Linguistic Colonialism: Law, Independence, and Language Rights in Puerto Rico

Part I reviews and analyzes courts\u27 attempts to reconcile the conflict between the statutory English-language requirement for federal jurors, Puerto Rico\u27s almost entirely Spanish-speaking population, and the Sixth Amendment\u27s constitutional mandate. This part consists of three sub-parts: a description of Puerto Rico\u27s linguistic landscape in comparison with that of the United States, a history of fair cross section challenges pertaining to the District of Puerto Rico, and a comparative look at fair cross section challenges in the Ninth Circuit. Part II examines the tension between language and constitutional rights through the lens of one case, Diffenderfer v. Gomez-Colon. In this challenge to the policies of Puerto Rico\u27s election commission, the district court relied on the Voting Rights Act, the Equal Protection clause, and the First Amendment to order the printing of bilingual ballots for the 2008 gubernatorial election. In light of the legal gymnastics and concessions required to reach the courts\u27 holdings on both of these matters, this Essay concludes that the state of linguistic colonialism presently existing between the United States and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is legally and morally untenable

"First Food" Justice: Racial Disparities in Infant Feeding as Food Oppression

Tabitha Walrond gave birth to Tyler Isaac Walrond on June 27, 1997, when Tabitha, a black woman from the Bronx, was nineteen years old.^1 Four months before the birth, Tabitha, who received New York public assistance, attempted to enroll Tyler in her health insurance plan (HIP), but encountered a mountain of bureaucratic red tape and errors.^2 After several trips to three different offices in the city, Tabitha still could not get a Medicaid card for Tyler.^3 Tabitha's city caseworker informed her that she would have to wait until after Tyler's social security card and birth certificate arrived to get the card.^4 No doctor would see him without the Medicaid card.^

The 2014 Farm Bill: Farm Subsidies and Food Oppression

The 2014 Farm Bill ushered in some significant and surprising changes. One of these was that it rendered the identity of all the recipients of farm subsidies secret. Representative Larry Combest, who is now a lobbyist for agribusiness, first introduced a secrecy provision into the bill in 2000. The provision, however, only applied to subsidies made in the form of crop insurance. Until 2014, the majority of subsidies were direct payments and the identity of the people who received them was public information. In fact, the Environmental Working Group’s release of the list of recipients led to a series of scandals because it featured celebrities Bruce Springsteen and Jimmy Carter, members of the House and Senate, and a considerable number of billionaires, including founders of high-profile companies such as Microsoft and Charles Schwab. The resulting outcry against the corruption represented by these payments increased support for the elimination of direct payments. The Bill consequently replaced these payments with two new crop insurance programs, thereby extinguishing public access to the list of farm subsidy recipients. This move was particularly disturbing in an era where transparency in the food system is commonly viewed as desirable and even necessary. Another dramatic aspect of the Bill was that it cut $8 billion from the food stamp program, affecting approximately 1.7 million people. What it did not do, however, is alter the allocation of agricultural subsidies that has been in place since the Bill’s first incarnation in 1933. This is surprising in light of evolving medical insights into nutrition and shifting national health priorities. This resistance to change suggests that health and nutrition are not driving the Farm Bill. Instead, it appears that large agribusiness has succeeded in capturing the majority of resources allocated to farm support. Although farm subsidies comprise only 14% of the Farm Bill, they are highly controversial because, not only do they determine which agricultural industries are likely to thrive and survive, they guide the nation’s consumption patterns. The health of farmers and individuals are therefore both at stake in each Farm Bill

Payback: A Structural Analysis of the Credit Card Problem

The market failure deemed "the credit card problem " is in fact a story of unprecedented market success. Advanced underwriting technology has facilitated identification of the most profitable credit card consumer as one who is on the verge of bankruptcy. The resulting market segmentation represents a massive upward redistribution of wealth from the poor to wealthy individuals and corporations. Neoclassical and behavioral economists seek to solve the credit card problem through increased disclosure and cognitive strategies, focusing exclusively on consumer rationality. These interventions are incomplete because the industry's business model relies on the exploitation of "subsistence" credit card users who have little or no choice in their credit card use. This Article analyzes the credit card problem through the lens of structural inequality, and shifts the focus from the consumer to the industry. It proposes amendments to the CARD Act, including "subsistence amnesty," the temporary elimination of interest rates and fees on subsistence purchases made by individuals living in poverty