8145 research outputs found
Sort by
Litigating Innocence: Why Systemic Reforms Are Needed to Exonerate Innocent, Pro Se Individuals
Get PDFNo Rain Coming in the Drought on Farmworker Labor Protections: Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid’s Destruction of Traditional Takings Law and Labor Protections for U.S. Farmworkers
Get PDFThe Invisible Danger in Plain Site: Ending the Practice of Building Housing in Exposure Zones
Get PDFCrimmigrating Narratives: Examining Third-Party Observations of US Detained Immigration Court
Get PDFExamining what we call “crimmigrating narratives,” we show that US immigration court criminalizes non-citizens, cements forms of social control, and dispenses punishment in a non-punitive legal setting. Building on theories of crimmigration and a sociology of narrative, we code, categorize, and describe third-party observations of detained immigration court hearings conducted in Fort Snelling, Minnesota, from July 2018 to June 2019. We identify and investigate structural factors of three key crimmigrating narratives in the courtroom: one based on threats (stories of the non-citizen’s criminal history and perceived danger to society), a second involving deservingness (stories of the non-citizen’s social ties, hardship, and belonging in the United States), and a third pertaining to their status as “impossible subjects” (stories rendering non-citizens “illegal,” categorically excludable, and contradictory to the law). Findings demonstrate that the courts’ prioritization of these three narratives disconnects detainees from their own socially organized experience and prevents them from fully engaging in the immigration court process. In closing, we discuss the potential implications of crimmigrating narratives for the US immigration legal system and non-citizen status
Bureaucratic autonomy and the policymaking capacity of United States agencies, 1998–2021
Get PDFDespite a renewed interest in the health of the US administrative state, the absence of meaningful time-series measures of bureaucratic capacity hinders the testing of core theories of bureaucratic and executive politics. Using over 190 million personnel records, I estimate 5590 yearly policymaking-capacity scores for 261 unique agencies from 1998 to 2021. These measures provide an invaluable tool as either an independent or dependent variable in studies of administrative policymaking. To illustrate the value of these measures, I test longstanding theories about the relationship between bureaucratic autonomy and capacity. In contrast with emerging survey research, this study demonstrates that agencies with higher levels of structural independence have higher levels of policymaking capacity
Personal Jurisdiction’s Moment of Opportunity: A Reform Blueprint for Originalists and Nonoriginalists
Get PDFPersonal jurisdiction doctrine is broken, but there is a moment of opportunity to repair it. The Supreme Court has struggled for decades to explain why constitutional law sometimes prevents states from providing local remedies for local injuries. Basic questions lack satisfying answers. Should doctrine emphasize liberty or federalism? Is the Due Process Clause the proper foundation for limits on state power or are other clauses more relevant? What harms should limits on state power prevent and what harms should limits avoid creating? Decisions addressing these questions rely on jargon rather than a coherent account of how to allocate jurisdictional power in a federal system.
Reform may be possible. In 2021, the Court decided Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court, which unanimously rejected Ford’s extravagant challenge to jurisdiction in states where it sold thousands of cars. Unanimity masked Justices’ simmering frustration with precedents that made Ford’s challenge more plausible than it should have been. Two Justices went so far as to suggest reconsidering settled precedent from an originalist perspective. Nonoriginalist Justices will be wary of using historical analysis to interpret the Due Process Clause, but may otherwise be open to revisiting foundational assumptions about state jurisdiction.
This Article provides a blueprint for reforming personal jurisdiction doctrine that can appeal to both originalists and nonoriginalists. Finding common ground is essential at a time when the meaning of due process is contested and personal jurisdiction precedent is unstable. Part I uses Ford as a case study to illustrate how current rules governing personal jurisdiction excessively shield defendants from accountability. I argue that precedent undervalues state interests and horizontal federalism concerns, overvalues the importance of purposeful contacts with the forum, needlessly distinguishes between suit-related and state-related contacts, and relies on a categorical rather than sliding scale approach to specific and general jurisdiction. Part II explains why some Justices are willing to embrace reform. Part III identifies challenges that confront efforts to rebuild personal jurisdiction doctrine on a more stable and sound foundation. A common theme uniting these challenges is that an originalist inquiry into personal jurisdiction must navigate the same complexities that have undermined nonoriginalist jurisprudence. There is a risk that originalist methods will elide these complexities and create a veneer of reform that obscures doctrinal incoherence. Similarly, there is a risk that nonoriginalists will gloss over these complexities rather than join with originalists to find a mutually acceptable path toward reform. The Article therefore proposes eight criteria for rebuilding personal jurisdiction doctrine that Justices should consider regardless of the interpretive methodology they employ. This framework can help the Court seize an opportunity to repair a broken field of constitutional law
