Across the post-Dobbs United States, reports of pregnant people battling infections as severe as sepsis, experiencing hemorrhaging, and suffering from other pregnancy complications in hospital emergency rooms are flooding the news. Because of state abortion bans’ lack of clarity about medical exceptions and the overall chilling effect on abortion care, many patients are being denied the emergency care that they need or are being forced to wait until they are knocking on death’s door before medical staff can treat them. Healthcare professionals who work in states with criminal abortion bans face an impossible scenario that scholars have termed the “double abortion bind”: the impossible choice between, on the one hand, providing patients with emergency lifesaving abortions and facing potential criminal liability for violating their state’s abortion ban and, on the other hand, not providing emergency abortions and potentially losing their patients and facing medical malpractice claims for violating the standard of care. Litigators nationwide are fighting in state courts to clarify the medical exceptions in abortion bans. This Note asks what role tort claims—specifically, medical malpractice suits—can play in the area of emergency abortion access. Can torts realistically provide useful legal recourse for impacted patients and apply new pressure on healthcare industry actors to widen emergency abortion access?

Across the United States, immigrants held in for-profit detention centers participate, willingly or through degrees of coercion, in a work program that pays one dollar per day. For decades, the courts affirmed the legality of this practice and swiftly dismissed claims that participants in the program qualified for worker protections. But in the past decade, litigators, advocates, and academics have partnered with detained workers to successfully challenge the legality of these labor schemes, most recently scoring a unanimous victory at the Supreme Court. This Note outlines the various causes of action to claim workers’ rights in private immigration detention, particularly the under-researched but successful state law claims. Drawing on lessons learned from litigation across the country, this Note identifies obstacles to and opportunities for ending the exploitation of detained workers.

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.

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 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?

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.

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 officials’ perception of the “median voter” 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 “from public life entirely,” as one political commentator has announced. This Note turns to history—specifically the history of the sex/gender binary and cross-dressing laws—to understand why false and inflammatory representations of gender variance are so prolific in our digital milieu.

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 “next best” use of these funds, inadequate oversight of recipient charities results in distributions that may not effectively address the harms caused by the defendant’s conduct.

Pharmaceutical drugs are pillars of modern medicine and enshrined in the human right to health. Upholding the right to access such essential medicines requires systems that not only incentivize drug development, but that also audit new drugs for adequate safety and efficacy. Amidst a growing antibiotic resistance crisis, current approaches to both patent protection and clinical trial design are failing to adequately support new antibiotic development while upholding the human right to health.

From Hurricane Katrina to the 2021 West Coast wildfires, recent history shows that prisons are unprepared for natural disasters. As a result, incarcerated people experience smoke-filled cells, toxic flooding, and abandonment in unplanned evacuations. Climate change is accelerating the occurrence of natural disasters, creating pressing issues for modern prison infrastructure. Previous scholarship has explored systemic solutions to the issue of prison climate adaptation, such as climate change mitigation and decreasing prison populations. However, long-term solutions fail to address the immediacy of climate emergencies, which affect prisons now. Incarcerated people trapped in the path of today’s floods and fires need short-term solutions while systemic efforts develop.

In a series of cases stemming from the racist rationales of the Insular Cases, federal courts have created a doctrine that excludes territorial residents from federal elections, thus entrenching their political subordination. The courts have based their decisions on three main principles: First, because the constitutional provisions regarding federal elections refer only to states and are silent as to territories, territorial residents have no right to vote in federal elections. Second, because territorial residents are not a suspect class and do not have a fundamental right to vote, their disenfranchisement is subject to only rational basis review. Third, only statehood or a constitutional amendment can provide such a right. This Note challenges all three principles to provide a constitutional justification for equal enfranchisement.

The Ninth Circuit’s decision in Lam v. University of Hawaiʻi is the “high water mark” of intersectional Title VII jurisprudence. However, this Note suggests that despite thirty years since Lam, courts have struggled to conceptualize the intersectional identities of plaintiffs and the multifaceted discrimination they face.

Once considered a dying language, ‘ōlelo Hawaiʻi (the Hawaiian language) has made a powerful resurgence in recent decades, thanks in large part to the proliferation of Hawaiian immersion programs at schools across the State. In 2019, the Hawaiʻi State Supreme Court strengthened these programs in Clarabal v. Department of Education, which held that the State of Hawaiʻi has a constitutional obligation to make all reasonable efforts to provide access to Hawaiian immersion education. This Note argues that Clarabal serves as an example of the type of reparative jurisprudence that is necessary to provide tangible restitutive benefits to historically victimized peoples.

This Note argues that today’s increased racial diversity in the UC’s student body is a result of a two-part system: (1) the UC’s diversity efforts within its self-prescribed limits under Proposition 209, and (2) the hidden ecosystem of private actors acting outside doctrinal limits to increase diversity in higher education.

Despite its growing prominence, the sliding-scale approach to unconscionability remains undertheorized. Courts have seldom discussed its rationale, and scholarly commentators have largely neglected the concept. To help fill this lacuna, this Note provides a history and analysis of California’s sliding-scale approach to unconscionability.

This Note examines the current legal landscape around “poppers,” an alkyl nitrite-based inhalant that has a strong association with the LGBTQ+ community as a party and sex drug.

This Note is concerned with the unique conflict of interest presented when a prosecutor who accepts campaign contributions from a police union is responsible for investigating police shootings or other officer misconduct.