• Selected
• Entire List

Abstract:
The success or failure of slavery reparations will depend on causation. Many criticisms of reparations have focused on the attenuated nature of the harm, suggesting that modern claimants are not connected to slaves, that modern payers are not connected to slave owners, and that harms suffered by modern Blacks cannot be connected to slavery. This Article examines these attenuation concerns and finds that they come in three related but distinct varieties: Victim attenuation, wrongdoer attenuation, and act attenuation. These three components, defined in this Article, show themselves in a number of interrelated legal and moral arguments.

The Article then discusses how ideas about causation from the mass tort context can help address the problems of attenuation in slavery reparations. Mass tort cases have developed novel methods of showing causation, such as statistical evidence and market share liability, and these tools can be used in the reparations context. These concepts, if used within the reparations context, could help overcome attenuation.

Slavery, reparations, mass torts, causation, attenuation, statistical evidence, civil rights

Abstract:
In this Article, we argue that current debates on the legitimacy of punitive damages would benefit from a comparison with jury nullification in criminal trials. We discuss critiques of punitive damages and of jury nullification, noting the surprising similarities in the arguments scholars use to attack these (superficially) distinct outcomes of the jury guarantee. Not only are the criticisms alike, the institutions of punitive damages and jury nullification also turn out to have many similarities: both are, we suggest, examples of what we call nullificatory juries.

We discuss the features of such juries, and consider recent behavioral data relating to the common sense moral intuitions that appear to motivate nullificatory juries to reject utilitarianism. After considering these root causes, we provide a theoretical framework for analyzing the benefits these juries provide to society. We conclude with some modest suggestions for future avenues of research.

Behavioral, law and economics, jury behavior, jury nullification, criminal law, punitive damages, paternalism, rule of law

Abstract:
In this Article, we argue that current debates on the legitimacy of punitive damages would benefit from a comparison with jury nullification in criminal trials. We discuss critiques of punitive damages and of jury nullification, noting the surprising similarities in the arguments scholars use to attack these (superficially) distinct outcomes of the jury guarantee. Not only are the criticisms alike, the institutions of punitive damages and jury nullification also turn out to have many similarities: both are, we suggest, examples of what we call "nullificatory juries."

We discuss the features of such juries, and consider recent behavioral data relating to the common sense moral intuitions that appear to motivate nullificatory juries to reject utilitarianism. After considering these root causes, we provide a theoretical framework for analyzing the benefits these juries provide to society. We conclude with some modest suggestions for future avenues of research.

behavioral, law and economics, jury behavior, jury nullification, criminal law, punitive damages, paternalism, rule of law

Abstract:
This Article argues that slavery was a violation of the Takings Clause of the United States Constitution. Slaves, like all people, possessed a property right of self-ownership. When the government appropriated that property, through laws establishing slavery, the rightful owners of the property - the slaves - suffered uncompensated physical, regulatory and derivative takings. Victims of slavery, like victims of other impermissible takings, are constitutionally entitled to just compensation under the Takings Clause. This Article concludes by examining some potential judicial and legislative consequences of treating slavery as a Takings Clause violation.

slavery, reparations, takings, takings clause, fifth amendment, self-ownership, alienability, givings, regulatory takings, derivative takings

Abstract:
This paper examines the expedited review process used in law review submissions. It collects data from journals about their expedited review policies, and suggests some interpretations of the data.

[NOTE: The data is currently a few years old. I will be updating it at some future date].

law reviews, legal scholarship, expedited review, legal publishing