Print Edition
Although ADA protections are ensured in the federal legislative branch and in state courthouses, this pivotal disability rights statute does not cover the federal judiciary. ADA claims are consequently litigated in federal courthouses that may be inaccessible to disabled people, yet there is little scholarship on the topic. This Note aims to fill this gap by exploring the implications of the lack of accessibility in the federal judiciary. Without ADA protections, disabled people do not have recourse when faced with discrimination and inaccessible spaces. This lack of protection threatens disabled people’s access to justice, access to the workplace, and representation both on juries and within the federal judiciary.
California has a housing crisis. Despite the state government’s best efforts to build more homes, local governments and local voters are finding new ways to circumvent those requirements. One such loophole allows California voters to propose non-compliant housing plans through the ballot initiative process or effectively veto their local governments’ housing allocation decisions through a referendum. Although voters rarely use this loophole, the California Supreme Court should step in and prevent it from growing in popularity. The court can do so by simply making a small change to a legal test that determines when local initiatives and referenda are preempted by state law.
Environmental law has an animal problem. It lacks an account of whether and how animals’ interests matter. Case in point: The agencies tasked with protecting wild animals cannot stop killing them. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration slays sea lions to reduce predation on endangered salmon. The Fish and Wildlife Service shoots barred owls to curb competition with northern spotted owls. These widespread “removals” reflect a tension between safeguarding ecological collectives, such as species and ecosystems, and protecting individual animals.
“Social justice” is everywhere in public law. Scholars and activists are calling for racial justice, climate justice, and health justice, among other claims. When commentators speak about multiple different social justice claims, it is often through an intersectional lens that views these claims as co-constitutive with one another, such as, “There is no climate justice without racial justice.” These justice claims are important and long overdue. But conflicts between different social justice claims—what this Article calls “justice conflicts”—are inevitable in policymaking. Justice conflicts occur when the multiple social justice claims involved in a policy issue point to opposing outcomes.
Despite ongoing disagreement about how the Constitution allocates powers among the different branches, the two dominant schools of thought in American separation-of-powers debates—formalism and functionalism—agree on three premises: Certain powers inhere in certain government branches, some powers are vested exclusively in one or another branch, and the judiciary is the final arbiter of separation-of-powers disputes. Disagreement is largely about how powers should be parsed and which should be shared. Yet over the long lifespan of our constitutional tradition, momentous doctrinal upheavals are relatively commonplace. This Article describes four tectonic shifts in separation-of-powers doctrine: Founding-era debates about how to define and blend powers, nineteenth-century debates about the constitutionality of the nascent civil service, Lochner-era debates about legislatures’ authority to define and regulate public utilities, and mid-nineteenth-century debates about the sources of international law.
Amazon’s dominance as a platform is widely documented. But one aspect of that dominance has not received sufficient attention—the Amazon Brand Registry’s sweeping influence on firm behavior, particularly in relation to the formal trademark system. Amazon’s Brand Registry serves as a shadow trademark system that dramatically affects businesses’ incentives to seek legal registration of their marks. The result has been a surge in the number of applications to register, which has swamped the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) and created delays for all applicants, even those that previously would have registered their marks. And the increased value of federal registration has drawn in bad actors who fraudulently register marks that are in use by others on the Amazon platform and use those registrations to extort the true owners.
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 nation’s 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.
“Known formally as the President and Fellows of Harvard College, the Harvard Corporation is the oldest corporation in the Western Hemisphere.” So reads the Harvard Corporation website. But you would hardly know it was a corporation at all based on Harvard’s 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 McCloud’s 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. McCloud’s 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 CLR’s conferences. Published in the print edition.
Department of State v. Muñoz was a critically important successor to Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. In Muñoz, 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 “colorblind Constitution.” By juxtaposing the opinion’s main rule with the exception for admitting students based on essays that discuss students’ lived experiences with race, Robinson reveals the opinion’s 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 Court’s 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 “benign” affirmative action. In all three moments—internment, affirmative action wars, and SFFA—Asian Americans were curiously exploited.
Implicit in inquiries about Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard’s relationship to precedent is an assumption about the affirmative action cases that preceded SFFA—namely, 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 Americans’ positioning intersected with litigation strategy and constitutional issues in Coalition for TJ v. Fairfax County School Board—an 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 Court’s unprecedented decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s 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 state’s 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 employers’ potential tax violations. What can this state of affairs teach us about agency overreach? And what alternate paths could better align the IRS’s 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. What’s 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 O’Connor 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 “hidden factfinding”? 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 governments’ 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 state’s 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.
