increased control over bankruptcy law. The dual developments toward bankruptcy-as-remedy and bankruptcy-as-federal combine to provide involuntary debtors special protection and to give involuntary bankruptcy a special federal nature. Finally, this Comment expands on the case study of involuntary bankruptcy to argue that historical evolution can form the basis for recognizing an area of law’s special federal nature and support application of the complete preemption doctrine to novel contexts.