A Game Changer for the Political Economy of Economic Development Incentives

State and local governments have embraced their authority to offer economic development incentives for the purpose of attracting, retaining, or enhancing economic activity within their borders. Collectively, these programs represent an enormous, but largely overlooked, transfer of wealth from public entities to private firms. The increasing use of economic development incentives runs counter to the guidance offered by academic researchers. With their proliferation comes the increasing need for accountability in the decision-making process. We consider whether the duty of care standard used in corporate governance should be applied to the public decision-making context regarding economic development incentives.

Article | View PDF

Love Matters

Love matters to women in abusive relationships. Consequently, matters of love should mean something to both the legal regime redressing intimate partner violence (“IPV”) and to feminist legal scholars seeking to reform the same. Currently the law ignores matters of love by conditioning legal remedies on the immediate termination of the intimate relationship by the victim.

More

Article | View PDF

Just Violence

Ethical reflections on war—and the positive laws these reflections have inspired—have framed their undertaking as the effort to limit and regulate state violence. Ethical reflections on punishment have not been framed in the same way, but they should be. Three characteristics of the philosophy (and laws) of war prove especially instructive for the philosophy (and laws) of punishment. First, the ethics of war is an ethics of violence: it acknowledges and addresses the gritty and often brutal realities of actual armed conflict. Punishment theory too often denies the violence of punishment or otherwise neglects the realities of penal practices. Second, philosophers of war tend to keep the usual agent of war’s violence—the state—squarely in view, whereas punishment theory tends to focus on the target of punishment rather than its agent. Third, and most importantly, commentators on the ethics of war have come to realize that the humanitarian project of limiting violence is a different and more difficult task than the project of justifying violence. This insight has produced the jus in bello: a set of principles aimed at limiting the violence of war without adopting a view of the war’s justification. Punishment theory has long been focused on the project of justifying punishment, but this Article sketches the contours of a jus in poena: philosophical and legal principles designed to regulate the conduct of punishment without adopting any particular theoretical justification for punishment.

Article | View PDF

The Cure for the Young Prosecutors’ Syndrome

Although legal scholars treat prosecutors like interchangeable parts, we argue—based on interviews and surveys of over 200 state prosecutors in eight offices—that scholars should be alert to the differences among them, because new prosecutors experience their professional role differently than their veteran colleagues do. This divergence happens because, as new prosecutors gain experience, their professional identities shift—they become more balanced over time. This Article explores the prosecutor’s professional transformation and the possible catalysts for that change.

More

Article | View PDF

With San Jose at Bat, Federal Baseball is in the Bottom of the Ninth

Baseball and antitrust are influential cultural and economic American traditions. They famously intersected in a series of cases whereby the Supreme Court created and reinforced a peculiar exemption for baseball from federal antitrust law. Since its creation in 1922, baseball’s exemption has been widely criticized as both misguided and unwarranted. The rationale behind baseball’s exemption is, in essence, that baseball is somehow on a higher moral ground, impervious to the law. As such, the exemption is used as an example for the Supreme Court’s conscious willingness to serve interest groups.

More

Note | View PDF

So You’ve Been Notified, Now What? The Problem with Current Data-Breach Notification Laws

Data breaches, now a common occurrence throughout the world, are an ever-present threat to both consumers and companies, exposing on average the personal information of 1.1 million people and racking up costs of about $5.4 million with each occurrence. This problem is further exacerbated by the current data-breach notification regime, which consists of 47 various, sometimes conflicting, state laws. Thus, when a data breach does occur, companies must consult the state law of each affected consumer to determine whether that consumer must be notified, and when notification must occur. This may be extremely burdensome for large, nationwide companies with thousands or even millions of consumers in multiple states. Most importantly, even when these various state data-breach laws are effective and consumers are notified of a breach, they have almost no legal recourse against the entity whose security breach led to the unlawful or unauthorized procurement of their personal information. There is no clear-cut state or federal civil cause of action for consumers to bring, and existing causes of action have had limited success when applied to data breaches due to issues with standing and injury. Therefore, a stronger data-breach notification regime that provides consumers with a remedy when a data breach does occur and that is more effective in preventing data breaches from happening should be considered. In this way, consumers will be better protected and the damage caused by data breaches in the future will be minimized.

Note | View PDF

Women of Color and Crime: A Critical Race Theory Perspective to Address Disparate Prosecution

This Note seeks to acknowledge, explain, and offer a remedy to the problem of disparate prosecution of women of color. Women of color are disproportionately arrested and prosecuted for felonies around the country, and are overrepresented in the criminal justice system compared to their white women counterparts. Black and Native women are prosecuted at higher rates than white women for felonies in general, and domestic violence in particular. The problem of disparate prosecution is portrayed through a critical race feminist theoretical framework, focusing on stereotypes of the two groups. After arguing that traditional legal remedies are ultimately doomed to fail, this Note presents a remedy aimed at criminal defense attorneys, who can bring race to the forefront of jurors’ minds and help jurors look past latent personal prejudices.

Note | View PDF

A House Divided: Statutory Interpretation Problems Exemplified in Whitman I, Montgomery, and Whitman II

At least in theory, courts share the same set of guiding principles when it comes to statutory and rule interpretation. These principles exist to help courts adhere to the rule-makers’ original intent, but the rules themselves often provide little guidance as to that intent in practice. In State v. Whitman (2013), State v. Montgomery (2013), and State v. Whitman (2014), the two divisions of Arizona’s Court of Appeals and its Supreme Court each tackled nearly identical fact patterns. Four written opinions ultimately yielded three different approaches–and two opposite results. This Note examines how the general rules of statutory interpretation both permitted and encouraged these different results (despite the judges’ shared goal of deference to the rule-makers), and contemplates the need for a more consistently applicable set of instructions.

Case Note | View PDF

Last Rites for Clean Elections

In Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission v. Brain, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that voters who passed a 1998 voter initiative did not intend to cap contribution limits at the 1998 levels. The Court held that the Arizona State Legislature could adjust the campaign contribution limits through a simple majority vote. This Note will cover the history behind Arizona campaign finance law, explore the ramifications of the Brain decision, and predict the slow demise of the Arizona Clean Elections scheme.

Case Note | View PDF

Legal Judgment Day for the Rising of the Machines: A National Approach to Regulating Fully Autonomous Weapons

This Note advocates that the U.S. Congress pass laws restricting the development of fully autonomous weapons. These “killer robots” have their advocates, but this Note contends that they also present legal, geopolitical, and military risks that outweigh any potential benefits. Because fully autonomous weapons will not be able to comply with the international norms of the laws of armed conflict, the U.S. government should pass laws banning the use of such weapons, and it should encourage the international community to do the same.

Law & Policy Note | View PDF