Oct 3, 2024 Ezra RosserProperty
Elizabeth Elia,
Embrace the Suck: Why States and Localities Should Use Property Rights to Fix Broken Housing Voucher Programs, 28
Lewis & Clark L. Rev. __ (forthcoming 2025), available at
SSRN (June 17, 2024).
Embrace the Suck: Why States and Localities Should Use Property Rights to Fix Broken Housing Voucher Programs is a wonderful academic contribution that moves fluidly from high theory to more grounded, practical questions. By combining detailed discussion of how housing vouchers work in practice with insights gleaned from more progressive property scholarship, Professor Elizabeth Elia’s article succeeds in speaking across the practical/theoretical divide.
Those whose work focuses on subsidized housing should read the article. And, it also should interest those who focus on broader theory because it stands as an example of how theory can open up the range of policy alternatives. Continue reading "Moving Beyond Source of Income Protection by Enhancing Housing Vouchers"
Oct 2, 2024 Juliet StumpfLexImmigration
“History,” Max Beerbohm said, “does not repeat itself. The historians repeat one another.”
This quote may (or may not) be an entirely accurate reflection of stare decisis, the notion that stability in the law relies on courts faithfully following past precedent. But the quote makes room for the recognition that stare decisis carries racist precedent from centuries past to perpetuate modern systemic racial subordination in modern immigration law. Ahilan Arulanantham’s Reversing Racist Precedent, forthcoming in the Georgetown Law Journal, proposes a systemic disinfectant for this problem: applying constitutional limitations on race-based state action to racist judicial precedent. Continue reading "Disinfecting Judicial Racism"
Oct 1, 2024 Hoi KongInternational & Comparative Law
With Responsive Judicial Review: Democracy and Dysfunction in the Modern Age, Rosalind Dixon has made an important contribution to the literatures on judicial review and comparative constitutional law. Her argument is subtle and detailed, drawing on an extensive body of academic literature and case studies from around the world. This brief review will highlight two aspects of the argument that make the book an indispensable work: (1) its overview of relevant academic debates and (2) its original contributions to those debates.
Overview of Relevant Academic Debates
Dixon provides a concise, yet thorough, overview of a series of academic debates about judicial review. One debate focuses on the capacities of judges and courts. Dixon notes that constitutional theorists have tended towards either an “everything” or “nothing” view of judges and courts. (P. 13.) Dixon places Ronald Dworkin in the “everything” camp and describes its members as tending “to assume a heroic conception of individual judicial skill and capacity and even more ambitious view of what courts can achieve as institutions.” (P. 13.) Dixon puts Gerry Rosenberg in the “nothing” camp. She argues that according to this camp’s members, judges are “deeply unheroic in character” and courts either are “almost entirely ineffective in creating social and political change” or they make such change difficult “by adding to the perceived legitimacy of deeply flawed existing democratic constitutional structures.” (P. 13.) Continue reading "Democracy and Dysfunction"
