Northeastern University Law Review
Missing the Bus: The Promise and Failure of the ...

By Thomas Hislop

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.”).

Northeastern University Law Review
Reforming Res Judicata for the Sake of Diffuse ...

By Cansu Koça

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.

Northeastern University Law Review
An Analysis of the Current U.S. Regulatory ...

By Joseph Steinbach

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.

Northeastern University Law Review
What is a “Meaningful Opportunity?” Disparities ...

BY EILIDH CURRIE

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?…

Life in Prison Without Parole for Juveniles in the United States: A Violation of the Convention Against Torture

Lilian Giacoma

The United States is the only country in the world that actively sentences children who commit a crime under 18 years of age to life in prison without parole. Despite recent hopeful Supreme Court decisions, international treaty obligations, and successful diversion programs in certain states, juvenile offenders continue to receive the cruel and draconian sentence of life without parole. This article reviews the domestic and international legal frameworks governing juvenile life without parole (“JLWOP”) and argues that this practice violates the United States’ obligation under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“CAT”) and other international norms. It also highlights best practices for juvenile offenders in certain states and argues for the adoption of expanded diversion and rehabilitation programs in order to end the cruel and inhumane punishment of JLWOP . . .

The Border Wall Emergency Declaration—Power Grab or Culmination of Expansive Presidential Authority?

Andy Carr

On Friday, February 15, 2019, President Donald Trump issued his long-awaited national emergency declaration concerning the U.S.-Mexican border, namely, to unlock billions for the construction of the wall.  Lawmakers’ initial reactions were—at best—cautious, if not alarmed, by the latest executive action.  Shifting appropriations via presidential decree raises obvious separation-of-powers concerns, as discussed further below.  But even more pragmatically, “many lawmakers in both parties regard the prospect of a [P]resident shifting billions of dollars of funding into a new project as a worrisome precedent even if the courts uphold the plan.”  Countless pieces undoubtedly will interrogate the proclamation and its legal implications over the months and years to come, but this essay offers a starting point and a first-run analysis.  The following explores the general theoretical and doctrinal frameworks for understanding the bounds of executive power, especially as it relates to the countervailing authority of Congress.  This essay concludes by applying both theoretical and doctrinal lessons to the border wall proclamation, finding it unlikely to be overturned if and when it reaches the Supreme Court—at least not in its entirety.  A range of interrelated concerns are further explored, suggesting avenues for further research and analysis. . . .

 

Life Beyond the Profile: What Happens to One's Assets After Digital Death?

By Diandra Franks

In our current Information Age in which so much time is spent behind the surface of a screen, an enormous and ever-increasing amount of one’s assets are stored within the confines of the World Wide Web. Whether or not the online asset is sentimental or financial, these accounts (social media, email, cryptocurrency, etc.) require users to create complicated, case-sensitive passwords as protection. This practice begs questions: What happens to online accounts when someone dies? Should friends and heirs be allowed to breach traditional notions of privacy to preserve a loved one’s memory? . . .

Checkpoint Consciousness: Exploring Legal Limitations and Inconsistencies in the Religious Use of Entheogenic Drugs

By Annie Vozar

Over the past several decades, the legal status of the use of drugs for religious purposes has fluctuated. Some religions employ various intoxicating substances to communicate with God or gods, to promote spiritual growth and contemplation, or to receive visions. Because possession of many of these drugs is criminalized, a growing number of legal cases address the opposing interests of the government and the individuals who use drugs for religious purposes. These cases have so far primarily concerned the use of psychedelic drugs such as mescaline (found in peyote) and dimethyltryptamine (“DMT”) (found in ayahuasca tea). While precedent in these cases may apply to related psychedelic drugs—such as psilocybin mushrooms—litigation concerning other substances—such as marijuana—has proven less successful. . . .

Do Colleges and Universities Have a Duty to Help? California and Massachusetts Lead the Way

By Alberto Bernabe

The general common law does not recognize a duty to help or to control the conduct of others. However, over time, courts and the Restatement of Torts have recognized limited duties in certain circumstances. Some of the most commonly accepted exceptions to the general rule are based on the existence of a special relationship between the person alleged to have a duty to help and the person in need of help. Traditionally, a special relationship exists when one party depends on the other for protection and the other party has the ability to provide the needed protection. For this reason, whether a relationship constitutes a special relationship which creates a duty to help or protect has usually been interpreted narrowly. Originally, the concept was limited to the relationship between common carriers and their passengers, and between innkeepers and their guests. Yet, for a variety of reasons, the notion of special relationships has been extended to include other types of relationships such as those between landlords and tenants, and commercial establishments and their customers.

Likewise, jurisdictions have shifted their approach on whether colleges and universities have a special relationship with their students. Before the 1960s, higher education institutions were considered to stand in loco parentis to students, and thus, as exercising control over the students who were, in turn, thought to be in the schools’ care. . .

Tripping Over Power Lines: Heydinger, Epel, and States’ Autonomy in Setting Renewable Energy Standards

By Devan Braun

In the wake of the federal government’s failure to implement policies designed to adequately mitigate climate change in the United States, action taken by individual states is now at the forefront of reducing emissions and incentivizing renewable energy.  This has drawn strong opposition to both new and existing programs such as renewable portfolio standards and renewable energy mandates, which have helped for some time now to decarbonize and diversify the electric grid from which we, as consumers, receive our power.  We now find ourselves in a position in which cost-effective renewable generation exists and can provide a realistic alternative to the use of traditional fossil fuels,  but legal uncertainty as to the viability of state renewable energy programs is a potential barrier slowing down our ability to decarbonize the electric grid and reduce greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions. . . .