Print Edition
This Note explores the idea of paying Americans to cast their ballots as a mechanism to increase electoral participation among lower income voters and rebalance the influence that wealthy Americans have on policy outcomes. The Note begins by exploring the rationale behind the idea, drawing on political science, economic, and legal literature to argue that subsidizing the franchise could help rebalance elected officialsโ perception of the โmedian voterโ away from the wealthy.
Hatred and disinformation on the internet have ushered in a state of emergency for gender-variant people. Among other effects, they have generated political will to enact sweeping regulations that threaten to eradicate gender variance โfrom public life entirely,โ as one political commentator has announced. This Note turns to historyโspecifically the history of the sex/gender binary and cross-dressing lawsโto understand why false and inflammatory representations of gender variance are so prolific in our digital milieu.
Occupational licensing has been under attack from across the political spectrum. Economists argue that it is inefficient and costly; policymakers argue that it limits employment opportunities and hurts consumers; and antitrust regulators argue that it limits competition and creates cartels. Politicians, regulators, and courts have come to a rare consensus that licensing regimes must be restricted or repealed. This Article reimagines licensing in the twenty-first century as a source of opportunity rather than a pure barrier to entry.
Itโs widely understood today that inequality is a major social problem that in turn contributes to other crises. By most accounts, tax systems are supposed to be our engines of equality. Yet in todayโs United States, state and local tax systems mostly do the opposite: They take a greater percentage of the resources of the poor and middle class than of the rich. This Article argues that a truly progressive state tax system is possible and outlines how it could operate.
Scholars and advocates have long argued that a personโs consent to a warrantless police search is often so inherently coerced, uninformed, and shaped by race, class, gender, citizenship status, and disability that to call it a โchoiceโ is fiction. This critique is not limited to police searches based on consent. Waiving rights and consenting to otherwise unconstitutional state action permeates criminal procedure. Given these concerns, this Article asks: What would happen if consent were eliminated from criminal procedure doctrines?
The two primary goals of consumer class actions are to provide relief to those who have been harmed and to deter similar behavior in the future. Yet, in many class actions, claims rates are so low that only a small fraction of class members actually receives their share of a settlement, leaving remaining unclaimed funds subject to judicial discretion. This allows for reversion to the defendant, pro-rata distribution, or escheat by the state. While distribution to charities via the cy pres doctrine is often deemed the โnext bestโ use of these funds, inadequate oversight of recipient charities results in distributions that may not effectively address the harms caused by the defendantโs conduct.
CLR Online
The web edition of the California Law Review.
Who does our government work for? How does our government shape our society? Who gets access to the power of the state when they have a problem or need help? None other than Chief Justice John Roberts himself has perpetrated a great lie that the ability to access our federal courts is a neutral, apolitical issue. In reality, our federal courts systematically favor the rich and powerful, particularly those who push a specific set of conservative policy outcomes, even when those outcomes are contrary to what Americans vote for and support. In order to rectify this disconnect, we must rethink the laws, rules, and regulations that structure federal courts, and grow capacity at the state level to ensure our system works for everyone, not just the rich and powerful.
When and how should an individual or an institution act in response to extortion? What should an individual or an institution do to oppose tyranny, illegality, oppression, or horror, if we suppose that the consequences of opposition might not be so good or might be terrible? These questions arose in stark form in 2025 in the context of efforts by the Trump administration to punish and bring to heel law firms, individuals, universities, and others.
In his second term, President Donald Trump has launched an unprecedented assault on the nationโs largest law firms. Through a series of executive orders and highly unusual EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) actions, the Trump regime has sought to undermine the independence of the private bar. In response, targeted firms have been forced to make a choice: to appease the administration or to fight back.
โKnown formally as the President and Fellows of Harvard College, the Harvard Corporation is the oldest corporation in the Western Hemisphere.โ So reads the Harvard Corporation website. But you would hardly know it was a corporation at all based on Harvardโs recent fifty-page complaint against the federal government, which attempted to commandeer the university through an April 11 letter demanding that Harvard change its governance, hiring and admissions practices, and faculty viewpoint diversity on pain of losing research funding.
What can trademark law learn from comic art? This Comic Book explores the question using Scott McCloudโs book Understanding Comics as a point of departure. McCloud provides a framework for understanding why some images are more effective icons than others. His analysis offers useful insights for trademark law. While comic artists need only follow their creative vision in balancing realism and abstraction, trademark holders are more constrained. If a mark is too abstract, it ceases to be distinct. But a mark that is too realistic loses the ability to embody the range of meanings that a trademark may represent. McCloudโs framework thus suggests a zone of effectiveness for non-word trademarks. When trademark holders select a mark that is outside the zone, trademark law should be suspicious of the choice.
Consumer financial protection law is critically important for the members of our society with the fewest resources. Violations of consumer protection laws disproportionately impact people who are struggling, and people are often taken advantage of when they are vulnerable. Focusing on recent work by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), this speech by Seth Frotman, former CFPB General Counsel and Senior Advisor to the CFPB Director, examines how the CFPB has used consumer financial protection law to combat practices that take advantage of the vulnerable and discriminate against them.
Symposia
Articles accompanying CLRโs conferences. Published in the print edition.
Department of State v. Muรฑoz was a critically important successor to Dobbs v. Jackson Womenโs Health Organization. In Muรฑoz, the Court continued efforts to shrink the protective force of the Due Process Clause. Even more significantly, the Court launched another attack on the equality principle undergirding cases including Loving v. Virginia. Through its rejection of substantive due process protections, the Court is intentionally weakening a broad swath of antidiscrimination protections and procedural due process rights.
The Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College majority opinion has been widely misunderstood as a victory for those who believe in the โcolorblind Constitution.โ By juxtaposing the opinionโs main rule with the exception for admitting students based on essays that discuss studentsโ lived experiences with race, Robinson reveals the opinionโs fundamental incoherence, as well as its furtive race-consciousness. This examination reveals the chasm between colorblind rhetoric and the inescapability of racially-forged realities.
This Essay connects Students for Fair Admissions to two earlier moments in equal protection history. The first is Japanese American internment during World War II and the Supreme Courtโs creation of the strict scrutiny doctrine. The second is the affirmative action wars that occurred in the 1980s and 1990s, which resulted in the current doctrine requiring strict scrutiny even for โbenignโ affirmative action. In all three momentsโinternment, affirmative action wars, and SFFAโAsian Americans were curiously exploited.
Implicit in inquiries about Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvardโs relationship to precedent is an assumption about the affirmative action cases that preceded SFFAโnamely, that Regents of the University of California v. Bakke and its progeny represented a victory for proponents of affirmative action. This Essay complicates that view. Our central claim is that Bakke contained many losses for proponents of affirmative action and that the specific nature of those losses set the stage for precisely the outcome SFFA instantiates.
Since the Supreme Court struck down race-conscious university admissions in 2023, magnet school admissions have become the next constitutional battleground for diversity in education. Harpalani illustrates how Asian Americansโ positioning intersected with litigation strategy and constitutional issues in Coalition for TJ v. Fairfax County School Boardโan important recent ruling that deals with race-neutral public magnet school admissions policies. Harpalani aims to convince progressives to take anti-Asian animus more seriously, even as they support the admissions reforms that Asian American plaintiffs in several cases have challenged.
The Courtโs unprecedented decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Womenโs Health Organization relegated abortion regulation to a highly heterogeneous state institutional landscape. For lawyers, this institutional heterogeneity poses new questions of orientation, skill-building, and collaboration. In this Essay, Abrams examines the challenges facing lawyers in this new institutional landscape by focusing on one promising strategy for protecting abortion rights in conservative states: the initiative petition to amend a stateโs constitution.
Podcast
Interviews with the authors of articles, notes, or online pieces published in CLR.
People usually think that all tax agencies do is ensure tax laws are followed. But for decades, the IRS has regularly facilitated immigration raids. These raids target employees even as the IRS investigates their employersโ potential tax violations. What can this state of affairs teach us about agency overreach? And what alternate paths could better align the IRSโs efforts with its mission? In this episode, UC Davis School of Law Professor Shayak Sarkar discusses the IRS's underappreciated role in immigration enforcement.
Traffic courts resolve over half of the cases in the U.S. legal system. These cases are easy for some defendants to handle by paying a fine, but they can have devastating effects for those with fewer means. And despite the key role these courts play in funding state judicial branches and other state and local programs, they have not been comprehensively studied in decades. Whatโs going on in traffic courts? And what can they teach us about the legal system more broadly? In this episode, Arizona State University Sandra Day OโConnor College of Law Professor Justin Weinstein-Tull explains his research on traffic courts.
Immigration adjudications regularly use information from the criminal legal system to justify a discretionary denial of relief or benefits, even when charges have been dismissed. This practice faces little scrutiny due to the assumption that adjudicators are merely importing facts already found by the criminal system. But what if this practice actually constitutes โhidden factfindingโ? Sarah Vendzules, a Senior Staff Attorney at the Office of the Appellate Defender in New York City, uncovers this hidden factfinding and offers a framework that could rein it in.
The U.S. carceral system disproportionately harms racial minorities and people living in poverty. Penal abolitionist frameworks have helpfully reframed the conversation to foreground those harmful social consequences. But how do those consequences affect our understanding of work, and particularly work that is both criminalized and undertaken in order to survive? In this episode, Indiana University Maurer School of Law Professor Yvette Butler explains her concept of survival labor and why it should be included in our general understanding of work.
For more than a century, the United States has restricted Tribal governmentsโ powers over criminal law. It has diminished Tribal jurisdiction and imposed adversarial approaches on Tribal courts. But recently, some Tribal courts have begun to embrace Indigenous-based restorative justice models. UCLA School of Law Assistant Professor Lauren van Schilfgaarde discusses how these these models strengthen both Tribal courts and Tribal jurisdiction more broadly.
Each year, Child Protective Services investigates over one million families. Every investigation includes a room-by-room search of the family home, as well as the threat of the stateโs coercive authority to remove children from their families. CUNY School of Law Professor Tarek Z. Ismail discusses how these investigations have evaded traditional Fourth Amendment scrutiny.
