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?…
Is bitcoin a type of virtual currency or a type of property? Either definition of bitcoin also carries other issues—including tax and regulation issues. The most critical issue related to the treatment of bitcoin is the criminal issue. How may bitcoin users be charged criminally? And since no bitcoin-specific legislation currently exists, under what laws may bitcoin users be charged?