The doctrinal landscape of internet-based personal jurisdiction is increasingly incoherent. Rules designed for a world of print and physical presence struggle to account for the realities of digital communication. Courts have treated virality and even conversational tagging, such as an @-mention of a forum resident, as evidence that a speaker purposefully directed their speech into that state. When speech alone is treated as the jurisdictional contact, nonresident defendants can be haled into distant courts they never expected, and lawful expression is chilled. By connecting personal jurisdiction fairness principles to First Amendment “chilling effect” principles, this Note offers a new framework for jurisdiction in the digital age—one that reflects the realities of online interaction and guards against litigation being used as a tool to silence critics.

Commercial activities, like selling a car or serving hot coffee, can generate a risk of loss to which multiple individuals are exposed. When burdens and losses are distributed across multiple stakeholders, when should negligence law tolerate or condemn the risky choice? A famous answer at the center of the first-year curriculum invokes the Hand formula: The failure to avoid a risk is negligent when the sum of the burdens of risk-avoidance is less than the sum of the expected losses. This Article argues that the Hand formula should be applied to multiparty cases by, first, disaggregating burdens and losses and comparing them on a pairwise basis, starting with the individual who bears the highest burden and the one who bears the highest expected loss.

Article II vests the executive power in the President. Yet Congress routinely empowers private plaintiffs, not just the President, to enforce public regulatory laws. Because of this, in almost every area of law—from environmental and antitrust law to civil rights and securities law—the bulk of enforcement occurs through private civil suits rather than government-initiated litigation. Our original historical investigation of “penal statutes”—a category of Founding-Era regulatory legislation that anticipated modern private rights of action—uncovers the deep constitutional foundation of this tradition of private enforcement. We conclude that private enforcement does not violate Article II, except under extremely narrow conditions.

In debates about the future of work, scholars and policymakers often treat economic efficiency and distributive justice as the principal values at stake. In this Article, I argue that neither a transaction cost-centric analysis of employment nor one focused only on distributive justice or equality fully conceptualizes all that is at stake in the institutional design and legal regulation of how we work. Here, I provide the first in-depth theorization of work as a site of relational transaction benefits, with a specific focus on law’s role in shaping them.

Amid the avalanche of recent important administrative law decisions, one case has received almost no scholarly attention: Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. In part, Corner Post expands judicial review for claims that an agency regulation violates the authorizing statute or the Constitution by allowing such substantive claims indefinitely. Congress should implement a six-year time bar for administrative procedure claims that accrues at the time of agency action, so that procedural claims would be allowed only for six years following a rulemaking. Otherwise, a court might invalidate a longstanding regulation because of an agency’s years-old violation of procedural requirements, even if the regulation perfectly implements the authorizing statute and is consistent with the Constitution.

The concern raised by David Strauss’s Essay might be addressed by positing an alternative, broader conception of judicial review than the one he proposes, which is inspired by the influential footnote in the Carolene Products case. My alternative view on the scope and nature of judicial review does not grow out of experience with American Constitutional history (which I am no expert on), but rather from a philosophical perspective grounded in liberal and democratic theory and from a comparative constitutional experience drawn from the European and Israeli contexts. I will present my position through a defense of two distinctions that seem essential to me.

Professor David Strauss attributes the U.S. Supreme Court’s reactionary jurisprudence to a breakdown of elite consensus. He observes that lawyers and judges disagree about the proper “victims” of our political process: Are they Black, Brown, and LGBTQ+ people or, instead, Whites, Christians, and gun owners? Under such elite “polarization,” Strauss worries the jurisprudential approach that emerged from Carolene Products allows for judicial intervention on behalf of groups loaded with political power. Even then, he insists on the classic liberal defense of the courts: that courts serve as an important if imperfect check against the majoritarian domination of minorities. But critical to such defenses is the unstated conjecture that elites are more enlightened than popular majorities.

In Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization and Obergefell v. Hodges, the Justices who attack substantive due process law equate it with Lochner. Today, crying “Lochner” has so much force that it is often unclear what the objection itself entails. “Lochner” warns federal judges to defer to a legislature’s judgments in enacting ordinary social and economic legislation. But the modern substantive due process cases do not concern such legislation. In this Essay, we supply an answer to the Lochner objection by demonstrating how judicial review of substantive due process claims can be democracy-promoting.

Among law students, lawyers, jurists, and legal academics, the reasoning contained in Supreme Court opinions forms the indispensable object of examination. The centrality of those opinions is instilled from the very first moments of law school, as professors direct their students to scrutinize this key paragraph, that critical sentence, even the odd momentous footnote. The rationales undergirding various Supreme Court opinions receive not mere study, but valorization, worship, and occasionally even ridicule. However, this Essay contends that such claims wildly exaggerate the actual significance of judicial opinions.

Once upon a time, not that long ago, we had a pretty good explanation for why judicial review exists. The premise is that, for the most part, important decisions in a nation like ours should be made by politically accountable officials, not by courts. Unavoidably, though, there will be defects in the democratic political process. The role of the courts is to correct those defects, to the extent they can. One such defect is that some groups may not have their fair share of political power. If that is true, then the courts should intervene to protect that group. But this account is not quite right, and it is incorrect in a way that suggests a deep problem with judicial review today.

Efforts to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment have resurged, and for the first time in nearly forty years, three new states have ratified the ERA. But there are several reasons to reconsider these efforts. Most importantly, the ERA’s substance is insufficient to address ongoing inequities. This Article argues that advocates should instead focus efforts on writing a new amendment constitutionalizing equality aimed at rectifying the constitutional Founding Era’s treatment of people of color, women, and other subordinated groups.

Data breach—the improper exposure of consumers’ personal information held in corporate databases—costs consumers and businesses hundreds of billions of dollars each year. Despite scrutiny, the scale and severity of breaches has rapidly increased. This Note lays out a policy framework for overcoming the intense industry opposition and political paralysis that has consistently derailed data breach reform efforts over the past decade.

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act entitles many workers to “reasonable accommodations” for pregnancy-related medical conditions—so long as they do not impose an “undue hardship” on their employer. This Article addresses how the chaotic Americans with Disabilities Act doctrine will impact the PWFA’s implementation. The Article proposes a framework for litigants and courts assessing claims under the PWFA.

Scholars’ framing of Section 1983 as a “constitutional tort” and their focus on the qualified immunity doctrine miss the fundamental issue of Section 1983's transformation into a fault-based tort. This Article demonstrates how the judicial rewriting of Section 1983 has undermined its effectiveness and diverged from the Reconstruction Congress’ intent. The Article argues that Section 1983 should be interpreted as a strict liability statutory tort.

Past-due child support debt cannot be forgiven or discharged in bankruptcy. This policy is grounded in the assumption that all child support debt goes to a parent taking care of a child. However, billions of dollars of unpaid child support debt are instead owed to the government. Welfare debt often leads to a cycle of incarceration and criminal fines. This Article argues that for the bankruptcy system to uphold its normative principle of forgiving burdensome debt for the most economically vulnerable individuals, welfare debt must be forgiven.

“Suicide by cop” refers to encounters in which civilians intentionally provoke a lethal response from law enforcement. Police and their advocates have developed suicide by cop into junk science that serves as a broad defense against liability. This Article explores the origins and use of suicide by cop, and argues that police should be required to exercise a higher duty of care to protect people from excessive use of force.

The federal government has a well-documented history of discrimination against women in American agriculture. And the government now has many compelling reasons—from remedying past discrimination to shoring up food security—to provide targeted support to women farmers. But the Biden Administration’s attempts to provide targeted financial support to Black farmers through the American Rescue Plan Act were halted by federal courts that view affirmative action with increasing suspicion, as evidenced by the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (SFFA). Does the Supreme Court’s upending of decades of precedent governing race-based affirmative action in SFFA also spell the end for gender-based programs in agriculture?

What duties do Americans owe the state? Today, this question seems almost incomprehensible. Compulsions in the common interest are received coolly in our rights-obsessed culture, and the Supreme Court has never announced a framework for identifying the burdens of citizenship. This Article corrects the historical record by documenting how civic duties have developed over time. The evidence reveals that these obligations are constantly in motion; society has constructed, reshaped, and discarded them in decades-long struggles over the meaning of freedom. Put simply, the duties of citizenship are not fixed features of our constitutional order.

Most people agree that the institution of contract serves autonomy—or that it should. But how? Philosophical theories of contract link contract and autonomy by way of an appealing intermediate principle, such as the authority of the individual will, promissory morality, or conventions of agreement. However, each of these theories is focused on the mental and verbal acts surrounding contract and is thus at odds with both contract as a social practice and contract law. The theories fail to account for basic features of modern contracting such as anonymity, mass scale, and market determination of contract terms—facts to which both the common law and statutory regulation have long adjusted. This Article proposes a different approach to contract theory.

This Article employs recent philosophical advances in action theory and moral responsibility to critically examine the traditional purpose-knowledge-recklessness-negligence (PKRN) mens rea hierarchy of the Model Penal Code. It is a foundational assumption of the traditional mens rea hierarchy that the commission of intentional harm ought to be subject to greater criminal liability than actions that foreseeably result in risk of those same harms. The Article critically rethinks the standard mens rea hierarchy and show how we might amend current homicide doctrine (and the PKRN mens rea regime more generally) to allow more criminal liability for non-intentional police homicides like Derek Chauvin’s killing of George Floyd, relative to reluctant purposeful defendants.