"For over a century, the federal government has wielded the immigration subpoena power in darkness, forcing private citizens, sub-federal governments, and others to help it detain and deport. Thus, in an era in which local information has become central to immigration enforcement, the immigration subpoena power raises urgent questions about when, how, and with what constraints the federal government uses this power writ large. This article provides the first comprehensive account of the immigration subpoena power. Drawing upon previously undisclosed agency records and an original dataset reflecting thousands of subpoenas issued nationwide, this article shows how Immigration and Customs Enforcement now deploys a power initially created to enhance racial exclusion at the border to reach deep into our communities and people’s lives. These findings, this article argues, shed vital light on the immigration subpoena regime.” 

“Our economy is dominated by five aging tech giants – Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Meta, and Microsoft. In the last twenty years, no company has commercialized a new technology in a way that threatens them. Why? We argue that the tech giants have learned how to coopt disruption, we show how three important new technologies – artificial intelligence, virtual reality, and automated driving – are being coopted right now, and we propose reforms that would make it harder to coopt disruption.”

This Essay highlights two features of modern war powers that hide from public view decisions that take the country to war: the executive branch’s exploitation of interpretive ambiguity to defend unilateral presidential authority, and its dispersal of the power to use force to the outer limbs of the bureaucracy.

"In this Article, I map out the general contours of what I term the “territorial criminal legal system” and present Puerto Rico as a case study to unearth the implications of plenary power for criminal adjudication. In broad strokes, that system consists of mechanisms that allow Congress to intervene in local criminal affairs to a far greater degree than it could in any State. At the same time, the territorial criminal legal system imposes administrative constraints on local prosecutorial actions and poses an existential threat to the existence of local criminal systems. Sharing insights from over a dozen interviews with prosecutors, defense attorneys, Puerto Rican academics, and judges working in the criminal legal system in Puerto Rico, I uncover how federal prosecutors circumvent protections embedded in Puerto Rican local law and constitutional text (like the right to bail, other robust pre-trial protections, and even the prohibition of the death penalty)."

“In every sector of the workforce, there is evidence of gender discrimination, inequality, and bias. Not surprisingly, the legal profession is not immune. Law school graduates in the 1990s, including one of this Article’s authors, were told that it was only a matter of time before equality in all areas of the law would occur. This promise has yet to be realized. Through new and detailed data, this Article focuses on correcting the narrative that equality in the legal profession has been achieved. To understand potential levers of change, we collected data on women’s representation, leadership roles, and compensation….Yes, the numbers are dismal.  But firms vary, and they vary widely.  Law students should know to ask key questions to determine these differences …and better understand what their future experience might entail.”

“This Article develops a novel normative theory that rationalizes and justifies our current tax exemption regime. Rather than conceiving exemptions as subsidies or individual deviations from a normative base explainable by ordinary politics, the Article argues that exemptions are best understood as mapping the “limits” of tax. These limits are neither arbitrary nor merely a collection of individual subsidies to favored activities; rather, they are best seen as being reflective of deeper collective socio-political judgments about the scope of the State and the public sphere.”

“This paper proposes a customized multi-factor analysis to identify the true nature of litigation financing transactions and impose proper tax treatment. The bedrock of this approach is the concept of tax ownership, which, in the context of litigation financing, can be streamlined into two key factors: economic risk and legal control of the claim. By emphasizing the legal control factor, this proposal has the potential to combat the agency problems inherent in litigation finance without hindering market growth. As the industry continues to develop, this paper calls on tax policymakers and other regulatory bodies to reduce the current tax uncertainty by integrating the factors discussed herein when issuing future guidance and imposing disclosure obligations.”

"With the rapid emergence of high-quality generative artificial intelligence (AI), some have advocated for mandatory disclosure when the technology is used to generate new text, images, or video. But the precise harms posed by non­transparent uses of generative AI have not been fully explored. While the use of the technology to produce material that masquerades as factual is clearly deceptive, this Article focuses on a more ambiguous area of harm: the consumer's general interest in knowing whether works of art or entertainment were created using generative AI technology. The Article also investigates ways existing law might help facilitate disclosure of the use of generative Al."

“For the past several decades, privacy has been the primary conceptual foundation for Fourth Amendment search law. Yet privacy is no longer the sole determinant of Fourth Amendment protection, as the Supreme Court has recently added a property-based test to address cases involving physical intrusions on land or chattel. Further, given the ambiguity of the reasonable expectation of privacy test, a variety of influential judges and scholars have proposed relying primarily, or even exclusively, on property in determining the Fourth Amendment’s scope. This Article exposes the overlooked challenges and flaws of a property-centered Fourth Amendment. Pushing past simple hypotheticals, it examines the complications of real-world property law and demonstrates its complexity and uncertainty. It also explores the malleability of property rights and reveals how governments can manipulate them in order to facilitate pervasive surveillance.” 

"The  model of judicial balancing presented in this article portrays judicial balancing as instrumental reasoning, based on an account of causal explanation in the sciences known as a difference-maker account.  The difference-maker account explains a phenomenon by eliminating causal factors from the explanation, leaving only those necessary to represent it.  The goal is a minimal, maximally abstract explanation.  This is what judges do when they balance interests.  To look at balancing this way shifts the burden of persuasion from balancing’s defenders to balancing’s detractors. The model answers several standard objections to judicial balancing, but it provides four answers to the most troubling one – that balancing puts rights at risk of extinction.  First, the model shows that rights have a secure role in a balancing opinion, because they are systematically distributed in a balancing opinion according to a small set of logical operators.  Second, when so distributed, rights are too divided to be conquered, dispersed as they are among multiple acts of localized balancing. Third, rights can be set aside harmlessly if they are abstracted into a category of which they are instances.  Fourth, our various rights are insulated from any ill effects of balancing because a right’s substance is abstracted into an expression of the values it serves."