Federal judges are not mere arbiters of the separation of powers. Whenever they adjudicate cases, judicial power is implicated. This Article documents how this phenomenon impacts doctrine concerning the structural constitution and contends that we ought to be wary when this doctrine travels outside the courtroom.

This Article argues that the sociological legitimacy of judicial institutions in federal systems rests on both integrity and autochthony. Through theoretical and comparative inquiry, we explore the ways in which initial federal constitutional design, as well as ongoing legislative and judicial management, construct and reconstruct the integrity-autochthony balance.

This Feature examines the turn of left social movements to “non-reformist reforms” as a framework for reconceiving reform: not as an end but within struggles to reconstitute the terms of life, death, and democracy.

This Note examines the World Health Organization’s current efforts to create a novel pandemic treaty as a potential turning point in global health law. COVID-19 shocked the status quo, but this Note argues that normative shift effectuated through specific treaty structures could ensure the world does better in another pandemic.

This Article argues that the rise of the modern state was a necessary condition for the rise of the business corporation. Corporate technologies require the support of a powerful state with the geographical reach, administrative power, and legal capacity necessary to enforce the law uniformly among a corporation’s various owners.

States are using the threat of catastrophic, one-sided fee awards to evade judicial review in controversial areas like abortion and gun control. Litigants challenging such laws—and their attorneys—face liability for the opposing party’s legal fees, while the state and its ideological allies bear no such risk.

The anti-CRT movement is intertwined with the trend toward parents’ rights, which complains that official educational policies usurp fundamental parental rights. This Feature shows how these “twin” movements against CRT and for parents’ rights center White parents’ rights and the protection of White children for the benefit of White supremacy.

This Feature offers alternative strategies and visions for a less court-centered constitutionalism with a case study of federal Indian law and American colonialism—a case study that places not only Congress, but the philosophies and agency of Native people and nations at the center of our constitutional law and history.

This Note argues that particular elements of the litigation process offer social movement activists distinctive opportunities to draw extralegal benefits from legal action. These benefits, however, are enabled and constrained by the procedural rules and norms that structure litigation itself.

An elected leader’s control may seem essential to bureaucratic accountability. But the administrative state itself better secures accountability’s core values. As this empirical study shows, complementarity between civil servants and political appointees; officials’ scrutiny of each other’s work; and constant interaction with affected publics all promote deliberation, inclusivity, and responsiveness

Family law is failing older adults, offering neither the family forms older adults want nor the support of family care older adults need. Racial and economic inequities, accumulated across lifetimes, exacerbate these problems. This Article responds to these challenges by proposing family law reform for our aging society.

This Feature identifies a foundational problem in modern administrative law. It argues that the Supreme Court’s dual commitments to unitary executive theory and separation-of-powers literalism are in deep conflict when it comes to agency courts. Recognizing this conflict advances debates about how the Roberts Court is transforming the administrative state.  

Racial-justice claims have played an enduring role in the movement and jurisprudential history of the contemporary Second Amendment. This Note argues that, far from a source of equal freedom, our modern expansionist Second Amendment—which reasons in the register of history and tradition—reinforces conditions of racial subordination.

This Note explores the status of judicial bypass of parental-involvement laws for abortion, historically mandated to balance minors’ right to abortion and their parent’s right to direct their upbringing. We argue that, even after Dobbs, judicial bypass is legally supported and consistent with a proper understanding of parental rights.

Racial myopia in law is a complex phenomenon that centers white identity as the standard. A critique of the Article Family Law for the One-Hundred-Year Life, this Response presents a concrete framework and clarion call for all scholars to address legal issues in a racially inclusive way.

This Essay responds to Owen Gallogly’s Equity’s Constitutional Source.  It argues that it is implausible to locate the federal courts’ authority to afford equitable relief in Article III, but it defends a constitutional default rule applicable to legal as well as equitable remedies having its source in the Supremacy Clause.

This Article uncovers the federal equity power’s constitutional source. It argues that, as originally understood, Article III vests the federal courts with inherent power to grant equitable remedies and to adapt the federal system of equity in ways beyond what the Supreme Court’s current cramped, statute-based equity jurisprudence permits.  

Distilling patterns across cooperative federalism programs, this Article uncovers the distinctive cross-governmental administrative law—and the unusual rulemaking it facilitates—in our most consequential federal-state collaborations.

Within the post-New Deal constitutional framework, unions were categorized as engaging in commercial activity, rather than advancing inherently normative claims about justice at work. This Feature argues that this choice, what I call the law of apolitical economy, continues to shape how we understand unions—and much more—today.

Given increasing threats to voting rights and an expansive Purcell doctrine, Section 3 of the Voting Rights Act is a vital but underused resource. To reinvigorate Section 3, this Note makes two observations: preclearance does not require intentional racial discrimination, and may be based on declaratory judgments, not just injunctions.

Interpreting ambiguous statutory provisions in light of the “structure,” “scheme,” or “plan” of the statute is a popular, yet understudied, interpretive tool often deployed by the Supreme Court. This Note categorizes the various types of structural arguments the Court has used and evaluates their methodological compatibility with textualism and purposivism.

This Essay criticizes using “general” or federal property law to define constitutional rights, including protections against unlawful search and seizure. Federal property law is an ahistorical and indeterminate concept. Its ascendance in Takings Clause opinions illustrates its flaws and the risks it poses for beneficial variation in state property rules.

This Article contends that courts should interpret the Fourth Amendment by looking to “general law”—common-law rules under the control of no particular sovereign. This approach finds strong support in the Fourth Amendment’s text, doctrine, and historical background, and would protect the Amendment’s underlying values better than competing theories.

Shifts in patent law’s enablement and written description requirements make it impractical for patentees of antibody technologies to disclose and claim their inventions. We describe this as a doctrinal paradox and offer a solution that gives patentees the power to claim antibodies without giving them unlimited control over a market.  

Sex equality assures us that laws based on real biological differences between the sexes are not sex stereotypes about the sexes. This Feature uses LGBTQ equality to show why sex equality is wrong: laws based on real differences are sex stereotypes, all the way down.  

This Note argues that Bostock v. Clayton County’s holding under Title VII—anti-LGBT discrimination is sex discrimination—applies under equal-protection analysis. It then combines Bostock with sex-stereotype reasoning to argue that recent laws and policies targeting transgender minors unconstitutionally rely on sex-based stereotypes—including that transgender minors are merely confused.  

The new public nuisance is illegitimate because it violates the rule of law and is inconsistent with norms of democratic accountability. It also ignores the dangers of over- and under-deterrence associated with joint ventures between prosecutors and  personal-injury lawyers seeking massive damages from deep-pocketed defendants.

The groundbreaking environmental tort-litigation across the country has overlooked the potential role of tribal courts. Using an original empirical analysis of over 300 cases, this Essay outlines tribal-court jurisdiction over environmental-tort cases in the wake of attacks on tribal sovereignty in the form of tribal jurisdiction stripping. 

A court reviewing unlawful agency action, in deciding whether to “remand without vacatur,” considers the two factors of legal deficiency and undue disruption. Surveying diverging approaches to balancing these factors in environmental cases, this Essay proposes a reframing of the test that draws on parallels with preliminary relief.

This Article argues that public domain allotments (PDAs) are Indian Country and entitled to federal reserved water rights. By comparing federal statutes creating allotments and using the Indian Canons of Construction, the Article uses California as a case study to show that PDAs have rights to water outside state systems.

Social movements are engaged in prefigurative thinking, outside of the terms and constraints of our present moment of global climate emergency and democratic crisis. This Essay asks how we may teach ourselves—lawyers and law students—to work with social-movement organizations on projects that prefigure utopian social arrangements.

This Article explores ideas of citizenship rights from the Revolutionary Era through Reconstruction and challenges the conventional view that citizenship rights came in only two sets—state and national. It argues that Americans also widely recognized general citizenship rights, reflecting an older constellation of ideas about federalism and fundamental law.  

Public nuisance is a puzzle: both a medieval action and a contemporary force in large-scale opioid settlements, it has provoked historical, formalist, and institutional objections. Close examination reveals, however, that public nuisance adheres to the common law’s accepted bounds and can play an important role in today’s regulatory landscape.

Restrictive voting laws not only infringe upon the rights of individual Native American citizens but also denigrate tribal sovereignty. This Note argues that to fulfill its trust obligation to tribes, Congress should require state election officials to form compacts with tribes governing the administration of federal elections.  

A key exception to the Fair Housing Act’s prohibition of familial-status discrimination has allowed municipalities to weaponize senior-only housing to block the construction of affordable housing and perpetuate segregation. This Note documents this practice, offers a framework for advocates to challenge it through litigation, and proposes policy solutions.

As communities harmed by multinational companies traverse the globe in search of remedy, they face diverse legal systems that are historically ill-equipped to meet their needs. This article explores the current legal context for such efforts in Global North jurisdictions and suggests some new and underutilized avenues for recourse.

This Essay considers the 2021 Supreme Court ruling in Nestlé USA, Inc. v. Doe to interrogate the importance of U.S. nationality in future Alien Tort Statute jurisdictional analysis, offering that the Supreme Court can still bring ATS jurisprudence back in line with history on the question of U.S.-actor liability.

This article discusses some of the challenges that may arise during transnational human-rights litigation against multinational corporations in U.S. courts. To complement these efforts, the author suggests utilizing the foreign legal assistance statute to strengthen human-rights cases promoting corporate accountability abroad.  

Drawing on practice and convention from America and abroad, this Article documents the surprisingly robust role that past constitutions play in the interpretation of extant constitutions, and assesses what this pervasive practice tells us about theories of constitutional meaning, processes of constitutional drafting, and exercises of popular sovereignty.

This Article argues that the conventional wisdom about corporate raiders and activist hedge funds—lambasting raiders and praising activists—is wrong. The authors explain how activists are more likely than raiders to engage in mistargeting, implying they are also more likely to destroy value and, ultimately, social wealth.

This Book Review asks what comprises a well-functioning legal system in light of new evidence of how law operated across a wide historical panorama. Such contextualization has implications for a sound working definition of law, understanding law’s relation to the rule of law, and law’s role in emancipatory projects.  

The Constitution’s Port Preference Clause restricts Congress’s ability to favor “the Ports of one State over those of another.” This Note argues that the Jones Act, which prohibits foreign vessels from transporting goods between U.S. ports, violates the Clause by favoring West Coast ports over those of Alaska and Hawaii.  

This Essay examines the major questions doctrine’s relationship to the administrative-law jurisprudence of a man who helped develop it: Justice Breyer. Born of Breyer’s proposal to bring nuance into judicial review of agency action, the doctrine has taken on a life of its own much different than what he imagined.

Justice Stephen Breyer’s context-specific approach to judicial deference has prevailed in Supreme Court’s decisions to an underappreciated extent. Now the conservative majority is moving toward a no-deference rule. But they are unlikely to ultimately succeed because institutional pressure that then-Judge Breyer observed will drive courts to nevertheless consider context-based factors.

The Supreme Court is inventing a new brand of administrative law, in which the President holds all executive power, but the Court restricts and countermands agencies’ policymaking discretion. The Court thus takes a share of the executive power it assigns exclusively to the President. The result is constitutionally unsound.

Two deep-seated tendencies in U.S. immigration law are obstructing the expansive reforms long sought by movement actors: incrementalism and path dependence. This Essay recommends that law clinics counter these forces by setting ambitious goals for structural change and by equipping students with knowledge and skills needed for transformative lawyering.

What possibilities arise when law-school clinics experiment in challenging a well-oiled system at its untouched margins, within a collective, community-based movement whose lodestar is abolition? This Essay examines this question in the family-policing context and articulates a radical vision of family defense in subjudicial venues.

Carson v. Makin was yet another defeat for progressives in a brutal term. But just how bad was it? This Essay examines how Democratic lawmakers in Maine have already neutralized the ruling, teaching important lessons about how concerned Americans can best resist the Court’s conservative supermajority in the years ahead.

When Carson v. Makin allowed religious schools participation in educational-choice programs, the public-school establishment predicted dire results for marginalized students. This Essay responds to that prediction, exploring religious schools’ historical importance to marginalized students, the public-school establishment’s longstanding hostility to religious schools, and the establishment’s own role

Recently, the Supreme Court has chosen education as the primary stomping ground for rewriting Free Exercise Clause doctrine. It has framed education policies that prevented public funds from promoting religious indoctrination as discrimination. In the process, it has created a new victim—educational equity and adequacy for traditionally disadvantaged students.

Carson v. Makin has several implications for the future of school-choice programs. This Essay explores one possibility: an increase in sectarian schools participating in state-funded school-choice programs, causing new forms of school segregation based on race and religion and impairing the democracy-enhancing functions of public education.

The essay responds to Don R. Willett and Aaron Gordon’s Review of The Collapse of Constitutional Remedies.  I show that Willett and Gordon inaccurately describe Collapse’s main argument; offer an internally inconsistent critique; and fail to understand key terms such as judicial independence and the rule of law.

Local governments are deciding whether to retain modifications to the built environment implemented during the pandemic. While these sidewalk and street reconfigurations provide health and economic benefits, they also harm already-underrepresented community members. This Essay weighs these positive and negative implications to enable informed decision-making and create more equitable spaces.

COVID-19 posed an unprecedented challenge to housing stability. This Essay argues that the pandemic exposed the mismatch of affordable-housing programs (including housing voucher programs, tax credits, and emergency rental assistance) to short-term crises, whether personal or nationwide. Yet the pandemic also helped reveal what building a housing safety net requires.

This Essay reflects on the ways that cities engaged in “infrastructure sharing” during the pandemic, and the implications for the potential of cities to address infrastructure inequity. The Essay argues that while cities found creative ways to repurpose public spaces, more can be done to repurpose their proprietary assets.

This Essay considers the status of election law, as an academic field, and advocates an interdisciplinary research program oriented around the concept of electoral adequacy. Electoral adequacy’s premise is that states are obligated to provide a minimal set of entitlements, or a baseline level of election services, to all voters.

The threat of election subversion has forced scholars into a rule-of-law pivot. This Essay identifies three prescriptive approaches dominating this discourse and explores their fundamental advantages and limitations. It then explains how the field of election law must further expand to respond to the multidimensional challenges posed by election subversion.

Many recent Supreme Court attacks on the administrative state have been rooted in an asserted effort to increase democratic accountability, or accountability to elected officials, whether the President or Congress. This approach neglects how the Constitution makes available a broader account of democracy that furnishes support for the administrative state. 

Scholars have long debated whether the administrative state is a democratic institution. This Article offers a new framework for analyzing this question—one drawn from agonistic democratic theory. It argues that agonism provides new grounding for the legitimacy of administrative agencies while also pointing to new horizons for reform.

This Article argues that open-access and interoperability requirements helped the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation monopolize U.S. securities clearing and depository markets. DTCC’s path to monopoly offers a cautionary tale for policymakers seeking to use open access and interoperability to curb industry consolidation in Big Tech, social media, and elsewhere.