Small Town, Inc.: Mischief at the Margins of Municipal Incorporation

When a state creates a municipality or alters the boundaries of an existing one, there usually is little to no opportunity for judicial review of the decision. Under the centuries-old rule of construction known as Dillon’s Rule, courts consider municipal boundary making to be strictly a political matter best left to state legislatures. This sweeping deference creates opportunities for special interests or politically powerful communities to segregate towns and schools, isolate vulnerable communities, or otherwise manipulate boundaries to hoard the benefits of local government. Courts will only intervene and deem an incorporation void if the action brazenly violates a constitutional protection or state incorporation law. This Note examines some of the extreme situations in which courts may look beyond Dillon’s Rule and stop problematic incorporations. The threshold for judicial intervention is so high that populations can suffer significant injustice with no opportunity for recourse. This Note recommends that states enact more comprehensive incorporation laws that establish clear and mandatory incorporation procedures, set substantive requirements for what services municipalities must be able to provide, and save room for judicial review. Throughout, this Note uses the Borough of Victory Gardens, New Jersey, as a case study

Abortion Rights Under State Constitutions: A Fifty-State Survey

The U.S. Supreme Court appears poised to overturn Roe v. Wade and its progeny, removing any federal law protection of the right to an abortion. However, numerous state supreme courts have interpreted their state constitutions to independently recognize such a right, finding their state’s equal protection, due process, and privacy rights more expansive than those at the federal level. This Essay surveys all fifty states to ascertain how much protection each state currently affords to women’s right to an abortion. Most state supreme courts have not made a determinative ruling on the issue, and a significant majority of state constitutions do not contain a provision explicitly protecting or denying the right, so state courts are likely to be the venues for many of the contentious fights over abortion rights in the years to come

Tenancies Uncommon: Limits on Representing Cotenants Pro Se

An adversary proceeding that was part of the Bernie Madoff bankruptcy litigation involved a fraud victim making a motion to represent pro se the interests of all tenants in common who co-owned an account with Madoff. This Essay analyzes and expands upon the bankruptcy court’s holding, which addressed this novel issue by finding that a tenant in common cannot represent his cotenants pro se for two reasons. First, a tenancy in common is not a legal entity that can speak with one voice. Second, one tenant in common cannot represent one or more other cotenants’ interests in litigation without joining the cotenants in the action. Although the court did not discuss it, a third reason the motion was ill-fated was that the right to pro se representation is strictly personal, so a non-lawyer can never extend that right to justify their representation of another person or legal entity. Cotenants have a great deal in common, but not enough to justify one using their right to self-representation to speak for others

Tenancies Uncommon: Limits on Representing Cotenants Pro Se

An adversary proceeding that was part of the Bernie Madoff bankruptcy litigation involved a fraud victim making a motion to represent pro se the interests of all tenants in common who co-owned an account with Madoff. This Essay analyzes and expands upon the bankruptcy court’s holding, which addressed this novel issue by finding that a tenant in common cannot represent his cotenants pro se for two reasons. First, a tenancy in common is not a legal entity that can speak with one voice. Second, one tenant in common cannot represent one or more other cotenants’ interests in litigation without joining the cotenants in the action. Although the court did not discuss it, a third reason the motion was ill-fated was that the right to pro se representation is strictly personal, so a non-lawyer can never extend that right to justify their representation of another person or legal entity. Cotenants have a great deal in common, but not enough to justify one using their right to self-representation to speak for others

Abortion Rights Under State Constitutions: A Fifty-State Survey

The U.S. Supreme Court appears poised to overturn Roe v. Wade and its progeny, removing any federal law protection of the right to an abortion. However, numerous state supreme courts have interpreted their state constitutions to independently recognize such a right, finding their state’s equal protection, due process, and privacy rights more expansive than those at the federal level. This Essay surveys all fifty states to ascertain how much protection each state currently affords to women’s right to an abortion. Most state supreme courts have not made a determinative ruling on the issue, and a significant majority of state constitutions do not contain a provision explicitly protecting or denying the right, so state courts are likely to be the venues for many of the contentious fights over abortion rights in the years to come