Monthly Archives: December 2023
Dec 7, 2023 Ayelet Blecher-PrigatFamily Law
On the surface, Jennifer Hendricks’s Essentially a Mother is a book about the law of pregnancy and parenthood. On a deeper level, however, it is an especially timely tour de force, which reestablishes the importance of relational feminism as a critical theory that offers valuable insights and lessons for today’s scholars and activists.
Hendricks takes readers on a comprehensive yet concise academic journey across the legal debate over sex equality and accommodations of pregnancy in the workplace; changes in the status of unwed genetic fathers as legal parents under various circumstances; the Constitutional rights of parents over their children; the laws that govern and regulate surrogacy; and finally, abortion. Along the way, Hendricks provides a theoretical overview of the schools of thought that shaped feminist jurisprudence. Continue reading "Why Relational Feminists were Right"
Dec 6, 2023 Jessica M. EaglinCriminal Law
As mass incarceration and criminalization impact more Americans, efforts to address the impact of a criminal record on an individual have become more popular. We’ve come a long way from simply “banning the box” on employment applications. Today, states across the country are expanding access to criminal records relief for those touched by criminal law’s expanding web of enforcement. Diversion and expungement have emerged as two promising reforms to further that effort.
But how does criminal record relief work, exactly, and who benefits from it most? Amy Kimpel addresses these questions in her recent article, Paying for a Clean Record. Kimpel demonstrates that, through participation in diversion and expungement programs, defendants often incur various fees and fines that make gaining a clean record costly. This tendency disproportionately burdens poor and black and brown defendants such that these reforms threaten to entrench racial caste in the United States. Through her descriptively rich analysis of these two seemingly different practices, Kimpel help readers understand the complexity of criminal legal reform in the United States. Continue reading "Costly Criminal Record Relief"
Dec 5, 2023 Angela BanksLexImmigration
Gun violence remains a serious issue in the United States. The Gun Violence Archive reports that between January 1, 2023, and May 1, 2023 there have been 185 mass shootings that injured 744 people and killed 252 people. In 2008, the United States Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms, separate and apart from militia service in Heller v. District of Columbia. This right is held by “the people.” Yet, the Court has simultaneously held that noncitizens are not part of “the people” guaranteed a right to bear arms. In the Second Amendment context “the people” has been defined as citizens. Pratheepan Gulasekaram’s forthcoming article in the Vanderbilt Law Review explores the Supreme Court’s expansion of individual gun rights while shrinking the Court’s conception of “the people.” Gulasekaram offers a more capacious interpretation of “the people” and his analysis offers an approach for noncitizen inclusion in other core constitutional rights.
The Second Amendment’s “People” Problem begins with a history of federal regulation of gun possession and noncitizens. Gulasekaram demonstrates how the restrictions implemented stemmed from a desire to limit specific ideologies and subversive activities. Noncitizens in this context were viewed as threats to the constitutional order. Under a pre-Heller Second Amendment that focused on organized armed defense of the constitutional order, noncitizens viewed as a threat could not be viewed as “the people” who would protect the constitutional order. In Part II, Gulasekaram demonstrates how Heller’s emphasis on an individual right to self-defense does not lend itself to the same wholesale exclusion of noncitizens from “the people.” Part III presents Gulasekaram’s argument that once the right to bear arms is rooted in an individual right based on self-protection, the rationale for connecting gun rights to citizenship status disappears. Continue reading "Noncitizens as “The People”"
Dec 4, 2023 Lauren ScholzContracts
Algorithmic accountability is a pressing contemporary issue. Machine learning algorithms—also known as artificial intelligence (AI)—are used in decision-making by state and federal agencies, as well as in the private sector. The decisional outcomes from AI can be critical to the quality of life of affected people, and yet the rationale for algorithmic decisions is often obscure. Algorithmic accountability is the process of assigning responsibility for the results of decision making assisted by AI. In Contracting for Algorithmic Accountability, Cary Coglianese and Erik Lampmann argue that public procurement—or government contracting—is a tool to promote algorithmic accountability in governance and beyond.
Federal, state, and local agencies use machine learning algorithms to aid in many tasks, from forecasting crime to allocating social services. The algorithms are not always immediately successful, but there is great enthusiasm in developing AI for governmental decision-making due to the potential for efficiency and cost savings in the long run. However, most government entities do not have the expertise or resources to develop machine learning algorithms on their own. They must contract with private parties to create these tools for them through public procurement processes. Continue reading "Government Contracts, Algorithms, and the Benefits of Trial and Error"
Dec 1, 2023 Steve VladeckCourts Law
Andrea Scoseria Katz & Noah A. Rosenblum,
Removal Rehashed, 136
Harv. L. Rev. F. 404 (2023).
When Congress chartered the federal judicial system in the Judiciary Act of 1789, the creation of a chief legal officer for the government—an attorney general—was almost an afterthought. Congress addressed the issue only in the last sentence of the last of the statute’s 35 sections, and the language it used is surprisingly vague about how such an important federal officer was to be selected—providing only that “there shall also be appointed a meet person, learned in the law, to act as attorney-general for the United States . . . .” That passive voice was deliberate; the original draft bill adopted by the Senate would have had the Supreme Court appoint the Attorney General (a model that Tennessee still follows today). Muddying the waters left it open for the President to fill the position, as George Washington shortly would with Edmund Randolph.
This historical episode has been oft- and well-recounted, including by Susan Low Bloch in her canonical 1989 Duke Law Journal article on the early role of the attorney general. But it also seems like an obvious data point for contemporary debates over the “unitary executive” theory of presidential power: If the First Congress was so profoundly ambivalent about the President’s power to even select (let alone control) an officer as central to the enforcement of the laws as the Attorney General of the United States, that calls into some question the certitude with which some contemporary judges, justices, and scholars have defended the unitary executive on originalist—as opposed to normative—terms. Andrea Katz and Noah Rosenblum’s Removal Rehashed targets that certitude. Continue reading "An End Without Argument: The New Judicial Politics of Legal History"
