9571 research outputs found
Sort by
Debt, Work, and the State
No full textIn every state and the District of Columbia, an individual who owes a debt to the state can lose their license to work. Without the ability to make a living, it is much harder to pay off debt. Although using occupational license restrictions as a debt collection tool appears nonsensical, it has never before been the subject of scholarly debate. This Article thus begins an important conversation about debt, work, and the state.
This Article identifies the pervasive authority that state and local governments have to revoke an individual’s occupational license solely because that person owes a debt to the government. Its first contribution is descriptive—proffering a mapping of state statutes and municipal ordinances that give the government the authority to use occupational licensing restrictions as a debt collection tool. And because this debt collection tool is potent, punitive, and disproportionately affects low-income workers, policymakers must better understand and grapple with its benefits and burdens. Therefore, this Article’s second contribution is conceptual— proposing a new way for how the state should analyze its debt collection actions. It argues that the state must consider more than the cost-benefit analysis a creditor typically employs in a private arms-length transaction. Governments must also consider moral and public interest factors unique to state action.
Using debt-based occupational licensing as an example, this Article models both a traditional cost-benefit analysis and the more extensive benefits-burdens model proposed herein, exposing the critical differences in the two analyses. It then concludes with proposals for specific policy changes to debt-based licensing restrictions that better reflect the government’s unique interests in protecting individual debtors, families, and the broader public
Memory Delayed is Justice Denied: Why North Carolina Should Amend Its Statute of Limitations for Child Sexual Abuse Cases
No full textDeath and Debts
No full textThis Article analyzes how inheritance law treats debts owed to and by a decedent, focusing on the Uniform Probate Code’s treatment of unpaid purchase-price balances associated with specifically devised property. While UPC §2‑606(a)(1) automatically gives the outstanding balance to the specific devisee, the Article argues that this rule is inconsistent with modern intent‑based ademption doctrine and with the Code’s treatment of debts owed by the estate. It contends that only outstanding balances secured by the devised asset reflect a meaningful connection to the testator’s likely intent. Unsecured balances, by contrast, should not automatically avoid ademption. The Article proposes amending the UPC to distinguish between secured and unsecured unpaid purchase prices: secured debts would transfer automatically, while unsecured debts would require the beneficiary to establish non‑ademption under §2‑606(a)(6). This refinement, it argues, would better align doctrine, policy, and testator intent
Text, Fairness, and Efficiency: The Case Against the Plausibility Standard for Affirmative Defenses
No full textLower federal courts have struggled to answer the following question without any guidance from the U.S. Supreme Court: Does the Iqbal and Twombly plausibility standard apply to affirmative defenses? In this essay, we explain why the answer is no. We aim to provide practical guidance to the countless judges deciding whether to strike an affirmative defense. First, we argue that Rule 8’s text makes using the plausibility standard to evaluate affirmative defenses improper. Judges should pay especially careful attention to our textual analysis because the Supreme Court has placed great weight on the text’s plain meaning in recent civil procedure cases. Second, we argue that using the plausibility standard in the context of affirmative defenses is unworkable, inefficient, and unfair
Plastics, Carbon, Politics, and Experimentation in Environmental Governance
No full textThis Article analyzes two major international environmental negotiations that concluded in late 2024 and uses them to explore emerging directions in plastics policy, carbon markets, and experimental forms of environmental governance. It examines the redesign of global carbon offset markets following the adoption of Article 6 mechanisms at COP 29, highlighting how new international standards and domestic U.S. initiatives seek to address longstanding concerns about offset quality while insulating climate policy from drastic federal political swings. The Article then evaluates the failed Busan negotiations toward a global plastics treaty, explaining how disagreements over production caps, consensus procedures, and the complexity of upstream, midstream, and downstream solutions stalled progress despite broad alignment on waste-management reforms. Finally, it considers the relationship between plastics reduction and greenhouse gas mitigation, critiquing the rise of “plastic credits” while suggesting that upstream shifts from petrochemical plastics to alternative materials should qualify for carbon-offset crediting. Across these developments, the Article argues that decentralized and market-based governance experiments—extended producer responsibility programs, carbon markets, and selective crediting systems—may offer important tools to advance environmental protection amid volatile national politics and accelerating global waste and climate crises
Tax Compliance, Social Norms, and Influencers
No full textWhile attaining perfect tax compliance is unachievable, more can and must be done. In the past, the country has relied primarily on a traditional system of sticks (e.g., audits and penalties) and carrots (e.g., refunds and whistleblower awards) to help narrow the “tax gap,” or the difference between what taxpayers owe in taxes and what they actually pay. Now, in the social media era, Congress and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) should look beyond these traditional enforcement mechanisms. To achieve an even higher voluntary compliance rate, this Article advocates for policymakers to invest greater resources to enhance the social norm related to tax compliance. While scholars have long suggested that social norms play a role in tax compliance, this Article suggests a revolutionary approach, one that attempts to foster a social norm of compliance by employing the use of social media influencers.
The internet and other electronic media have revolutionized and amplified the stunning impact that influencers can have. Virtually everyone, particularly the younger generation, is keenly aware of the dramatic impact that influencers can have in shaping social norms. Thus, now is the time for Congress and the IRS to capitalize on this power by strategically employing social media influencers. A well-crafted influencer campaign could educate taxpayers on how to fulfill their tax obligations, remind taxpayers of the laudatory impact of the tax system, and foster a positive social norm of compliance. Such a change in compliance orientation could help policymakers narrow the tax gap, yielding billions of dollars of additional tax revenue without the need to raise tax rates
