Congress could soon spell the end of employment arbitration—but it’s not all good news for American workers.

Employment arbitration has become a dirty word on Capitol Hill. Congressman Hank Johnson claims that arbitration allows employers to stack the deck against the little guy for the 60 million employees bound by arbitration agreements. The Economic Policy Institute calls it an epidemic that is undermining decades of progress in labor rights

Brian Constantine v. New Jersey Department of Banking and Insurance Div

USDC for the District of New Jerse

Can Too Much Clarity Cause Confusion? A Case Study of \u3ci\u3eMcCalop v. State\u3c/i\u3e

In criminal trials, few elements wield as much influence over the outcome as expert testimony. Expert testimony serves as the bridge between complex subject matter and the understanding of lay jurors, often occupying a pivotal position in the pursuit of justice. Indeed, expert testimony can be the lynchpin on which a jury’s verdict turns. Picture a courtroom filled with jurors, each presumed to lack a deep understanding of the intricate dynamics of domestic abuse and the profound effects of battered person syndrome on individuals trapped in violent relationships. In pursuit of justice, these jurors lean on a singular source—an expert with years of invaluable experience—to untangle complex concepts, enabling them to digest the evidence presented by both sides and make a well-informed decision to render a fair verdict

Business and American National Security: A Conversation with Commissioner Crenshaw

Discussant: Prof. Bobby Bishop, Associate Professor of Law, Duke Law Speaker: Hon. Caroline Crenshaw, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commissio

Puerto Rican Presidential Voting Rights: Why Precedent Should Be Overturned, and Other Options for Suffrage

The United States has continued to hold Puerto Rico as a colony, much like the British empire did the US colonies, and has given it no clear path to incorporation, statehood, or independent sovereignty. It has also denied its citizens the right to vote for their president and have voting representation in Congress. Current case law regarding Puerto Rican presidential voting rights and voting representation in Congress rests on precedent that dates almost as far back as its acquisition—the infamous Insular Cases. This case law is inconsistent with prior precedent, constitutional principles, and does not account for Puerto Rico’s contributions and deep entanglement with the United States. Neither does it account for the modern-day relationship between the United States and Puerto Rico. Moreover, the United States’s continued denial of full voting rights and representation to Puerto Rico and its residents is wholly inconsistent to the principles of its founding. Many articles and scholars have evaluated the arbitrary standards set out in the Insular Cases as they apply to Puerto Rican citizens and their right, or lack thereof, to a presidential vote and a voting member of Congress. It has been proven time and time again that the factors present at the time of their decision are no longer in place today. Although there is much advocacy to overturn the Insular Cases, not much has been proposed by way of which specific issues to overturn within the cases, nor other viable options for suffrage presented and evaluated altogether in one article. This article does just that—it proposes that the precedent set forth in 1901, and regrettably affirmed in 2022, regarding the incorporated or unincorporated status of territories and subsequent legal ramifications, be abandoned and overturned. This article also proposes three other solutions in granting Puerto Rican residents the right to cast presidential votes and have voting representation in Congress. Since the devastation that the Puerto Rican people have faced in the last decade of natural disaster after natural disaster, a discussion on these topics is more critical now than ever. A resolution in the law is needed to account for a just and fully representative system for all our citizens

The Ideology of Press Freedom

This Article offers a critical account of the law of press freedom. American law and political culture laud the press as an institution that plays a vital role in democracy: guarding against corruption, facilitating self-governance, and advocating for free expression. These democratic functions provide justification for the law of press freedom, which defends the media’s autonomy and shields the press from outside interference. But the dominant accounts of the press’s democratic role are only partly accurate. The law of press freedom is grounded in large part in journalism’s professional commitments to objectivity, public service, and autonomy. These idealized characterizations, flawed from the start, drive a business model and a legal strategy that is increasingly at odds with democracy itself. In both its journalism and in its legal advocacy, the press often reifies existing social and racial hierarchies. An inconsistent defender of free expression, the press strategically sits out many First Amendment battles; in others, it pursues narrow, modest remedies unlikely to protect many outside of its ranks. While the press continues to burnish its image as a critical force for the preservation of democracy, its legal strategy has become increasingly detached from the public good. Alongside a more clear-eyed assessment of the press’s foundational commitments should come a broader rethinking of the press’s freedom and legal strategy. Amid dire technological, economic, and political challenges, the reigning ideology of press freedom disserves press institutions as well as broader First Amendment values and democratic interests. This Article concludes by pointing a path toward alternative legal strategies for the press that would better respond to contemporary challenges to democracy

Domino Effect: How Scalia Lives on Through the Controversial Texas Immigration Law and Which States are Itching to Pull the Trigger

This article examines Texas’s immigration enforcement law, SB 4, and the Supreme Court’s surprising ruling overturning the injunction which prohibited its enforcement. This article posits that SB 4 is by no means a “lone wolf,” but rather is the latest in a series of state laws which seek, quietly or boldly, to take immigration into the state’s hands

Pricing, Decarbonization, and Green New Deals

This Article evaluates an emerging literature claiming that carbon pricing (emissions trading or carbon taxes) has not performed very well and therefore cannot be the basis for the sort of transformative change now required to address the climate crisis. This is an important claim, as carbon pricing has been viewed as being at the heart of global efforts to address one of our most important contemporary problems. We provide theoretical and empirical support for these critics’ claim that carbon pricing by itself cannot catalyze the technological transformation now required, and that other approaches have done and will likely do better. We also agree with critics that pricing approaches have suffered from insufficient ambition and effectiveness in routine emission reductions. But we do not think that the critics have shown that alternative approaches have and will perform better in those terms. We develop a framework for enhancing empirical evaluation of past programs, as we now have a wealth of experience with both carbon pricing and a variety of alternatives, but a dearth of econometric comparative studies of past performance. We also explore the normative implications of the critics’ claims. We argue that even if they are entirely right, we should welcome even insufficiently ambitious pollution taxes as likely to enhance other programs and raise revenue to support them. We point out, however, that the trading programs now common around the world may undermine rather than support more successful programs and suggest that regulators consider cap-without-trade (imposing mass-based caps on pollution sources without allowing the trading of obligations) as an alternative. We also discuss the possibility of overcoming the critics’ objections by improving carbon pricing programs