Originalism v. Originalism: How James Madison\u27s Understanding of the Establishment Clause Can Help Combat Christian Nationalism

This Note will focus on what can be done to prevent Christian Nationalism from ending the Establishment Clause. Part I will focus on the cases that defined former Establishment Clause doctrine and how recent cases have done away with the parameters laid out in those earlier cases. Part II will focus on the understanding that James Madison had about the Establishment Clause. Part III will argue that Madison’s understanding of complete separation can and should be codified either under Congress’ enforcement power under the Fourteenth Amendment or the Spending Power of Article I. Part IV will consider how a statute could affect future Establishment Clause cases. Part V will discuss the feasibility of a federal statute being passed and the alternative option of secular activists passing similar statutes at the state level. This abstract has been taken from the author\u27s introduction

A Denial of Personhood: Why Hate Crime Legislation is Necessary to Assure Proportionality in Punishment

The term “hate crime” entered the mainstream in the United States during the 1980s, when advocates began to track incidents of bias-motivated violence. Since then, hate crimes have continued to garner significant attention. Advocates and legislators have traditionally justified hate crime law under the “expressive theory,” the idea that the purpose of such laws is to condemn prejudice and express messages of tolerance and equality. In this Comment, I offer a distinct justification for hate crime legislation. Specifically, I argue that, when a perpetrator targets a victim because of perceived immutable characteristics, the hate crime offender denies the victim’s agency and, ultimately, the victim’s personhood. This additional wrong—absent in crimes not motivated by bias—necessitates the heightened criminal penalties that current hate crime laws provide. First, this Comment provides a background on the development of hate crime legislation and the difficulties involved in reporting hate crimes. In Part I, I explain the importance of proportionality in assessing criminal culpability and determining appropriate punishments. In Part II, I explain how existing hate crime laws operate. In Part III, I articulate how a hate crime offender denies the agency, and ultimately the personhood, of the victim. In Part IV, I explain why proportionality in punishment requires heightened penalties for hate crime offenders because of their denial of the victim’s agency, and ultimately the denial of the victim’s personhood. Finally, in Part V, I explain why this distinct justification for hate crime legislation is relevant; in short, it recognizes bias-motivated offenses that a purely expressive approach often overlooks

Memories of an Affirmative Action Activist

Some twenty-five years ago, the Society of American Law Teachers (SALT) led a march supporting Affirmative Action in legal education to counter the spate of litigation and other legal prohibitions that exploded during the 1990s, seeking to limit or abolish race-based measures. The march began at the San Francisco Hilton Hotel, where the Association of American Law Schools (AALS) was having its annual meeting, and proceeded to Union Square. We, the organizers of the march, did not expect the march to become an iconic event; one that would be remembered as a harbinger of a new era of activism by law professors. If we are to redefine affirmative action as a remedy for slavery and segregation, we need to pay attention to history and recognize that these evils, born of the belief in White Superiority, extend beyond the native-born Black community. Preserving our democracy depends on working toward racial justice. This Article details my academic and activist work. My work focusing on affirmative action represents my commitment to constructing a society—the U.S specifically—and a world in which the concepts of equality, liberty, and justice meaningfully impact the lives and opportunities of all people, especially those whose race, color, caste, gender, religion, or national origin have subjected them to subordination, often based on the ideology of White Supremacy

Panel 1: The Role of Clean Air and Power in Environmental Justice

Christina H. Fuller – Associate Professor, University of Georgia College of Engineering Mindy Goldstein – Director of Environmental and Natural Resources Law, Emory University School of Law Cary Ritzler – Climate Advocacy Manager, Southern Alliance for Clean Energy (SACE) Alyssa Sieja – Environmental and Natural Resources Associate, Vinson & Elkin

Old Wine in a New Bottle? – An Empirical Evaluation of the Judicial Reforms in China in the 2010s

This article provides an empirical evaluation of the effectiveness of the judicial reform measures implemented in China in the 2010s. Among other objectives, the reforms aimed to strengthen the independence of judges, the financial autonomy of courts and the professionalism of adjudicators. Critics have questioned the success of the reforms, citing continued government intervention with adjudication and unchanged structural problems with courts. To date, there has been limited empirical literature focusing specifically on the judicial reform measures in the 2010s in China. This article provides a glimpse into what really was happening on the ground since the reforms through the lens of frontline judges. It concludes that the reforms have enhanced the financial autonomy of courts, the independence of individual adjudicators and the quality of judgments. 47% of the judges who responded to the survey agreed that the judicial reform was extremely effective. However, this study also reveals that the reforms failed to tackle deep-seated problems of the Chinese judiciary. Local government intervention with adjudication is still rampant. Courts continued to be severely understaffed. Judges are still ready to abridge procedures to arrive at an outcome that is consistent with the policy of the court leadership. While the reform is not “old wine in a new bottle”, there is still much room for improvement in the administration of justice in China

Fieldbridge Assoc. LLC v. Rivers

In a non-payment proceeding in a rent-stabilized property, the court denied the tenant\u27s motion for summary judgment, ruling that the landlord could sue for rent arrears based on the actual lease agreements rather than solely relying on the last registered rent with the DHCR. The court emphasized that the essence of the agreement between landlord and tenant, as reflected in the lease, governed the rent due, not just the last registered amount. The decision highlights the importance of lease terms in determining rent obligations in rent-stabilized properties

CROTONA PARK RESIDENCES LLC v. ELICIER

In this case, the landlord sought to evict the tenant claiming that the tenant\u27s occupancy as a licensee ended with the prior tenant\u27s death. However, the court ruled that the tenant qualified for succession rights under the Rent Stabilization Code, emphasizing that the absence from income recertifications did not bar succession, thus dismissing the landlord\u27s holdover petition