This Note analyzes the various approaches to legislating against coercive control and ultimately recommends against criminalizing the behavior, as such efforts could cause backlash against survivors and are likely to disproportionately affect marginalized communities.

Los Angeles is experiencing an unprecedented “Mulholland Moment”: a period of bustling enterprise, skyrocketing socioeconomic inequality, and dwindling water resources. After years of yellow lawns and increasing water use restrictions, Angelenos are thirsty for local, reliable, and affordable water supplies even as climate change and prolonged periods of drought become the norm.

Each year, Child Protective Services (CPS) investigates over one million families. Every CPS investigation includes a thorough, room-by-room search of the family home, designed to uncover evidence of maltreatment. Most seek evidence of poverty-related allegations of neglect; few ever substantiate the allegations.

Property technologies (PropTech) are innovations that automate real estate transactions. Automating rental markets amplifies racial discrimination and segregation in housing. Because screening tools rely on data drawn from discriminatory—and often overtly segregationist—historical practices, they replicate those practices’ unequal outcomes in the form of algorithmic redlining.

Both formal policies and informal norms encourage a consumerist vision of American belonging, with credit/debt as a primary means of consumption. Consequently, debt-based consumption implicates dignity in the American market society.

This Article argues that “punishment exemption”—the assumption that criminal punishment is exempt from traditional constitutional scrutiny—has no legal basis. Drawing on original empirical research, this Article first exposes a maze of modern non-carceral punishments that infringe on constitutional rights, justified by nothing more than the assertion that they are punishment and therefore permissible.