Search

Donor-advised funds (DAFs) have enjoyed explosive growth in recent years, causing legislators and policy analysts to become increasingly interested in whether DAFs should be subject to more regulation and/or disclosure requirements. DAFs are a form of charitable giving in which donors transfer their cash or property to a DAF sponsor, giving up legal ownership but retaining “advisory privileges” which allow the donor (or other designated advisor) to make decisions about the investment and disbursement of DAF assets. Donors get an upfront charitable deduction because the DAF sponsor is itself a 501(c)(3) organization and the donor technically gives up dominion and control over their donation. But, because of the advisory privileges, DAFs operate in practice like a combination of a charitable investment, savings, and checking account. The donor decides whether or where to invest DAF funds and when, if ever, to disburse them to charities. This short paper examines the following arguments around DAF payout: First, and most importantly, this paper addresses the claim that DAF sponsors regularly payout in excess of 20%. Second, we apply this formula to the 2017 tax returns for all DAF sponsoring organizations, the most recent year for which a complete set of returns are available. We show that the formula used by DAF sponsors increased payout rates by 53% for all DAF sponsors (and by 56% for commercial DAF sponsors) over the payout rate that would have been derived using the proper method for calculating payout. Third, we explore the relatively new concept of flow rate. Finally, we explore how the existing measurements of DAF payout and flow rates overstate their benefits to charity because of the failure to account for DAF-to-DAF transfers.

The United States is currently trying to manage a fast-moving public health crisis due to the coronavirus outbreak (COVID-19). The economic and financial ramifications of the outbreak are serious. This Working Paper discusses these ramifications and identifies three interrelated but potentially conflicting policy priorities at stake in managing the economic and financial fallout of the COVID-19 crisis: (1) providing social insurance to individuals and families in need; (2) managing systemic economic and financial risk; and (3) encouraging critical spatial behaviors to help contain COVID-19 transmission. The confluence of these three policy considerations and the potential conflicts among them make the outbreak a significant and unique regulatory challenge for policymakers, and one for which the consequences of getting it wrong are dire. This Working Paper—which will be continually updated to reflect current developments—will analyze the major legislative and other policy initiatives that are being proposed and enacted to manage the economic and financial aspects of the COVID-19 crisis by examining these initiatives through the lens of these three policy priorities. It starts by analyzing the provisions of H.R. 6201 (the “Families First Coronavirus Responses Act”) passed by the house on March 14, 2020. By doing so, this Working Paper provides an analytical framework for evaluating these initiatives.

In 2017, the Federal Communications Commission adopted the Restoring Internet Freedom Order (RIF Order), which repealed the Commission’s two-year-old net neutrality restrictions. This action spawned a flurry of activity in state legislatures that sought to re-impose those restrictions at the state level and subject the RIF Order to a death by a thousand paper cuts. Nowhere was this state activity more prominent than California, where Senate Bill 822 became a vehicle for net neutrality advocates not only to resurrect the requirements of the now-defunct 2015 Open Internet Order, but also to impose additional regulations that even the Obama-era FCC had rejected. Unsurprisingly, the Justice Department challenged SB-822 in federal court in California, arguing that federal law preempted the state’s attempt to regulate the Internet from Sacramento. In response, California agreed to voluntarily stay enforcement of the statute while the D.C. Circuit heard Mozilla v. FCC, which was considering the validity of the FCC’s RIF Order. For almost two years, California’s bold net neutrality initiative has been in limbo, with supporters and critics alike waiting to see if the bill will ever amount to more than (in one commentator’s words) a “publicity stunt.” With the Mozilla litigation now complete, the day of reckoning is approaching – and the California court is likely to find that much, if not all, of SB-822 is preempted. At a minimum, the Communications Act expressly preempts most of the regulations that SB-822 places on wireless companies. More generally, the state law interferes with the carefully calibrated federal broadband policy determined in the RIF Order, and on that basis should face conflict preemption by the Supremacy Clause. These claims, which Mozilla left open, are fatal to much, if not all, of California’s attempt to regulate broadband network management practices.

What makes a constitution difficult to amend? The answer varies across jurisdictions. In the United States, for example, the threshold problem is getting two-thirds of Congress to initiate an amendment—a virtually impossibility in our present day given that Congress has a hard enough time agreeing by a simple majority to pass a simple law. In Australia and Switzerland, it is largely the combination of subnational approval and referendal ratification that complicates matters. In Canada—the subject of this paper—constitutional amendment difficulty derives from similar challenges associated with initiation and ratification but perhaps even more from the use of omnibus amendment bills that combine the good with the bad and give political actors as much a reason to vote in favour as to vote against. In this paper prepared for a symposium on “Rewriting the Canadian Constitution,” I suggest that amending the Constitution of Canada could become easier under a new single-subject rule that prohibits omnibus amendment bills but permits multiple single-amendment bills only if voted on separately and differentiated by subject-matter. Imposing a single-subject rule for constitutional amendments in Canada is likely to make the Constitution much more flexible in some important ways but perhaps much more rigid in others.

This paper examines the legal and policy relationships amongst international standards for GIs, food safety requirements, and voluntary claims related to a food’s attributes. The paper addresses those relationships within the context of international trade agreements protecting GIs, such as the 1994 TRIPS Agreement, the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), and the chapter on intellectual property and geographical indications in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) currently under negotiation. Trade agreements also discipline food safety measures and non-GI indications of quality or safety such as “organic” and “GMO-free.” Accordingly, the paper also considers the extent to which international trade agreements such as the WTO Agreements on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards (SPS Agreement) and Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) might interact with the analysis.

The American Library Association (ALA) Preservation Statistics Survey, a national survey on the preservation activities of cultural heritage institutions, was introduced in 2012 in response to the decision of the Association of Research Libraries’ (ARL) decision to discontinue its long-running preservation statistics program. This paper presents the history of both surveys, discusses the rationale for collecting national data on these activities, and how the data has been used. The paper also includes key results, derived from analysis of both surveys. The surveys suggest that institutional support for preservation activities has declined significantly since its peak in the early 1990s. Preservation programs continue to focus on text-based materials and seem to employ fewer nonprofessional staff than they did five years earlier. The benefits and challenges of conducting a voluntary national survey are also discussed.

The future of economic and social rights is unlikely to resemble its past. Neglected within the human rights movement, avoided by courts, and subsumed within a conception of development in which economic growth was considered a necessary (and, by some, sufficient) condition for rights fulfillment, economic and social rights enjoyed an uncertain status in international human rights law and in the public laws of most countries. Yet today, under conditions of immense poverty, insecurity, and social distress, the rights to education, health care, housing, social security, food, water, and sanitation are increasingly at the top of the human rights agenda. Economic and social rights are now present in most of the world’s constitutions, most of the main human rights covenants, and are often given an explicit justiciable status. At the same time, as different legal traditions and regions embrace this shift, their highly integrated economies face a profound reckoning with economic justice. The future cannot be predicted; but neither can it be ignored. This paper, introducing the book’s 21 chapters, incorporates a detailed examination of constitutions, courts and international mechanisms of accountability. These signal a transformation in debates about human rights, democracy, law and development.

The Robert Morris library, the only known extant, antebellum African American–owned library, reveals its owner’s intellectual commitment to full citizenship and equality for people of color. Although studies of lawyers’ libraries have focused on large collections, this article provides a model for interpreting small libraries, particularly where few personal papers remain extant.

This paper examines the legal and policy relationship reinforcement amongst international standards for GIs, food safety standards, and other claims of quality or safety. The paper addresses those relationships within the context of international trade agreements protecting GIs, such as the 1994 TRIPS Agreement, the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), and the chapter on intellectual property and geographical indications in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) currently under negotiation. Trade agreements also discipline food safety measures and non-GI indications of quality or safety such as “organic” and “GMO-free.” Accordingly, the paper also considers the extent to which international trade agreements such as the WTO Agreements on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards (SPS Agreement) and Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) might interact with the analysis.

On paper the state-run lawyer disciplinary system in China serves multiple interests: client protection, maintaining the reputation of the legal profession, upholding the rule of law, and safeguarding the party-state authority. This Article assesses which of these interests dominates in the lawyer disciplinary process by analyzing 122 published lawyer discipline cases from Zhejiang Province from 2007-2015. These records of lawyer discipline evidence an authoritarian political logic of attorney discipline, with punishment most clearly serving to safeguard the Communist Party's rule by keeping lawyers in bounds and tightly tied to their law firms. Subordinate to this are other state interests such as upholding the legal system and rule of law, as well as private interests of protecting firm income. Client protection is a secondary interest at best, with only a handful of cases having clear client-protection goals. The dominance of party-state interests reflects not only the socialist legacy, but also the persistence of an authoritarian legality in contemporary China.

For its proponents, proportionality analysis is integral to a new "global model of constitutional rights." If economic and social rights are part of that global model, a suggestion supported by recent empirical analysis, there are numerous sites on which to establish the proportionality analysis. And yet, the comparative economic and social rights jurisprudence reveals little resembling proportionality analysis, otherwise so "ubiquitous" in constitutional rights adjudication. Instead, the adjudication of economic and social rights integrates notions of proportionality in a seemingly indirect faction, through giving substance to standards of "reasonableness," "appropriate measures," and "progressive realization...according to maximum available resources." These standards share with proportionality analysis the rejection of more content-driven, results-oriented, or rule-like conceptions of economic and social rights, such as the minimum core. But that rejection alone does not answer the question how proportionality, whether as principle or structured approach, relates to these new standards, particularly to that of reasonableness, a standard that now sets the framework for previously-absent international scrutiny on economic and social rights. In this chapter, which is part of a forthcoming edited collection, by Mark Tushnet and Vicki Jackson, on Proportionality: New Frontiers, New Challenges, I examine the relationship between reasonableness review and proportionality within the context of economic and social rights. Both standards hew closely to the ideal of a "culture of justification." Both too set out a measured assessment of the principle of proportionality, which we might summarize as the view that "the graver the impact of the decision upon the individual affected by it, the more substantial the justification that will be required." Yet they do so under methodologies that are critically different. Part I of the paper sets out the developing approach to reasona

This paper illustrates that the shareholder primacy model is still the prevailing model especially as the proponents of the stakeholder model have not come up with a theoretically sound alternative. It is argued that all corporations’ principal stakeholders should be protected by the imposition of fiduciary duties on managerial decision makers. Homogeneity on corporate boards can reinforce thinking that leads to bad decision making. The findings of various researchers into behavioural economics are considered. It is pointed out that the interests of the shareholders are rarely, if ever, the same as those of other stakeholders. This supports the idea that a shift away from shareholder primacy is needed. The trade-offs that are often made in managerial decision making are represented graphically and discussed as an analytical tool supporting the central thesis that fiduciary duties with a broader range are the way to ensure that decisions take account of all relevant interests.

This paper analyzes the constitutional events in the summer of 2012 when Romania experienced the deepest constitutional crisis in the country’s post-communist history. It discusses the implications of these events for semi-presidentialism, a regime that splits executive power between the president and the prime minister, and which has become a popular choice for constitutional design in Europe and around the world. I ask how constitutional democracies that are still at a relatively early stage of political maturity can handle the pressures of ideological splits within the executive power. Is semi-presidentialism a good choice of regime for societies in transition to constitutional democracy? The article also approaches the crisis from the perspective of the European Union. After describing its complex role in the unfolding of the Romanian crisis, I ask about the intervention tools—legal and/or political—available to the Union in the event that one of its member states is at the brink of sliding into authoritarianism.

This essay argues that the current system of music licensing must be completely overhauled. At this time, songwriters are paid a mere pittance when their work is played through Internet streaming services. The paper traces the evolution of compulsory licensing from the early 20th century, when Congress put this system in place due to concerns over the monopolization of the player piano industry, to today. This essay shows how the separation between copyrights for compositions as opposed to public performances contributed to blanket licensing through royalty-collecting organizations like ASCAP and BMI, which — together with government intervention into pricing based on antitrust concerns via consent decrees — has led to an inflexible and tightly controlled market in this context. Last, the essay demonstrates how the focus on classifying streaming services like Pandora based simply on whether they are "interactive" or not relies on a misunderstanding of the substitution effects and hence decline in music sales that Pandora creates. Eliminating compulsory licenses would allow individual songwriters to set their own prices and negotiate with streaming services, including in ways that would allow for price differentiation grounded in factors such as song popularity. Giving songwriters the same control that copyright owners outside the music context already possess will ensure songwriters' ability to continue providing the public with the works it loves.

Scholars of comparative constitutional law would suggest that the United States Constitution is the world’s most difficult democratic constitution to change by formal amendment. But in this paper I suggest that the Constitution of Canada may be even harder to amend. Modern Canadian political history has proven the textual requirements for major constitutional amendment so far impossible to satisfy, yet the extraordinary difficulty of formal amendment in Canada derives equally from sources external to the Constitution’s formal amendment rules. Major constitutional amendment also requires conformity with extra-textual requirements imposed by Supreme Court decisions interpreting the Constitution of Canada, parliamentary and provincial as well as territorial statutes, and arguably also by constitutional conventions — additional rules that may well make major constitutional amendment impossible today in Canada. These as-yet underappreciated extra-textual sources of formal amendment difficulty raise important questions for Canadian constitutionalism, namely whether in making the Constitution virtually impossible to amend they weaken democracy and undermine the purpose of writtenness.

Nothing in the United States Constitution is today formally unamendable. Yet it is worth asking whether the Constitution requires some form of implicit unamendability in order to survive according to its own terms. In this paper, I inquire whether anything in the Constitution — whose constitutional text, history and interpretation are rooted in the concept of popular sovereignty — should be regarded as informally unamendable. I conclude that, if the Constitution is to remain internally coherent, the informal unamendability of the First Amendment’s democratic rights may be a condition precedent to the Constitution’s promise of robust democracy. I nevertheless express some doubt about how political actors might reliably enforce an informally unamendable First Amendment. I suggest in closing that the optimal function of unamendability in modern constitutionalism is its expressive capacity, specifically that unamendability is more effective as a declaration of importance than as a referent for judicial enforceability.

The FCC’s new Open Internet rules seek to limit interference by broadband service providers in markets for Internet-based content and applications. But to do so, the rules may significantly reduce the amount of innovation possible in the broadband service market. An aggressive interpretation of the rules suggests that broadband providers are generally required to offer customers access to all lawful Internet traffic, or none at all. This paper explores the way in which this all-or-nothing homogenization of the American broadband product differs from innovative non-net-neutral practices that are taking root in other countries, particularly in mobile markets. Around the world, companies are offering consumers alternatives to traditional broadband access, including zero-rated or premium content, sponsored data, and social media plans, which can benefit consumers and enhance competition in both broadband and edge markets. As the FCC fleshes out its new standard for regulating broadband business practices, it should be careful that its rules do not preclude Americans from sharing in the global revolution currently taking place in telecommunications.

The Supreme Court sometimes decides cases without reaching a majority-supported agreement on a rule that explains the outcome. Determining the precedential effect of such plurality decisions is a task that has long confounded both the Supreme Court and the lower courts. But while academic commenters have proposed a variety of frameworks for addressing the problem of plurality precedent, little existing commentary has focused on a deeper and more fundamental question—namely, what makes plurality precedent so confusing? Answering this question is not only critical to developing a more coherent and administrable doctrine of plurality precedent but is also a useful prism through which to examine our shared understanding of precedential authority more generally. This Article argues that plurality decisions are so confusing because they expose a latent ambiguity in our law of precedent. Looking to the debates surrounding plurality precedent reveals at least three distinct—and to some extent, mutually inconsistent—models of precedential authority. The first of these models, the “judgment model,” is closely connected to the traditional common law view, which grounds the precedential authority of judicial statements in the ability of those statements to explain the particular judgment issued by the court in the case before it. The second model, the “prediction model,” views the holding of a case as the rule that best predicts the future behavior of the court based on the expressed views of the participating judges. Finally, the “pronouncement model” focuses on the judiciary’s law declaration function, viewing all majority-endorsed legal rules as entitled to precedential force regardless of their connectedness to the court’s judgment or their capacity to predict the court’s future behavior. Exposing the ambiguities inherent in plurality precedent does not provide a clear answer to how the conflict among the competing models should be resolved. But doing so may help eliminate

Declining worker power—and increasing employer power—has suppressed wage growth and increased inequality. This decline is reinforced by contradictions in law that strengthen employers’ bargaining leverage over workers. This Article exposes those contradictions, tracing how employers have exploited the consumer rights revolution to devise brand protections and defenses that justify their control over vertically disintegrated labor markets. The Article takes a systemic view of intellectual property, antitrust, and work law to uncover their interconnected protection of employers’ brand rights at the expense of worker power. Based on the insights derived from this analysis, it proposes a suite of doctrinal and regulatory reforms to work law, antitrust doctrine, and trademark licensing, all as a means of “defetishizing” brand and reversing the trend of declining worker power.

Originalism is among the most significant and contentious topics in all of constitutional law and has generated a massive literature addressing almost every aspect of the theory. But curiously absent from this literature is any sustained consideration of the distinctive role of lower courts as expositors of constitutional meaning and the particular challenges that such courts may confront in attempting to incorporate originalist interpretive methods into their own decisionmaking. Like most constitutional theories, originalism has tended to focus myopically on a select handful of decisionmakers—paradigmatically, the Justices of the Supreme Court—as the principal expositors of constitutional meaning. While this perspective unquestionably has value, it ignores the adjudicative context in which the vast majority of litigated constitutional questions are finally resolved. The question of whether and to what extent lower courts should use originalism in their own decisionmaking is hardly an insignificant one. Although lower courts are strictly bound to follow controlling Supreme Court precedent, these strictures leave open a wide domain in which the choice between originalism and other modes of decisionmaking might plausibly affect the content of lower courts’ decisions. But lower courts face a number of institutional limitations and challenges that do not directly confront the Supreme Court, including greater time and resource constraints and the inability to overrule directly controlling nonoriginalist precedents. This Article aims to examine lower court originalism by looking to a set of values commonly associated with our system of vertical stare decisis—including uniformity, accuracy, efficiency, percolation, and legitimacy—as well as a set of values commonly associated with originalism itself—including popular sovereignty, judicial restraint, desirable results, and positive law. In general, the use of originalism by lower court judges is likely to be more costly and

Trust-busting is once again a subject of national attention. And the attention is well-deserved: unprecedented levels of corporate concentration, firm dominance, and inequality demand robust debate about how antitrust solutions can ensure that our economy works for everyone. One simple remedy to “bigness” has stolen the spotlight within that debate—“breaking up” big firms into smaller ones to decrease corporate power and lower prices. But calls to break up firms from Big Tech to Big Ag have focused on how breakups could benefit consumers and, in some cases, small businesses. Absent from these debates is how breakups benefit or harm the workers and labor markets affected by firm dismantling. This Article is the first to focus on how firm breakups—and antitrust enforcement and remedial design more generally—can and have significantly impacted workers’ countervailing power and earning potential. Firm structure matters for worker power. Dismantling dominant firms can result in more firms competing for workers’ services, which can lift their wages. But it can also dismantle structures of worker power that have arisen to successfully counter dominant employers. A leading example, as this Article documents, is the devastating effect of the breakup of the Bell System in the 1980s on the Communications Workers of America, gutting union density within the telecommunications industry from 56% pre-breakup to 24% by 2001. Breakups, much like workplace “fissuring”, can decimate labor market institutions that advocate on workers’ behalf, but also have and can result in layoffs, increased obstacles for worker coordination, lower overall wage rates, and dramatic reductions in earned benefits, job security, and the quality of working conditions. The Article fills the gap in antitrust scholarship and policy debates that have ignored the effects of antitrust remedies on workers. It offers the first comprehensive scholarly treatment of these effects and argues that, for historical, theo

We are living in a moment where open and principled resistance to law and legal order are a part of our daily lives. Whether in support of Black Lives Matter or in opposition to mask mandates, people are in the streets resisting. Over the last decade, the perception of the fixity of our legal order has eroded and so, too, has the stability of our consensus that legality and morality are aligned. In this moment, the visibility and viability of resistance to law and civil government through social movements have surged. With the increasing salience of civil resistance resurfaces an old question: can (and should) judges seek to stand in solidarity with movements engaging in civil resistance? The classic answers to this question take two forms. Judges should either enforce the law and punish the civil resister, or, if they cannot do so in good conscience, they should resign. These answers position the judge outside of and aloof from the political and social struggles that the resisters represent. It follows from this aloof position that judges cannot be in solidarity with civil resistance aimed at legal change in their official capacity. This Article questions the stability of the mainstream conclusion. By focusing my attention on judicial responses to civil resistance against the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850, I return to one of the most influential sources of our collective sense of judicial capacity for political resistance. Through my own original archival research, I revisit Robert Cover’s conclusions about judicial timidity in Justice Accused. Against extensive evidence confirming Cover’s bleak view, I expose and examine one judge’s contrary argument. That judge, Ebenezer Rockwood Hoar, was a neighbor and friend of Henry David Thoreau, and he wrote in conversation with, not against, the strident views of the famous advocate of civil disobedience. Hoar proposed that a judge in sympathy with civil resistance should enforce the law in order to effectuate the power of th

After 10 years of legislative gestation, the Great and General Court passed, and Governor Charlie Baker signed, the Massachusetts Noncompetition Agreement Act (“MNAA” or “Act”), G.L. c. 149, § 24L added by St. 2018, c. 228, § 21, effective prospectively only (§ 71) for agreements entered into on or after Oct. 1, 2018. The Act dramatically reduces the number of Massachusetts employees who can be subjected to an enforceable noncompetition agreement, and even when such agreements are permitted, employees are afforded stronger substantive and procedural protections than in the past, while employers are limited to substantially reduced post-employment restrictions. The Act represents a paradigm shift in favor of employees, particularly hourly workers, but employers retain many options and may benefit from a perhaps greater clarity and certainty in drafting valid and enforceable noncompetition agreements. The common law will continue to have vitality, however, because the legislature chose to address only employee noncompetition agreements, and even as to those agreements, it left many related restrictions in place and codified aspects of the common law that will continue to require case-by-case exposition. Thus, an understanding of the common law background assumed to continue to govern unless changed by the Act (or later amendments), is necessary to a full understanding of the Act. In the midst of this legal turmoil, and in discussing a statute for which the interpretive process of court decisions has barely begun, the authors necessarily venture few definitive conclusions about the MNAA. Instead, we attempt to describe the Act’s most important features and focus on some questions that remain to be resolved, in the belief that at this stage of the legal process most practitioners are attempting to do the same in order to guide and protect their employer and employee clients.

In the decades after the end of the Civil War, avowed white supremacists across the South sought to “redeem” their state and county governments from the clutches of the hated “radicals” who had taken control during Reconstruction. These Redeemers developed an approach to local power and local control that served their broader political goal of reestablishing white supremacist rule. In their effort to ensure that white citizens were not subjected to “negro rule,” they developed a “Redemption Localism” that consistently sought to limit local power, curtail local democracy, and defund or eliminate local services. This Article tells the story of Redemption Localism as it operated in one state: North Carolina. But I argue that this story has much to teach us about localism across the post-Civil War South and about our localism today. While much of the scholarly conversation about localism focuses on the virtues (and vices) of local control versus centralization, the question for Redeemers was never whether, as an abstract matter, local control was preferable to centralized control. Rather, at decision point after decision point, the question was how the balance between local and state power could be manipulated and adjusted to protect the Redeemers’ political power and further the struggle for white supremacy. This instrumental attitude towards localism remains familiar today as the tools and structures of local power are manipulated to suppress Black voting power, dilute the voices of multiracial local democracies, and maintain existing distributions of power, wealth, and privilege.

Immigration detainees and their advocates have a Faustian Bargain: they may trade the physical walls of jail for the virtual walls of electronic monitoring. But they are merely begging for a different form of punishment and control, since electronic monitoring imposes pain, shame, arbitrary rules, and limitation of freedom on persons, causing many to experience it as punitive. Its use also facilitates replacing a regime of over-detention with one of over-supervision, and becomes the means by which immigration enforcement authorities surveil immigrant communities. The Supreme Court’s immigration detention doctrine has set up this bargain by succumbing to the plenary power’s defenders. Instead of outright freedom, the Court has offered release under restrictive supervision policies utilized by the immigration authorities. Supervision through electronic monitoring has come to reside doctrinally in the middle ground between absolute freedom and incarceration. Yet as we have learned from electronic monitoring’s use in the criminal justice system, this “middle ground” ceded too much ground. This article explains, for the first time, how the Court’s immigration detention doctrine and perverse pull of the plenary power has carved out a doctrinal space where electronic monitoring now resides.

My purpose in the Essay is to explore the integrative nature of Perry’s writings. Perry’s work highlights and acknowledges the communally informed moral-political judgments that are at stake in Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence. Perry’s ability to draw on different sources and perspectives allows him to cut across rigid jurisprudential and ideological lines in his approach to constitutional controversies, such as abortion and same-sex marriage. In so doing, he may be able to reach the significant portion of Americans in the political and moral middle who do not line up fully behind either side in the culture wars.

Almost everyone who reads these words is an institutional insider in some form. Those of us who aspire toward transformation, liberation, and resistance from our institutional settings are forced to confront Audre Lorde’s striking admonition that “the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house.” For some, finding themselves in the master’s house is a spur towards purism—a rejection of institutional power in search of a “pure” remove from which to critique it. For others, it is a dispiriting check on their aspirations and an invitation to sullen fatalism. This Essay questions whether we are bound to the hard consequences of purism or whether there are avenues within our institutional infrastructure that allow us to pursue change with radical pragmatism. Canvassing my own historical work on the struggle against slavery in the 1850s, I advance the beginning of an answer: it may be that it is impossible to revolutionize the institutions we work in as insiders, but it is possible for institutional actors to hold deliberative space within their institutions for transformational and radical imagination. By deliberative space, I mean space held open for conversation, democracy, and participatory deliberation. None of us, alone, can imagine our way out of the master’s house. But together, by stepping back and making space, we may be able to open a commons in the master’s house where we listen, dream, and challenge each other.

The Financial Stability Oversight Council represented an innovative approach to the problem of systemic risk in the American economy. It also represented an innovative form of cooperative federalism. By grafting state regulators onto the Council as nonvoting members, Congress hoped this new federal super-regulator would draw upon a reservoir of state expertise and local knowledge so that the Council’s final decisions reflected a collaborative effort between the nation’s top experts at the federal and state level. But looking back over the first decade of the Council’s operations, it is clear that this experiment failed to work as Congress intended. Federal decisionmakers consciously minimized the role of their state counterparts and asserted jurisdiction over America’s largest insurance companies, stepping confidently into an industry that was historically the prerogative of the states over the objection of the Council’s state regulator members. Ultimately, the D.C. district court vacated the Council’s overreach, citing the very same arguments pressed by state regulators that were disregarded by the Council during its deliberations. By publicly dissenting from the Council’s decisions, state regulators planted seeds of doubt that would ultimately lead the Council to abandon its efforts. The Council’s foray into insurance regulation reflected not the collaborative consensus of cooperative federalism, but a more discordant process in which state officials work within a federal system to resist policies with which they disagree—a phenomenon known as “uncooperative federalism.” This Article critically examines the role that state regulators could, and did, play during the Council’s first decade of deliberations and explores the ramifications of that experience for theories of cooperative and uncooperative federalism. The Dodd-Frank Act’s experiment with integrating state regulators at the federal decision-making level did not work as Congress hoped, but it inadvertently

An essay responding to four essays written about my book Corporations Are People Too.

On June 8, 2021, the UN International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals (Mechanism) Appeals Chamber delivered its appeals judgment in Prosecutor v. Ratko Mladić. The judgment affirmed the 2017 trial judgment of Trial Chamber I of the UN International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), which convicted Mladić, the Bosnian Serb commander, of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes during the war in Bosnia between 1992 and 1995, as well as affirming his sentence of life imprisonment. This constituted Mladić’s final appeal, opening the door for his assignment to a prison somewhere in Europe.

The Paris Rulebook—nearly complete, but with the ‘markets’ text tied to Article 6 of the Paris Agreement unadopted after nearly three years—invites comparison with a similar effort under the Kyoto Protocol: the Marrakesh Accords. This article compares the Paris Rulebook and the 2001 Marrakesh Accords implementing the Kyoto Protocol as a way of exploring the similarities and differences in regulatory design between the two sub-regimes and their implications for sustainability and climate integrity. An in-depth analysis of the negotiating history and the text of the two instruments yields trenchant and perhaps unexpected conclusions. Issues that plagued the Marrakesh Accords also appear in similar form in the Paris Rulebook discussions around Article 6; however, because of the difference in structure between the two treaties, even more complex issues have arisen in the Rulebook negotiations. The article reflects on the fundamentally different purpose of the ‘markets’ text in the Rulebook in comparison with its Kyoto/Marrakesh precursor, as well as on the implications of those differences for the Article 6 negotiations.

After the election of 2016, many who opposed President Trump and his policies argued that local governments and local power would be the best tools to resist those policies and strengthen democracy. Among the most prominent acts of local resistance in the last decade have been resolutions that declare a town or a city a “Sanctuary” and refuse to cooperate with federal authorities in the deportation of undocumented immigrants. This Article situates these resolutions in a long tradition of local opposition to state and federal laws that towns and cities deem unjust by examining local opposition to the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850. Drawing on original archival research, this Article exposes striking similarities between contemporary tactics of local resistance and the tactics of local governments in 1850–1851 that passed formal resolutions opposing the Fugitive Slave Law. This examination of how local governments responded to the Fugitive Slave Law poses two broad questions: what did local governments think they were doing when they passed these resolutions? And how much power did local governments really have to achieve those goals? The answers to these questions are complex and context specific. The local struggles that resulted in these resolutions were part of an ongoing political struggle against the seemingly intractable problem of slavery. The local resistance chronicled here is exceptional neither in its heroism nor its effectiveness. Rather it is striking in its familiar messiness and ambition. In some cases, towns seemed to have modest expressive goals that could be met by their resolutions. In other cases, the towns’ resolutions seem to suggest a much broader set of substantive goals that were beyond the power or capacity of the town to achieve. Examining these responses to the Fugitive Slave Law offers a new analytical perspective on local responses to the deportation crisis. Examining what local governments think they are doing when they pass sanctuary ordin

This chapter analyzes the enormous scope of international instruments addressing hazardous substances and activities by assessing both the regulatory junctures and the specific strategies that governments rely upon to reduce risk. It begins with the challenge of identifying which substances are hazardous to human health or the environment (risk assessment) and then discusses the major treaties that regulate chemical hazards (risk management). This chapter discusses treaties and other international instruments governing chemical production, use, labelling, and disposal as well as those governing industrial accidents. It concludes with a discussion of instruments designed to promote pollution prevention and toxics use reduction.

President Biden’s recent Executive Order on Promoting Competition brought much-needed attention to labor market concentration, employer collusion, and abusive employment contracts that suppress wages and diminish labor’s share of national income. But while the Order recognized the necessity of a “whole-of-government” approach to employers’ monopsony power over workers, it could go further to more fully tackle the sources of that power and mobilize the collective resources of government to combat them.

In 2017, multiple nationwide studies on the well-being of lawyers and law students culminated in the release of a report from the National Task Force on Lawyer Well-Being. The Task Force Report highlighted distressing data indicating that lawyers suffer from depression, anxiety, and substance use at rates higher than the general population. It concluded that the legal profession was at a tipping point and presented recommendations and action plans for building a more positive future. Now, fast forward to 2021, a year after the COVID-19 pandemic began, shaking up every industry and impacting individuals across the globe. It will come as no surprise that five years after the seminal 2017 studies, the data on well-being in the legal profession has not changed much. In fact, a recent peer-reviewed study as well as an ABA study found that women lawyers are considering an exodus from the legal profession due to the pandemic as well due to mental health problems, burnout, or stress. Other recent studies have found higher rates of suicide and suicide ideation among attorneys; higher stress among attorneys of color on account of their race and ethnicity; and that stigma continues to pervade the profession with large numbers of lawyers that say they cannot discuss well-being issues with their employer without worrying it will damage their career or livelihoods. Despite this data, it is not all doom and gloom for the legal profession. The increased awareness of well-being in the legal profession has paved the way for rethinking how to make positive organizational and culture changes, and how to reduce stigma around seeking help and self-care.

Harsh migration enforcement has sparked courageous humanitarian reactions and hundreds of criminal prosecutions. Such prosecutions ostensibly seek to vindicate the power of governments to control nation-state borders. But they seem, ironically, to have achieved the opposite: They have vindicated, reinvigorated – and even inspired new forms of – basic human rights. This chapter examines three cases: Cédric Herrou, a French olive farmer who was criminally tried for assisting unauthorized migrants in France; German “rescue” ship captains, Carola Rackete and Pia Klemp, prosecuted for rescuing distressed migrants at sea and bringing them to Lampedusa, Italy; and Scott Warren, prosecuted after allegedly providing food, water, beds, and clean clothes to undocumented immigrants in Arizona. The verdict in Herrou’s case was overturned because fraternity was recognized as a constitutional value. Captains Klemp and Rackete appealed to the ideal of “solidarity.” Warren’s attorney intoned to the jury, “Being a good Samaritan is not against the law ….” These encounters implicate deep questions of constitutional legitimacy and migrant rights, involving the presence of migrants with definable – if not yet enforceable – rights claims. They illustrate a dynamic process of mediating tensions between “sovereign” power and human rights, an essential revitalizing project for constitutional democracy and human rights law.

Art expands our vision and helps us see our world in a new way. This delightful and imaginative book of essays will alter the way in which one writes about cases and constitutional rights. The book should inspire future collaborations among artists, legal scholars, courts, and local communities. It deserves to be widely read.

Engaging with scientific expertise is necessary to insure the effectiveness of WTO dispute settlement in areas such as the SPS Agreement. In rejecting the Uruguay Round texts and basic principles concerning the processing of policy-relevant science for lay decision makers, panels and the Appellate Body have counterproductively tended to undermine the scientific integrity, institutional legitimacy, and ultimately the speed and efficacy of WTO dispute settlement.

This Article examines how increasingly ubiquitous data and information affect the role of “slack” in the law. Slack is the informal latitude to break the law without sanction. Pockets of slack exist for various reasons, including information imperfections, enforcement resource constraints, deliberate nonenforcement of problematic laws, politics, biases, and luck. Slack is important in allowing flexibility and forbearance in the legal system, but it also risks enabling selective and uneven enforcement. Increasingly available data is now upending slack, causing it to contract and exacerbating the risks of unfair enforcement. This Article delineates the various contexts in which slack arises and presents a bounded defense of slack, despite its risks and notwithstanding the parallel existence of formal leniency provisions in the law. It explains how increasingly available data is reshaping slack and highlights the risk of disparate contraction of slack for different populations along lines of race, political power, and sophistication. Ultimately, this Article proposes a framework for managing the complex relationship between slack and data and suggests policy solutions to address data-driven contraction of slack while minimizing slack’s risks. These policy solutions include limits on data collection, construction of data silos, and fundamental rethinking of legal rules and the role of government.

Overcriminalization has rightly generated national condemnation among policymakers, scholars, and practitioners alike. And yet, such scholarship often assumes that the encroachment of criminal justice stops at our borders. This Article argues that our foreign relations are also at risk of overcriminalization due to overzealous prosecution, overreaching legislation, and presidential politicization—and that this may be particularly problematic when U.S. criminal justice supplants certain nonpenal U.S. foreign policies abroad. This Article proposes three key reforms—presidential distancing, prosecutorial integration, and legislative de-escalation—to assure a principled place for criminal justice in foreign relations.

Allergic history in individuals with confirmed anaphylaxis to a messenger RNA (mRNA) COVID-19 vaccine is common. However, the risk factors for allergy symptoms after receiving the vaccine are unknown.

On the eve of independence, John Adams famously argued that ours should be “a government of laws and not of men.” This warning should echo even more loudly through our current era, when the administrative state has eroded many of the structural safeguards designed to protect the rule of law. Strict judicial enforcement of the separation of powers and nondelegation has yielded to our faith in expert agencies to make important governance decisions. This tradeoff may be, in the Supreme Court’s words, a necessary concession to an “increasingly complex society.” But it highlights the importance of internal safeguards designed to preserve the rule of law within our agencies. For this reason, process reform is an important piece of Ajit Pai’s legacy as chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. Upon assuming the chairmanship, Pai expressly named process reform as a key part of his strategic vision. He followed through on that commitment over the next four years, making much-needed improvements to enhance transparency, accountability, and robust, data-driven decisionmaking – and in the process strengthening the rule of law within an agency that seemed to have fallen into dysfunction. On the transparency front, these initiatives included a commitment to release draft orders to the public at the same time they are circulated internally – a welcome change that reduced the power of the chairman and special interests to manipulate the media cycle during the period before FCC votes on important items. Improvements in accountability included limiting the power of agency staff to make substantive edits to agency orders and to settle certain investigations without Commissioner approval. These changes helped shift power away from the permanent bureaucracy and to the more politically accountable agency heads. And Chairman Pai’s commitment to data-driven decisionmaking is reflected in the creation of the Office of Economics and Analytics, which helped concentrate the FCC’s econ

This is a book review written by Professor Holper of a new book about immigration detention by Elliot Young, titled Forever Prisoners: How the United States Made the World’s Largest Immigration Detention System.

Co-researched and authored with BC Psychology Professor Liane Young, our students, and other members of a Supreme Judicial Court Standing Committee, a proposed model jury instruction aimed at reducing implicit bias. The proposed instruction was adopted by the SJC and is now required in all civil and criminal jury trials in Massachusetts.

This report advocates for the Massachusetts Legislature to pass the Fairness for Farmworkers Act (FFA) to end the second-class treatment of farmworkers under the state's current wage and hour law. The bill has three essential parts: First, the FFA repeals the $8.00 substandard minimum wage for agricultural and farm work. All farmworkers will be paid the state minimum wage. Second, the FFA provides overtime pay for all farmworkers. Seasonal farmworkers will receive one and a half times their normal rate of pay for work performed in excess of fifty-five (55) hours in a week. Year-round farmworkers, like other hourly employees, will receive time and a half for all hours worked in excess of forty (40). Third, the FFA establishes the right to a day of rest each week for seasonal farmworkers and provides overtime pay at time and a half for workers who elect to work on that day of rest. The report argues that The Fairness for Farmworkers Act makes the farmworkers’ minimum wage the same as all other essential workers in the food supply chain – e.g., meat packers, food processors and grocery store workers. It recognizes the dignity, diligence, skill and hard work of these essential workers.

I spent most of the summer and fall of 2020 reading over a dozen books about racism, anti-racism, and mindfulness and racism. One of the most riveting, eye-opening, and ultimately most hopeful was Resmaa Menakem’s My Grandmother’s Hands: Racialized Trauma and the Pathway to Mending Our Hearts and Bodies. Menakem’s lens into the issue of racism is fascinating and worthy of serious reflection. Instead of seeing the lack of racial harmony as a failure of will or moral inadequacy, Menakem explains that racism cannot be eradicated until we deal with a vexing underlying problem; namely, recovery from the body’s held trauma.

Professor Lyons' testifimony before House Committee on proposed tech reform bills.

This clinical guideline has been created to improve health care services for injured workers by outlining the appropriate evaluation and treatment processes for the management of work-related neck and back injuries. The guideline should be used as a tool to guide health care providers of different professional disciplines to provide quality care to injured workers. The guideline is not intended to be a substitute for appropriate medical judgment, and is written to be broad enough to allow for a wide range of diagnostic and treatment modalities, and to purposely allow for philosophical and practice differences among professional disciplines of health care practitioners who provide care to injured workers. It is expected that approximately 10% of cases may fall outside of this guideline and may be reviewed and approved on a case-by-case basis. If objective clinical improvement is delayed or slower than expected, the treating provider must justify the necessity of continued care with a valid clinical rationale and supporting, objective clinical findings. Sample tools referenced in this Guideline are intended to promote all types of physical and psychological treatment to injured workers. These tools are not meant to be used as a means to deny treatment.

Co-authored amicus brief successfully urging Supreme Judicial Court to interpret the Massachusetts Post-Conviction Forensic Testing Statute, MGL ch. 278A, broadly to achieve the goal of granting scientific or forensic testimony where material to a claim of factual innocence.

Co-authored amicus letter urging SJC to grant or review emergency petition for relief from practices of the Hampden County District Attorney and the Springfield Police Department that cause wrongful convictions. Case is pending.