Articles

Filter

  • Yick Wo at 125: Four Simple Lessons for the Contemporary Supreme Court

    The 125th anniversary of Yick Wo v. Hopkins is an important opportunity to recognize the pervasive role of law in oppressive treatment of Chinese immigrants in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. It is also a good opportunity for the Supreme Court to reflect on four important lessons gleaned from Yick Wo. First, the Court should never lend justification to the evil of class discrimination, even if it has to decline to rule in a case. Second, where there is persistent discrimination against a minority group, the Court must be similarly persistent in fighting it. Third, the Court needs to take legislative motivation more seriously in cases of persistent class discrimination. Finally, the Court cannot give sanction to any dominant group's view that the country's economic and social wealth belongs to them.

  • Systemic Racial Bias and RICO’s Application to Criminal Street and Prison Gangs

    This Article presents an empirical study of race and the application of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) to criminal street and prison gangs. A strong majority (approximately 86%) of the prosecutions in the study involved gangs that were affiliated with one or more racial minority groups. All but one of the prosecuted White-affiliated gangs fell into three categories: international organized crime groups, outlaw motorcycle gangs, and White supremacist prison gangs. Some scholars and practitioners would explain these findings by contending that most criminal street gangs are comprised of racial minorities. This Article challenges and problematizes this factual assumption by critically examining the processes by which the government may come to label certain aiminal groups as gangs for RICO purposes. Based on the study findings, the Article argues that this labeling may be driven by systemic racial biases that marginalize entire racial minority groups and privilege mainstream nonimmigrant White communities. These systemic biases are characterized by converging constructions of race and crime, which fuse perceptions of gang-related crime with images of racial minorities. Conflating racial minorities with criminal activity enables the government to rely upon denigrating racial stereotypes in order to engage in invidious practices of racial profiling and to conduct sweeping arrests of racial minorities under RICO. This conflation also shields groups of nonimmigrant White criminal offenders from being conceptualized as gangs and shields nonimmigrant White neighborhoods from the stigma of having gang problems. In practice, this may harm communities that have White gang problems by preventing the government from executing gang-specific interventions within those communities.

  • Beyond Common Sense: A Social Psychological Study of Iqbal’s Effect on Claims of Race Discrimination

    Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) once operated as a notice pleading rule, requiring plaintiffs to set forth only a "short and plain" statement of their claim. In Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, and then Ashcroft v. Iqbal, the United States Supreme Court recast Rule 8(a) into a plausibility pleading standard. To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter "to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Iqbal requires federal courts, when deciding whether a complaint is plausible, to draw on their "judicial experience and common sense." Courts apply this standard at the commencement of litigation, evaluating the plausibility of claims before discovery - before evidence has been gathered and presented. This highly subjective pleading standard applies to all claims, including claims of discrimination by members of stereotyped groups. In short, under Iqbal, federal courts must grapple at the inception of litigation with deciding whether members of stereotyped groups have pleaded plausible claims of discrimination, relying on their intuitions and common sense, rather than evidence. The nature of this new pleading standard raises pressing and profound questions about the psychology of judging: Might Iqbal rest on a flawed theory of judgment and decision making? Can judges draw on common sense, rather than evidence, to adjudicate claims of discrimination by members of stereotyped groups without the subtle effect of implicit bias? This Article sheds light on these questions by drawing on social psychological research. From findings in the field of social psychology, the Article first forms hypotheses and then conducts an empirical legal study that closely examines how federal courts have adjudicated motions to dismiss Black plaintiffs' claims of race discrimination.

  • The Promise of Grutter: Diverse Interactions at the University of Michigan Law School

    In Grutter v. Bollinger, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld affirmative action at the University of Michigan Law School on the grounds of educational diversity. Yet the Court's assumption that admitting diverse students into law school would result in improved race relations, livelier classroom conversations, and better professional outcomes for students has never been empirically tested. This Article relies on survey and focus group data collected at the University of Michigan Lav School campus itself in March 2010 to examine not only whether, but how diversity affects learning. The data indicate both that there are sufficient numbers of students of color on the University of Michigan Law School campus to yield diverse interactions and that positive interracial student exchanges are occurring. Nevertheless, the lively discussions drawing from this diversity anticipated by the Grutter Court are seldom taking place within the classroom, where they may be most important; by neglecting to foster "diversity discussions," law schools are failing to cultivate the academic and professional benefits associated with educational diversity. Only through classroom diversity can the promise of diversity envisioned by the Grutter Court be fully realized.

  • ¡Silencio! Undocumented Immigrant Witnesses and the Right to Silence

    At a time referred to as "an unprecedented era of immigration enforcement," undocumented immigrants who have the misfortune to witness a crime in this country face a terrible decision. Calling the police to report that crime will likely lead to questions that reveal a witness's inmigration status, resulting in detention and deportation for the undocumented immigrant witness. Programs like Secure Communities and 287(g) partnerships evidence an increase in local immigration enforcement, and this Article argues that undocumented witnesses' only logical response to these programs is silence. Silence, in the form of a complete refusal to call the police to report crime or participate in local prosecutions, is a potent and defensible act of civil disobedience by the estimated twenty-two million imigrants in this country with anything less than full-citizenship status. There is a growing body of empirical evidence showing that local immigration enforcement leads to racial profiling, is unjustifiably expensive for local crime-fighting budgets, and results in the local immigrant population simply deciding not to call the police for any reason at all. This Article takes those arguments one step further, contending that immigrant communities can take matters into their own hands and protect themselves by choosing silence as an organized response to a regime that has rendered local police a threat, not a support, to millions of people within our borders. A commitment to silence by the immigrant community will lend a sense of urgency to these protests and spur real action from local law enforcement officials who appreciate the dangers of prioritizing immigration enforcement over community safety for all residents, citizen and noncitizen alike.

  • Race, Educational Loans & Bankruptcy

    This Article reports new data from the 2007 Consumer Bankruptcy Project revealing that college graduates and specifically White graduates are less likely to file for bankruptcy than their counterparts without a college degree. Although these observations suggest that a college degree helps graduates to weather the setbacks that sometimes lead to financial hardship as measured by bankruptcy, they also indicate that a college degree may not help everyone equally. African American college graduates are equally likely to file for bankruptcy as African Americans without a college degree. Thus, a college education may not confer the same protective benefit against financial hardship for African Americans that it does for their White counterparts. These observations draw attention to the tension between two federal policies with respect to educational attainment: educational lending policy that encourages Americans to take on debt to finance their educations and bankruptcy policy that makes discharge of educational debt practically impossible. Given preexisting wealth, educational loan borrowing, and post-graduate income data concerning African Americans, these data suggest that African Americans may experience Congress's restrictive educational loan discharge policy more acutely than Whites. Indeed, African Americans are more likely to borrow money for college, earn less after graduation, and yet are bound by the same duty to repay educational loans. Ultimately, these educational loan policies may reveal who, as a practical matter, should and who should not be going to college. More troubling is that this division seems to track socioeconomic and racial lines. Accordingly, this Article considers whether these findings should persuade Congress to reformulate its policy on the discharge of educational loans in bankruptcy or alternatively, to change the manner in which it supports educational attainment.

  • Racial Cartels

    This Article argues that we can better understand the dynamic of historical racial exclusion if we describe it as the anti-competitive work of "racial cartels." We can define racial cartels to include a range of all-White groups - homeowners' associations, school districts, trade unions, real estate boards and political parties - who gained signficant social, economic and political profit from excluding on the basis of race. Far from operating on the basis of irrational animus, racial cartels actually derived significant profit from racial exclusion. By creating racially segmented housing markets, for example, exclusive White homeowners' associations enjoyed higher property values that depended not just on the superior quality of the housing stock but also on the racial composition of the neighborhood. Describing historical exclusion as anti-competitive cartel conduct highlights three aspects of discrimination that other descriptions obscure. First, compared to conventional theory, a racial cartel story emphasizes the material benefits - higher wages, higher property values, greater political power - that Whites derived from anti-competitive exclusion. Second, compared to individualist accounts, the cartel framework emphasizes the collective-action nature of historical discrimination. Third, calling historical exclusion cartel conduct can help to reframe antidiscrimination law as a type of antitrust legal intervention, designed to remedy persistent effects of past anti-competitive exclusion.

  • “The Prejudice of Caste”: The Misreading of Justice Harlan and the Ascendency of Anticlassificaiton

    This Article reconsiders the familiar reading of Justice Harlan's dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson as standing for the principle of constitutional colorblindness by examining the significance of Harlan's use of the metaphor "caste" in the opinion. By overlooking Harlan's invocation of "caste," it argues that conservative proponents of anticlassification have reclaimed the opinion for "colorblindness," and buried a powerful statement of the antisubordination principle that is at the heart of our equality law. The Article begins by examining the emergence of a reading of the opinion as articulating a view of equality law based in anticlassification. The Article then returns to the nineteenth century to offer an alternative reading of the opinion. It argues that by time Harlan invoked the caste metaphor in Plessy, the caste metaphor was part of a longstanding tradition of reasoning about the moral stakes of status hierarchy and social subordination. It examines the emergence, in the nineteenth century, of the image of caste in abolitionist rhetoric and in debates over the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment during Reconstruction. The Article further challenges the conventional reading of Harlan's dissent, by considering the persistence of the caste metaphor in the context of Brown v. Board of Education and its aftermath.

  • Employee Free Choice or Employee Forged Choice? Race in the Mirror of Exclusionary Hierarchy

    The Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) is arguably the most transformative piece of labor legislation to come before Congress since the enactment of the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 (NLRA). One of the newest attempts to transform labor relations is the EFCA. The first to disappear under the EFCA would be a system of union democracy whereby unions could only obtain the rights of exclusive representation for firms if they could prevail in a secret-ballot election. Second, the EFCA would eliminate tile necessity of a freely negotiated collective bargaining agreement between management and labor and instead substitute compulsory arbitration. While some labor union advocates contend that law ought to be conceived of as a vehicle to democratize tile workplace by redistributing power in labor markets in favor of workers, while concurrently demolishing hierarchical command structures that entrench gender, race and class lines, this proposal would likely expand labor hierarchy, labor market cartelization and diminish the employment prospects of racial minorities. As such, the EFCA is marked by contradiction. This Article deploys Critical Race Reformist theory, economics and apartheid-era South African labor history in order to shot' that rather than embracing freedom for workers, eliminating, poverty, and expanding opportunities for all, this proposal would likely invert such goals and instead operate consistently with the record of exclusion and subordination tied to American Progressivism and the labor movement.

  • Rawls and Reparations

    In the past two years, four related events have sharpened debates on race in the U.S.: President Obama's election, the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, that Court's ruling in Ricci v. DeStefano, and the arrest of Obama's friend, Harvard professor Henry Gates. The President has spoken of a "teaching moment" arising from these events. Moreover, his writings, speeches and lawmaking efforts illustrate the contractual nature of Obama's thinking. The President (and all concerned citizens) should thus find useful an analysis of racial policy and justice in light of the work of John Rauls. Rawls may be the most influential political theorist of our time. Applying his theory to questions of race policy, this Article defends the following counterintuitive thesis: while strong forms of affirmative action cannot be derived from Rawls's theory, strong forms of legislative reparations can be so derived. This Article concludes with a concrete plan for raising the resources such reparations would require.