Volume 100, Number 1

Despite an increasing number of critiques from many commentators—abolitionists, social scientists, and fiscal conservatives among them—mass incarceration remains an ongoing crisis. Dealing with the wreckage of carceral overreach requires not just changing policies about what gets criminalized and how offenses are punished prospectively, but also unwinding the long sentences imposed during the past half- century and still being served. Among the mechanisms for decarcerating are second look acts, which a growing number of jurisdictions have passed or are considering.

Often these resentencing tools depend heavily on decisionmakers’ exercise of discretion. In rare instances, however, that discretion is constrained. Comparing two recent New York sentencing reforms, the Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act and the 2004–2009 Drug Law Reform Acts—the former highly discretionary and the latter with a strong presumption in favor of resentencing—this Article notes the relative success rates of each statutory scheme, finding the less discretionary regime apparently more decarceratory. Critically, the exercise of discretion imposes a significant dignitary harm on applicants, who are required to prove their believability and moral worthiness to judges deciding whether to free them. As epistemic justice theory shows, those who are incarcerated and disproportionately members of marginalized identity groups face untenably difficult odds of doing so, as they are systematically discredited. In the process of inviting a judge to exercise discretion in their favor, these petitioners are often disbelieved, and the knowledge system is subsequently impoverished by discounting of petitioners’ experiences. Thus, if resentencings are going to begin to decarcerate at the rates necessary to bring the United States into line with comparable countries, and do minimal damage in the process, resentencing reforms should be categorical or presumptive rather than discretionary.

Intellectual property law has long been the law of creation, not creators. The dominant utilitarian framework (and alternate ones like Lockean and personhood justifications) consider the creator almost exclusively by reference to their creative outputs. These innovation-first, output-maximization frameworks have increased concentration among IP firms and deepened inequality in how IP’s economic rewards are distributed among creators. The existing frameworks simply do not have much to say about such pressing issues as authorial bargaining power, wage and economic inequality in the marketplace for creative works, and intensifying corporate concentration amongst dominant IP holders. Furthermore, the existing frameworks’ almost single-minded focus on outputs no longer holds up in the age of artificial intelligence, which renders creative output instantaneous and near-infinite—while threatening to reshape the landscape of creative labor as we know it.

This Article advocates for a new, alternate framework, one that highlights how IP, much like labor law, has long acted as an allocator of rights in property and capital between individuals and firms. If IP, in practice, has acted like labor law in facilitating the transfer of work from creative laborers to dominant IP firms, then IP theory, too, should do more than focus singularly on outputs—it should also address these input-based, supply-side harms. To the extent that there have been strains of more creator-focused theories throughout the IP doctrine and literature, they have, variously, argued for creation as either a solitary act of genius or collective, democratic meaning-making. This Article purposefully uses the word “labor” in opposition to such romanticized notions: It argues instead for a framework of creation as wage labor, as both the means by which large IP firms extract their value and also, potentially, as capital’s most potent resisting force.

In this Note I undertake a historical survey of the conceptual predecessors to the Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause, from the sixteenth century through the mid-nineteenth century. By doing so I present a different angle on the potential significance of this provision, which merits revisitation as a clause bearing meaningful judicially cognizable rights, despite its effective foreclosure under the Slaughter-House Cases. Because of the open-ended and adaptive quality of this enigmatic phrase and its preceding variants, it bore a wide range of significances over the centuries. Indeed, as this Note also demonstrates, one can trace critical moments in early American history alongside varying uses of this phrase, further indicating its previously evolutionary quality. In its earliest forms, it implied the British Crown’s support for the development of colonies in the New World, and soon thereafter, it served as a vehicle for establishing individual rights akin to those of the Magna Carta. It also generated newfound rights that provided justification for the American Revolution and was used to advance unity among the states of the new nation, especially for the sake of economic development.

In the decades prior to the Civil War, its meaning was shaped by the pressing issue of slavery. Justice Bushrod Washington’s limiting construction of the Privileges and Immunities Clause in Corfield v. Coryell, I propose, was centrally informed by the debates leading to the Missouri Compromise, in which slaveholding as a protected right under privileges and immunities was a key point of contention. Because Corfield implicitly truncated the basis for asserting a right to slaveholding via privileges and immunities, the Court in Dred Scott, dominated by Southern justices, focused on excluding access to such rights based on immutable characteristics.

The Southern preference for broad rights and narrow access, however, was definitively defeated through war. It is thus uncertain whether a historically informed meaning of the Privileges or Immunities Clause necessarily turns on the disputes in the decades immediately leading to the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification—which would suggest a fixed and narrow construction aligned with Corfield—or whether the deeper, evolutionary history of privileges and immunities lends a meaningful gloss on the clause, counseling a broader and more expansive interpretation. The Fourteenth Amendment’s legislative history is ambiguous at best, providing fodder for both possible readings.

While confronting these uncertainties, this Note draws from a historical method not previously deployed for the purpose of grasping the fuller meaning of this constitutional provision: It undertakes a longue durée approach, accounting for the variations of this phrase’s significance across time and as affected by a dynamic multiplicity of inputs. Most claims regarding the meaning of this clause tend to pinpoint one or several moments in its long history as the “true” origin point(s). A historical sense of privileges and immunities derived through this method, however, indicates that reaching a determination on the breadth of rights conveyed through this provision entails the resolution of a close call, requiring careful sifting of historical data, perhaps paired with other constitutional principles and policy considerations.

Zoning protest petitions allow landowners representing a percentage of the land
neighboring an area proposed to be rezoned to force the local government to have to
vote by supermajority to approve the rezoning. Only landowners are entitled to file
these petitions, and their “vote” toward the percentage of neighboring land necessary
to trigger the supermajority is allocated according to the proportion of neighboring
land they own. This Note examines the history, statutory construction, and current use
of protest petition laws, which are now on the books in twenty states. It illustrates that
they formed part of the justificatory architecture of racist and classist exclusionary
zoning and Not in My Backyard-ism (NIMBYism), contributing to legal doctrine and
informal political norms that treat an entitlement to block locally unwanted activities
as a “property right” akin to a right against nuisances. Although protest petitions have
historically been rarely used, the political and legal norms of exclusionary zoning
and local control are changing. While governments work to alleviate a nationwide
housing shortage, the political climate is also characterized by the routine use of
procedural hardball in all areas of policy. There are now warning signs that protest
petitions will be increasingly used by NIMBY neighbors to “filibuster” rezonings that
would allow for the construction of needed housing. To head off this increasingly
likely possibility, this Note probes some legal avenues in federal law that might be
explored by housing affordability advocates to invalidate, weaken, or induce the
repeal of protest petition laws in all states that still have them. It explores due process
and One Person, One Vote theories, as well as the idea of using the “affirmatively
furthering” mandate of the Fair Housing Act to induce protest petition laws’ repeal.

Login.gov is America’s new nationwide Digital ID system. In its few years of existence, it is already the only way to access an increasing number of government programs, benefits, and resources. The significance of this development hides behind technical details, confidential contracts, and jargony hyphenates like “single-sign-on” and “duo-authentication.” Yet properly examined, the story of why Login.gov was created, with whose input, and with which governance goals in mind exposes both the promise and pitfalls of infrastructural projects in the digital age.

A central facet of the Login.gov infrastructure is its reliance on a notoriously extractive and inscrutable data broker, LexisNexis. LexisNexis verifies the identities of Login.gov users—often welfare applicants, veterans, and federal employees—by comparing data input by users to a vast array of records scraped from every nook and cranny of the internet. The government’s decision to partner with LexisNexis openly flouted binding privacy and security guidelines set by the government’s own science and technology experts. Moreover, this massive aggregation of personal information, though legal, goes against the best practices for government collection and use of personal data set forth in the Privacy Act of 1974.

As ineffective as the Privacy Act of 1974 is as a data privacy law in the age of online data brokers, the law nevertheless represents a substantial effort by legislators from a bygone era to set principled guidelines for how to build trustworthy, democratically sustainable information systems. By contrast, the early years of America’s first nationwide digital identity credential are characterized by unscrupulous design judgments with dangerous consequences. But it is not too late to design tomorrow’s digital infrastructure to be safer, more equitable, and more trustworthy than what we have today.

Agency delay is a pervasive problem. It occurs in a broad range of policy areas, including environmental protection, healthcare, and financial regulation. The trope of slow and inefficient government agencies has become cliché.

Statutory deadlines are one solution to the problem of agency delay. Attaching a deadline to authorize legislation seems like an obvious way to make agencies act faster. Therefore, scholars and policymakers have urged the use of statutory deadlines to spur agencies to action. They have focused on ways to more vigorously enforce statutory deadlines through negative incentives, such as hammer provisions or mandamus remedies, as well as on the effectiveness and drawbacks of negative approaches.

The current debate neglects positive incentives as another way to encourage agencies to meet deadlines. This Note argues that statutory deadlines can be a superior way of avoiding agency delay when linked to positive incentives (“carrots”) rather than negative incentives (“sticks”). The Note specifically focuses on conditional relaxation of judicial review as a promising mechanism to induce agencies to more appropriately avoid unnecessary delay. Conditional relaxation of judicial review is so promising because it accounts for the costs of litigation and judicial review in a manner that the typical negative incentives do not. This Note will review the relevant current doctrine and debate on enforcement of statutory deadlines, lay out the possible ways to attach positive incentives to statutory deadlines, and in comparing this carrot approach to deadlines to the stick approach, will show the advantages (and limitations) of positive incentives. Ultimately, the carrot approach will be most appropriate where there is a policy need for speed and when an agency faces resource constraints, though such an approach may never be appropriate when there is a strong principal-agent conflict between Congress and the relevant agency.