As helpful as new forms of centralized data collection might be for investigators, there remains a critical open issue: the systems were not designed to identify the exculpatory and impeaching material prosecutors are required to disclose under Brady v. Maryland. This Article is the first to examine the design flaw at the core of the intelligence-driven prosecution model – a flaw that creates a due process problem that threatens to undermine the legality and legitimacy of this innovation.
This Article outlines a novel First Amendment compelled speech claim against a growing body of abortion restrictions, including fetal demise and burial laws, premised on a state interest in “expressing respect for potential life.” It weaves Fourteenth Amendment limitations together with developments set out last year in NIFLA v. Becerra to demonstrate that the Court’s expanding First Amendment jurisprudence has made such laws exceptionally vulnerable to a compelled expressive conduct challenge.
This article presents the results of an unprecedented study of cases appealing naturalization denials where the adjudicator found the applicant lied or omitted information during the course of the naturalization process, referred to as “false testimony.” The study uncovered that while the most recent targets of this tool are disproportionately those from Muslim-majority nations, these tactics were used against perceived communists, Eastern Europeans, and Irish and Italian immigrants in our recent past.
This article argues that mixed income housing is a policy response to racial segregation structured around managing discrimination – building affordable housing in a way that takes into account the discriminatory preferences of wealthier residents. Deciding whether “discrimination management” is acceptable requires confronting racism as a permanent condition in our society and the costs of catering to discriminatory preferences in order to seek to achieve a possibly greater good.
Forum selection clauses are ubiquitous. Although the federal courts traditionally were hostile to agreements limiting a plaintiff’s venue options, recently the tide has turned. The lower courts now routinely enforce such clauses. This article challenges this recent trend in the special context of ERISA cases.
There is a growing scholarly consensus in favor of family autonomy. But while scholars largely agree on this abstract goal, they do not agree on how to promote family choice. For example, the conventional doctrine treats nonmarital partners as legal strangers with regards to their economic rights. By carefully mining the law of nonmarital parentage, this article demonstrates that the conventional doctrine undermines rather than furthers family autonomy.
This essay explores Janus’s implications in light of the Supreme Court’s apparent adherence to “the doctrine of one last chance,” which requires the Court to give notice of its willingness to issue disruptive decisions before doing so.
Concerns over the use of online bots to foment political strife, skew online discourse, and manipulate the marketplace have led legislators to draft laws that would require bots to clearly indicate that they are not human. This article considers how such disclosure requirements might run afoul of the First Amendment and inadvertently curtail a novel and still emerging form of expression.