Episode 5.1: Criminalizing Survival: Homelessness and the Law

This episode is the first of a two part series examining the complexity of addressing homelessness. In Los Angeles in particular, as the voters were passing measures for significantly increasing the amount of money available to address homelessness and help people find housing, the city continued to enforce ordinances that violated the civil rights of people who did not have a home. In this...

Evaluating a Proposed Presidential Reform: Tolling Statutes of Limitations

This article evaluates such an idea insofar as it could potentially constitute a bill of attainder, be applied retroactively, or violate a president’s constitutional rights. Ultimately, the article concludes that the bill would pass judicial scrutiny, whether it could be used in the way Nadler envisioned—namely going after the Oval Office’s current occupant—is a matter of timing, not...

Keeping Speech Cheap: The Progressive Case for a Free Internet: In Response to Can Speech Be Progressive? by Louis Michael Seidman

Abstract In “Can Free Speech Be Progressive?,” Louis Michael Seidman claims that cheap speech, like that found on Twitter, is not really cheap, and is not helpful to progressives—because it relies too heavily on capital. In the era of #metoo and #blacklivesmatter, it seems that Seidman is wrong about cheap speech. Cheap speech exists, and it is associated with a number of progressive successes...

Sanctuary Campuses: The University’s Role in Protecting Undocumented Students From Changing Immigration Policies

This Comment explains how President Trump’s changes to immigration enforcement and attempt to rescind DACA have affected undocumented students, and proposes that the student-university relationship both legally permits and morally obligates postsecondary institutions to adopt policies that protect and insulate undocumented students from the harmful effects of these changing policies.

Due Process, State Taxation of Trusts and the Myth of the Powerless Beneficiary: A Response to Bridget Crawford and Michelle Simon

This piece takes issue with Bridget Crawford and Michelle Simon’s argument in their article about the recent Supreme Court case North Carolina Department of Revenue v. Kaestner Family Trust (argued May 16, 2019) (The Supreme Court, Due Process and State Income Taxation of Trusts (67 UCLA L. Rev. Disc. 2 (2019)).

Trump's Dangerous Judicial Legacy

Combining the statistical data on the rapidly shifting demography of the federal judiciary under President Trump with insights from the scholarly literature on theories of procedural justice and representative bureaucracy, which posit that the diversity of judges matters to citizens’ perceptions of justice as well as to judicial accountability to minority citizens’ interests, this paper suggests...

Substance, Procedure, and the Rules Enabling Act

This Article articulates an understanding of the Rules Enabling Act that will equip the Supreme Court with the ability to judge a rule’s validity—and give the rulemakers much clearer guidance regarding the outer boundaries of their remit.

Second Thoughts on “One Last Chance”?

This Article explores the implications of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Janus in light of the Court’s apparent adherence to “the doctrine of one last chance,” which requires the Court to give advance notice of its willingness to issue disruptive decisions.