Feb 25, 2026 Chao-Ju ChenEquality
Rachel Bayefsky,
Tradition and Feminism in Constitutional Rights Adjudication, __
Va. L. Rev. __ (forthcoming), available at
SSRN (May 27, 2025).
In the post-Dobbs world, concerns over the Courts’ growing use of “history and tradition” as an interpretative tool and as a constitutional test, particular its invocation in ways that reinforce inequality, have reached an unprecedented high, and with good reason. One of the latest examples is the Supreme Court’s adoption of historical practice as a central interpretative mode in its 2025 birthright citizenship case, Trump v. CASA, which imposes limits on lower-courts’ ability to enter preliminary injunctions and opens up the possibility of discriminatory legal measures being blocked for some but enforced against others, including those in marginalized communities who lack resources to legally challenge them.
Joining a growing body of legal scholars addressing “history and tradition’s equality problem,” Rachel Bayefsky has now made a timely feminist intervention that brings conceptual clarity, methodological rigor, hope for change, and a persuasive appeal to both liberals and conservatives to move beyond the adversarial relationship between tradition and equality. In a world of intensified polarizations, Bayefsky’s constructive and philosophically nuanced engagement with traditionalists is especially commendable. Her proposed theory of dialectical traditionalism reconciles the tensions between traditionalism and feminism by providing a framework for adjudicators to engage with traditionalist reasoning without replicating and justifying the unequal past, regardless of whether they identify as “traditionalists.” A recent study examining the role of history and tradition in state court abortion decisions supports Bayefsky’s hope, as some of these courts have adopted a critical approach to history and tradition in protecting reproductive rights. Continue reading "Tradition versus Equality: A feminist intervention"
Feb 24, 2026 Carole SilverLegal Profession
One of the most interesting findings of the After The JD project, which tracked the careers of a nationally-representative sample of US law school graduates who qualified as lawyers in the year 2000, was how many times they changed jobs. Job changes can involve different positions with status implications, as well as differences around factors like flexibility and compensation. The After The JD authors analyzed each of these kinds of moves in the framework of a social capital analysis; among their findings was the role of the prestige associated with US News rankings of law schools and American Lawyer rankings of law firms in shaping moves and opportunities.
In Sida Liu and Anson Au’s new article, Mobility Spaces: Geographical and Professional Distances in Career Mobility, the authors consider analogous questions about lateral moves of lawyers using a different lens—that of mobility spaces. They urge that “[t]he movement of professionals is shaped not only by their social and educational backgrounds but also by the geographical and professional distances between these mobility spaces.” (P. 196.) That is, they see career moves as conveying important information through the physical and social proximity of one position to the next. Further, rather than focusing on the US as did the After The JD project, their study is based in Hong Kong. They utilize data reporting the career moves of law firm partners working in Hong Kong between 1994 and 2021, culled from the official journal of the Law Society of Hong Kong. (P. 204.) The article thus speaks empirically of a particular time and place while aiming to contribute theoretically to “enhancing our understanding of the spatial dimensions in which professional careers evolve.” (P. 196.) Continue reading "Rethinking Legal Careers Through the Lens of Relocation and Rerouting"
Feb 23, 2026 Jonathan SimonCriminal Law
In Franz Kafka’s haunting short story, Before the Law, an ordinary person (described as a “countryman”) seeks to enter the law only to discover a gatekeeper whose formidable personal presence and vague threats of even fiercer gatekeepers keep him stalled at the law’s entrance. The seeker spends his entire life imploring the gatekeeper to let him in, never daring to attempt to evade him. In the end, he comes to know (spoiler here) that this gate, from which he was denied entry, was made only for him.
Modern students of the legal system have long studied the role of gatekeepers, both the intermediaries like lawyers whose help is crucial to accessing justice, and institutional rules and norms that favor repeat players over first time users of the courts. Rarely, (but see, Nicole Gonzalez Van Cleve, Crook County (2016)), however, do we, like Kafka, explore the physical (and perhaps metaphysical) barriers to equal justice. In an important analysis of data from a broader ethnographic and qualitative interview based study of ordinary people’s experiences with accessing courts, Spatial Burdens of State Institutions: The Case of Criminal Courthouses, Matthew Clair, Jesus Orozco and Iris Zhang spotlight the spatial environments of court houses and how they contribute to complex patterns of inequality and paternalistic and punitive forms of poverty governance. The authors highlight two kinds of power effects of court spatial conditions. There is the direct effect on court users of the environment in and around the courthouse and how that can shape the emotional experience of accessing justice institutions. There is also a secondary effect when court-based burdens cause a person to have to seek additional state institutional intervention (like a person who loses their job because of the time involved in attending court hearings and must apply for unemployment or food support). Together, these create a distinctively spatial dimension to poverty governance. Continue reading "Burden in the Court! The Spatial Powers of Courts and Their Environment"
Feb 20, 2026 Marin K. LevyCourts Law
Melville’s Ishmael declares in the opening chapter of Moby Dick, “Whenever I find myself growing grim about the mouth; whenever it is a damp, drizzly November in my soul . . . then, I account it high time to get to sea as soon as I can.” In this dark February, the timing is right to take to sea—and Kevin Arlyck’s new book, The Nation at Sea: The Federal Courts and American Sovereignty, 1789–1825—is just the thing to take us there.
The Nation at Sea provides a new historical account of the federal judiciary’s early days—one that shifts the way we understand how our country took its place in the world, and how the federal courts took their place in our country. The story so often told is that the federal courts were rather quiet after they were established. They began to find their voice with Chief Justice Marshall at the Court’s helm in cases such as Marbury v. Madison and McCulloch v. Maryland. And through such cases, the story goes, the Court began establishing its role in the constitutional order and its role in American nation-building. Continue reading "Judicial Sovereignty-Making at the Country’s Start"
Feb 19, 2026 Caroline BradleyCorporate Law
Curtis J. Milhaupt & Wolf-Georg Ringe,
The Political Economy of Global Stock Exchange Competition (Sep. 08, 2025), available at
SSRN.
States compete with each other to attract business, and this competition often focuses on specific sectors of financial activity. States compete to be centers for asset management, for insurance, for listings, for derivatives markets, or for financial innovation. Private actors also engage in competition: stock exchanges, as for-profit businesses, seek to attract listings and trading activity, competing with other exchanges. Other market operators similarly seek to attract business. Private-sector actors develop standards and documentation to support financial market transactions.
Conventionally, academics and journalists focus on competition between stock exchanges to attract listings, but as Curtis Milhaupt and Wolf-Georg Ringe show in The Political Economy of Global Stock Exchange Competition, this only reflects a part of a much more interesting and important story, which, they argue, calls for “sustained scholarly engagement across law, economics, and international relations.” The paper convincingly shows why this is the case. Continue reading "Stock Exchanges as Strategic Assets"
Feb 18, 2026 David HoffmanContracts
John Coyle & Tanya Monestier
, Limits on Damages for Breach of a Forum Selection Clause, (Sep. 25, 2025), available at
SSRN.
Forum selection clauses are so familiar that they rarely invite fresh questions. Courts mostly enforce them after lawyers litigate motions to dismiss or transfer, and the parties move on. One remedial question, however, has long sat in plain sight: when a party breaches a forum selection clause by suing in the wrong court, why is the remedy limited by default to correcting the venue error rather than compensating the counterparty for the cost of enforcing the clause?
In Limits on Damages for Breach of a Forum Selection Clause, John Coyle and Tanya Monestier take that question seriously—and show that it was never foreclosed for particularly good reasons. The article is valuable precisely because it is doctrinally grounded, methodical, and unspectacular in the best sense: it demonstrates that even in well-trodden territory, there remain basic remedial questions worth asking, and answering, with ordinary tools of contract law. Continue reading "Damages, Doctrine, and the Remedial Life of Forum Selection Clauses"
Feb 17, 2026 Leah LitmanConstitutional Law
Genevieve Lakier,
Enforcing the First Amendment in an Era of Jawboning, __
Univ. Chi. L. Rev. __ (forthcoming, 2026), available at
SSRN (Mar. 01, 2025).
Too often, our “free speech culture” gloms together private censorship and state-sponsored censorship. These things are not the same. Only one of them is prohibited by the First Amendment, and failing to differentiate between the two runs the risk of collapsing the distinction between censorship, on one hand, and on the other, private citizens exercising their own First Amendment rights (sometimes by choosing who to associate with or who to support).
That’s not to say there aren’t “free speech” risks from private power—especially in an era where control of major media outlets is concentrated in the hands of a few. And there are hard cases where it may not be clear who is driving the censorship—state actors or private ones. Continue reading "Throwing the Supreme Court/Free Speech A Bone"
Feb 16, 2026 Michael E HerzAdministrative Law
A year into the second Trump administration, the 47th president has done a pretty darn impressive job of destroying state capacity. Resources, personnel, expertise, law-following, law-enforcement, ethics, and competence have all been jettisoned. For many observers, the result is a catastrophic inability of the federal government to accomplish basic functions.
In The Secular Decline of the American State, Ganesh Sitaraman has arrived with some good news and some bad news. The good news is that the current administration’s sapping and mining are not that aberrant; Trump’s dismantling project has not, in fact, fundamentally shifted the country from the path it has been on for some time. The crisis is not acute. Whew. Continue reading "The Deep Causes of The Shallow State"
Feb 16, 2026 Michael E HerzAdministrative Law
Susan C. Morse,
Time Bars for Administrative Procedure Claims After Corner Post, 114
Calif. L. Rev. ___ (forthcoming, 2026), available at
SSRN (July 18, 2024).
In recent terms, the Supreme Court has had its nose to the grindstone, transforming American administrative law. In a series of striking decisions, it has created the major questions doctrine, overruled Chevron and reined in Auer, shifted toward the elimination of independent agencies and a full-throated endorsement of the unitary executive theory, come close to remaking the nondelegation doctrine, reinvigorated arbitrary-and-capricious review, and opened the courthouse doors to challenges to regulations issued long ago. Most of these developments have spawned a flurry of academic commentary. The major questions doctrine in particular has created an itch it seems everyone needs to scratch. And overruling Chevron has given all those who had written about the case in the past (which is practically everyone) a chance now to write about its demise.
In the face of this tsunami, what is a poor JOTWELL reviewer to do? How select the best from among them? It can’t be done. (Though, as Jack Beermann has written, if you want to understand the major questions doctrine you can’t go wrong by starting with Anita Krishnakumar.) But there is one exception. When it comes to Corner Post, there is a standout article. While others have been hypnotized by the shiny new objects of the MQD and Loper Bright, an undistracted Susan Morse has kept her attention focused where it has been for a couple of years. Her latest, Time Bars for Administrative Procedure Claims After Corner Post is a standout not only because, let’s be honest, there is not a lot of competition, but because it is so good. Continue reading "Avoiding the Demon Lurking Around the Corner (Post)"
Feb 13, 2026 Joseph SlaterWork Law
A key priority of the second Trump administration has been an unprecedented attack on federal employees’ workplace rights. This includes removing collective bargaining rights, dismantling federal agencies, and working to remove the civil service protections of many federal employees. Catherine Fisk’s Democracy and a Nonpartisan Civil Service focuses on the assault on civil service. The article gives a history of civil service laws and reviews the evidence on the benefits and costs of their protections. It details the assaults on these protections and provides a nuanced defense of them. Fisk convincingly addresses legal, practical, and policy concerns, describing current rules, proposed changes, , theoretical arguments, and relevant empirical data. Her article is a strong contribution to the literature.
Since the Pendleton Act of 1883, civil service rules have been a key component of employment law in federal, state, and local government. Such laws originally aimed to combat political patronage practices by providing “merit” rules for both hiring and firing. By the second half of the mid-20th century, these rules gave most lower- to mid-level public employees just cause discharge protection, at least after a probationary period. While most other industrialized democracies in that period adopted just cause rules as the default for most employees, the United States remained, except for civil service laws, committed to at-will employment. Continue reading "Defending Civil Service Rules from Existential Attacks"
