Citizens All Along: Derivative Citizenship, Unlawful Entry, and the Former Immigration and Nationality Act
- Share The University of Chicago Law Review | Citizens All Along: Derivative Citizenship, Unlawful Entry, and the Former Immigration and Nationality Act on Facebook
- Share The University of Chicago Law Review | Citizens All Along: Derivative Citizenship, Unlawful Entry, and the Former Immigration and Nationality Act on Twitter
- Share The University of Chicago Law Review | Citizens All Along: Derivative Citizenship, Unlawful Entry, and the Former Immigration and Nationality Act on Email
- Share The University of Chicago Law Review | Citizens All Along: Derivative Citizenship, Unlawful Entry, and the Former Immigration and Nationality Act on LinkedIn
The author wishes to thank Aaron Galbraith for his outstanding data analysis contributions. The author also wishes to thank William Eskridge, Abbe Gluck, Anita Krishnakumar, Nicholas Parrillo, Josh Chafetz, Alexander Zhang, and all the participants in the Legislation Roundtable at the Georgetown University Law Center, the Legislation Colloquium at the Georgetown University Law Center, and the works in progress workshop at the Joseph F. Rice School of Law.
We live in a republic of amended statutes. In each Congress, our laws are amended tens of thousands of times. Individual statutes make amendments that number in the thousands. As a result, the amended statute has become the central democratic text of our age—a remarkable development for a type of document unknown at the Founding. Yet the amended statute has been relegated to an afterthought in legal theory. This is incredible neglect for an essential source of modern law—one that anchors innumerable rights in U.S. society. In this Article, Jesse M. Cross demonstrates that, instead, the amended statute belongs at the center of public law. To that end, he undertakes three projects with respect to the amended statute: documenting, theorizing, and interpreting.
This Case Note argues that categorizing college athletes as employees would, under a faithful application of Title IX and the court’s reasoning in Johnson, take wage payments outside the purview of Title IX’s equal opportunity requirement for athletes. Instead, Title IX as applied to college employees would govern, along with the other relevant employment discrimination laws. Under these statutes, it would likely be permissible for colleges to pay athletes in revenue-generating sports more than those athletes in nonrevenue sports.
She thanks Henry Gilchrist, Timothy Burke, Kimberly Burke, and Alexis Berg for their support, and the University of Chicago Law Review Online team for all their hard work.
This Case Note explores the possibility that, in a world where TikTok is banned or heavily regulated, individual TikTok users could sue states under a Takings Clause theory. Any such cases would have to wrestle with two core questions (1) whether the account holders hold an actionable property interest in their accounts; and (2) if so, whether permanently and totally depriving users of access to their accounts constitutes a taking.