Lights, Camera, State Action: Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck

It is a well-established rule that constitutional constraints governing public entities do not extend to private actors—until they do. If this principle seems unclear, it is largely due to the piecemeal jurisprudence that defines the “state action” doctrine. This doctrine applies when courts hold that a private actor is subject to constitutional constraints by virtue of the quasi-public role they have willingly accepted. In these situations, constitutional protections—and the resulting 42 U.S.C. § 1983 actions—may be available to those who demand relief. While questions of what entails a “state action” loom in the face of closely intertwined private and public actors, Halleck simplifies the inquiry with an updated definition of the types of private functions that now qualify as state action.

The Dangers to the American Rule of Law Will Outlast the Next Election

According to many constitutional lawyers and political scientists, the presidential administration of Donald Trump (for scholars on the left), or the response to that presidency (for scholars on the right) poses serious dangers to American constitutional democracy and the rule of law. However, this Essay argues that a more careful understanding of the contemporary dangers to the American rule of law are both broader-based and longer-term: inequality among the public, and epistemic polarization among the public as well as among legal elites (including constitutional law professors themselves), undermine the capacity of the American people to use the political tools available in our constitutional system to resist any power-grabbing executive, regardless of ideology. The rule of law conflicts of the Trump administration, while dangerous in their own right, are fundamentally symptoms of this broader political and legal crisis.

Employers Should Owe a Duty of Loyalty to Their Workers

An employee’s overarching legal commitment to his or her employer is commonly known as the “duty of loyalty.” This lopsided duty of loyalty exacerbates the inordinate power that employers possess over their workers. We propose that the duty of loyalty owed by workers to their employers be made reciprocal: employers should also owe a general duty of loyalty and care towards their employees.

Robo-Bureaucrat and the Administrative Separation of Powers

This Essay argues that the administrative state’s use of artificial intelligence (AI) creates concentrated, unchecked power at the agency leadership level. The Essay draws from Professor Jon Michaels’ theory of the administrative separation of powers, and it describes how AI in government disrupts this separation. To alleviate this concern, the Essay puts forward one modest proposal: Congress should amend federal public sector labor law to require collective bargaining over an agency’s decision to use AI.

Survey Says?: U.S. Cities Double Down on Civilian Oversight of Police Despite Challenges and Controversy

The emergence of police accountability as an issue of concern in communities across the nation has led to a watershed era in the evolution of accountability systems involving civilian oversight of municipal police agencies. This Article reports on a survey of the civilian oversight entities in the one hundred most populous U.S. cities and draws on recent trends it identifies to illuminate the challenges inherent in civilian oversight of police. This Article is intended to serve as a resource for civilian oversight professionals as well as local government and community leaders who are advocating for new or revised oversight systems.

A Cashless Economy: How to Protect the Low-Income

This Note discusses how cashless business practices disparately harm low-income individuals, minorities, and other groups, and proposes the need for federal, state, and local legislation to combat these impacts.

Effective Assistance of Counsel? An Empirical Study of Defense Attorneys’ Decision-Making in False-Confession Cases

Although there is considerable literature on the causes of false confessions and the effects confession evidence has on juror decision-making, little research has examined attorneys’ decision-making in disputed confession cases. As the intervening step between when the confession is elicited and the case is resolved, it is crucial that research examine effects of confession evidence on this population. The current studies investigate defense attorneys’ knowledge and perception of key interrogation and confession issues as well as their decision-making in a disputed confession case. Overall, results show that defense attorneys are knowledgeable about key interrogation and confession issues and are aware of how powerful confession evidence is at trial. Regarding trial strategies, however, defense attorneys focused more on highlighting the lack of non-confession evidence than discounting the confession. Implications for future research and practice are discussed.

First Principles for Forum Provisions

In this Essay, the authors argue that the Delaware Chancery Court’s opinion in Sciabacucchi v. Salzberg, which appeals to territoriality as a decisive “first principle,” is deeply misguided. The notion that each state’s legislative jurisdiction is bounded by its territorial limits is a formalist and arbitrary notion that has been broadly rejected by various jurisdictions, including Delaware. Moreover, an opinion truly grounded in “first principles” would take comity—the basic framework for choice of law in the early Republic—as its lodestar, necessitating a functionally and strategically sensitive approach to determining the validity of the federal forum provisions. In this case, comity would recommend not invalidating the forum provisions, as the Chancery Court did, but rather dismissing the suit for lack of ripeness.