In 1965, Massachusetts became the first state in the nation to enact a law that directly addressed racial imbalances in its public schools.[1] Championing the legacy of Brown v. Board of Education (1954) (“Brown”), the Racial Imbalance Act (“the RIA”) strived for “promotion of racial balance and the correction of existing racial imbalance in the public schools.”[2] This unprecedented legislation, however, never achieved its purpose. A court order designed to implement the RIA that required Boston public schools to integrate was met with fierce opposition and, eventually, prompted significant white flight.[3] Today, Boston public schools are more segregated than they were sixty years ago.[4]
[1] Dennis Ford Eagan, Note, The Past, Present, and Future of School Desegregation Law in Massachusetts, 34 Suffolk U. L. Rev. 541, 556 (2001).
[2] Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 71, § 37C (1965).
[3] See infra notes 44-54.
[4] See Christina Pazzanese, Boston Busing in 1974 Was About Race. Now The Issue Is Class, The Harv. Gazette (June 18, 2024), https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2024/06/school-reform-expert-on-50-year-legacy-of-boston-busing/#:~:text=Current%20enrollment%20is%20now%20roughly,mental%20health%20and%20behavioral%20problems (“Students of color are now more racially isolated in Boston public schools than ever before.”); Desegregation Busing, Bos. Rsch. Ctr., https://bostonresearchcenter.org/projects_files/eob/single-entry-busing.html (“As of 2018, more than half of Boston Public Schools are profoundly segregated, more so than they were in 1965.”).
This article discusses the contemporary challenges of diffuse interest class actions. The primary issue is the limited access to justice for members of the diffuse class, exacerbated by the res judicata principle and inadequate due protection mechanisms. Therefore, the intricate process of certifying a diffuse class and ensuring adequate representation will be addressed. Concerns regarding the inability of various notice methods to reach all members of the diffuse class will also be highlighted, further underscoring the need for comprehensive reform. Drawing insights from innovative approaches in countries like Brazil and Argentina, this article proposes a nuanced res judicata framework in the U.S. that addresses adequacy concerns and upholds the principle of due process, while navigating the complexities of diffuse interest class actions.
For the past decade, cryptocurrency companies have found themselves squarely in the crosshairs of litigation initiated by the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC). The question that is currently dominating the courtroom in this arena is whether the sale of a company’s key digital assets, commonly referred to as “cryptocurrency” or "crypto," constitutes the sale of securities under federal law.Tasked with overseeing the securities market, the SEC seeks to ensure safe and fair participation in federal securities exchanges. With recent scandals and accusations of fraud plaguing major players in the industry, the SEC is now taking a firmer regulatory stance than it had in the past. Today, circuit splits concerning the applicable regulatory framework and the appropriate definition of “securities” continue to fuel the fire of this contentious debate.
When it comes to criminal culpability, the Supreme Court has consistently treated children in a manner different than adults. Because of this understanding, the Court has recognized that sentences of life without parole may be too harsh for minors. The Court has banned mandatory juvenile life without parole (JLWOP) but permits courts to issue discretionary JLWOP sentences. The Supreme Court also permits courts to impose lengthy sentences, often called “virtual” or “de facto” life sentences. However, when issuing these lengthy sentences, courts must ensure that a minor retains a meaningful opportunity for release. Striking this balance is a challenge for sentencing courts: how long of a sentence is too long? Which sentences equate to JLWOP? What is a meaningful opportunity?…
In Massachusetts, rabbis have the authority to perform civil same-sex marriages, but can they refuse to do so? By identifying the same-sex marriage stances of the three largest American Jewish denominations – the Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform Movements – and by examining the current state of the law, this article will show that Massachusetts offers rabbis no legal protection and will explore the implications for the Movements, rabbis, and same-sex couples involved.
Matt Finer, a scientist at the Center for International Environmental Law in the United States, expressed his view on the situation surrounding Yasuní National Forest in Ecuador: “Now there is really no viable alternative to stop the wave of drilling slated for the most biodiverse region of the world.” It is true the number of ways to save Yasuní may be shrinking, but they have not yet disappeared.
Section I of this paper briefly describes constitutional privacy jurisprudence and why the government gains power and authority as it restricts the private sphere, particularly with regard to reproductive rights. Section II describes the exclusionary and discriminatory mechanisms employed to regulate the sale and purchase of PBOS, which is one of the ways that the government exercises its parent-like control over the decisions and freedoms of young women. The final section argues that privacy jurisprudence and exclusionary mechanisms are simply ways in which the state creates and perpetuates its role as guardian and parent over its citizens. Like the ability to ground rebellious teenagers or to set their curfews, the limitations set by the state are not to be challenged or questioned, but followed with the understanding that they are executed with our best interests in mind. This, I suggest, is quite dangerous and it is why Judge Korman’s reversal of Sebelius was deeply threatening, not only to the HHS, but also to the entire executive branch.