Author: Mahler, Samuel

Fighting Institutional Betrayal: Gender Pay Equity Litigation Against University Employers

Nantiya Ruan

Universities are workplaces replete with observed gender pay gaps despite the legal protections in place to mitigate against such a reality. This Article analyzes recent university gender pay equity lawsuits to examine their efficacy in four types of litigation: (1) Class and Collection Action; (2) Government Action; (3) Union Action; and (4) Individual Action. From these case studies of different types of litigation, we learn several important lessons about prosecuting equal pay laws and how to best protect against unequal pay. Continue reading

The Right to Inequality: Conservative Politics and Precedent Collide

Jonathan P. Feingold

The “end of affirmative action” is the beginning of this story. In Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (SFFA), the Supreme Court struck a near fatal blow to race-consciousness. Many institutions have since pivoted to “race neutral alternatives.” This is a natural turn. But one that faces immediate headwinds.
The same entities that demanded Harvard pursue racial diversity through colorblind means have sued public high schools for doing just that. These litigants assert a “right to inequality”—a theory that would pit the Equal Protection Clause against equality itself. Even if normatively jarring, a right to inequality might seem a natural extension of SFFA and decades of conservative caselaw hostile to remedial reform. Continue reading

Do Rural Places Matter?

Stephen Clowney

Rural communities are at a crossroads. On one hand, small towns continue to receive robust support from the federal government. Congress sends billions of dollars in agricultural support, homeownership subsidies, and infrastructure spending to rural places every year. Yet, despite ongoing federal investment, conditions in rural America have deteriorated. Economic growth, educational opportunities, and health outcomes in rural places all lag behind the rest of the country.

This Article asks what has gone wrong. Why do rural communities continue to lose ground despite such significant outlays from Congress? This Article contributes to the ongoing debate about the future of the countryside by highlighting one previously unexamined fault in the ongoing efforts to revitalize rural America: proponents of rural communities—in both think tanks and government agencies— have rarely been forced to enumerate the benefits that the countryside provides. Defenders of small towns simply assume that saving rural places is worthwhile. But why? The lack of clarity matters. Rural people are suffering, at least in part, because policymakers do not have a clear view of why small towns are important or how they can compete with cities. Continue reading

New Legal Realism at 20: Rethinking Law in an Era of Populism and Social Movements

Jeffrey Omari, Pablo Rueda-Saiz & Richard Ashby Wilson

This Article critically examines the New Legal Realism (NLR) movement on its twentieth anniversary and illuminates its distinctive intellectual contributions. In evaluating NLR’s unique methodological and substantive contributions, we explore the movement’s relationship to other interdisciplinary theories and empirical approaches to law. NLR approaches show a commitment to a comparative, crossnational exploration of legal phenomena while allowing for grounded generalizations about the relationship between law and society. NLR approaches embrace a diverse range of methods and emphasize the importance of “looking up, down, and sideways.” Notably, NLR embraces both “top-down” and “bottom-up” methods, providing comprehensive insights into the intricate interactions and competition between various actors and legal institutions. In contrast to perspectives that narrow the law to a mere instrument of social control, NLR recognizes that the law is a complex and nuanced social phenomenon with relative autonomy that often leads to unintended consequences. Continue reading

Workplace AI and Human Flourishing

E. Gary Spitko

This Article explores the important but largely unexplored relationship between workplace artificial intelligence (AI) and human flourishing. More specifically, the Article examines the potential impact of workplace AI decision tools on such critical matters as workers’ human dignity, workplace and personal autonomy, and the opportunity for upward mobility. AI can analyze data far more quickly and efficiently than humans. Moreover, AI computer models are far superior to people in uncovering subtle correlations in large amounts of data and learning from those correlations. Thus, workplace AI decision tools teach themselves to choose the criteria for recruitment, hiring, compensation, promotion, and termination of workers and ground their employment decisions firmly in empirical data that humans fail even to perceive. At the same time, these AI tools may insult human dignity, threaten worker autonomy, and serve as an agent of social ossification. Continue reading

Imperfect Protection Against Perfect Enforcement: When Procedure is Not Enough

William S. Fallon

Government technology that exclusively detects illegal conduct is per se constitutional. Today, the Fourth Amendment provides no protection—zero—against government technology that identifies illegality without also revealing private, innocent behavior.

Meanwhile, alarmingly, government is rapidly developing—and deploying— technology that bypasses the need to examine private, innocent behavior in its detection of wrongdoing. Government can know there is contraband in your bedroom drawer without the need to rummage through that drawer, your home, or any of your private information and possessions. Government can know there is illegal content on your phone without the need to search through that phone or any of your private accounts and data. If enforcement technologies continue to develop apace, under existing law, government will be able to detect—and punish—every instance of illegal behavior, every time, without violating the Fourth Amendment. This imminent, staggering government power is called “perfect enforcement of law.” Continue reading

Connecticut Law Review Symposium—Housing in the 21st Century: Problems, Progress, and Predictions

Access to safe and affordable housing remains a challenge for millions of Americans. Historical and systemic factors, including redlining and discriminatory lending practices, have disproportionately affected minority communities, contributing to disparities in home ownership and exacerbating the housing affordability crisis. Unsafe or inaccessible rental housing, as well as rising rental costs, create additional barriers to housing security nationwide. While progress has been made due to the passage of the Fair Housing Act and other consumer protection laws, the affordable housing crisis and tenant rights’ violations persist. Moreover, the use of artificial intelligence in housing markets and public housing is raising new concerns. Leading scholars will discuss some of these problems and innovative efforts to address them. Participants will also share their predictions for future housing law and policy needs and make recommendations for how to move forward. Continue reading

Connecticut Law Review Ranks Among Top 50 Flagship Law Journals in U.S.

Connecticut Law Review has been ranked as the 50th flagship law review in the United States, according to the 2024 Law Journal Meta-Rankings. Connecticut Law Review improved 8 spots from its ranking in 2023 in order to break into the top-50 flagship journals in the nation in 2024. Professor Bryce Clayton Newell publishes Meta-Rankings of approximately 200 different flagship law reviews across the country, determining their rank based on the Washington & Lee Law Journal ranking, Google Scholar Metrics ranking, U.S. News Peer Reputation score, and U.S. News average 10-year overall school ranking. For more information and to see the full ranking, visit the Law Journal Meta-Ranking, 2024 Edition.

The Current State of Guardianship Law Furthering a Need for Supported Decision-Making in Connecticut

Julia R. Vassallo

Despite living in a society that values autonomy and individual thought, people with disabilities in the United States are continually subjected to oppression and discrimination, often in the name of a “well-intentioned” paternalistic desire to protect such individuals. Legally recognized protective orders, including guardianships and conservatorships, are often used to restrict the autonomy of people with disabilities, including individuals with intellectual and/or developmental disabilities, individuals with mental health disorders, and aging individuals experiencing Alzheimer’s or other degenerative diseases that have the ability to impact an individual’s cognitive functioning. While guardianships and conservatorships may be appropriate in a number of circumstances, for the majority of the disability community, such mechanisms are overbroad, stripping people with disabilities of the ability to make decisions regarding their own legal, health, financial, and personal affairs. Continue reading