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?…

Challenging the Narrative: Challenges to ICWA and the Implications for Tribal Sovereignty

By Hannah Taylor

What does it mean to be an Indian child in the U.S.? In cases such as Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl and Brackeen v. Bernhardt, the United States Supreme Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, respectively, have tried to answer this question, specifically as it relates to the Indian Child Welfare Act (“ICWA”). These two cases involve non-Indian families attempting or hoping to circumvent ICWA to adopt Indian children. While Adoptive Couple is final, having been decided by the United States Supreme Court, Brackeen v. Bernhardt is currently pending in the Fifth Circuit. ICWA has been upheld by the courts in these cases so far, but, in Adoptive Couple, the Supreme Court revealed an ignorance of Indian family dynamics and of the idea that Indian children’s ties to their culture are critically important both for the children and the tribes. This failure, coupled with the Court’s apparent disapproval of basic principles related to tribal sovereignty, presents the risk that the Supreme Court may overturn ICWA if Brackeen reaches it. Such a result would very likely have widespread implications for the entire field of federal Indian law…

The Truth Can Be Deceiving: How Criminal Justice Headlines Are Misinterpreted

Dr. Michael Conklin*

Just as the criminal justice system has a profound effect on those involved, media accounts of the criminal justice system can profoundly affect those reported on. It is important for those in the media to not only report accurately criminal justice matters, but also to be aware of how factually accurate reports can be misunderstood by lay audiences and the resulting consequences these misunderstandings can have…

Alexa, Are You My Doctor?: Conversational Assistants' Roles in Mandatory Reporting Adolescent Suicide Risk

Christie Dougherty*

Imagine a world when you can turn to a device in your home and say, “Why am I sad?” and get a medical diagnosis. Believe it or not, this is not a world of science fiction. Emotion detecting and diagnostic artificial intelligence (“AI”) is a rapidly developing area of research that can prove highly beneficial for the future of public health and health care. When properly administered and used, emotion detecting and diagnostic AI can help facilitate screening of mental health patients, close the gap on ability to access care, and create efficiencies. For example, “[M]achine learning algorithms are processing and analyzing enormous quantities of information in the form of clinical notes, diagnostic images and health records to quickly detect patterns and insights that would have taken decades before.” At the same time, these devices can be detrimental to consumers, causing significant harms, and even fatalities, when improperly administered and used, such as commercial products that incidentally have emotion detecting and diagnostic capabilities…

When the Nation Cannot Wait: A Call for the Justice Department to Revise its Policy Against Indicting Sitting Presidents

Sarah Pavlini*

This note argues that the Justice Department (DOJ) should reconsider the soundness of its categorical policy against indicting sitting presidents. This policy, entitled “A Sitting President’s Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution,” has long been based on the following principles: that (1) indicting a sitting president would unconstitutionally undermine the ability of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions; (2) immunity from criminal immunity while in office does not make presidents “above the law” because they are only immune from criminal liability for the length of their term and can therefore be indicted and prosecuted once their term ends; and (3) when there is a need for the president’s immediate prosecution and punishment, Congress will remove the president from office via impeachment proceedings, thereby making him or her available for criminal proceedings pursuant to a clear constitutional provision authorizing that action. However, the nation cannot always afford to wait for a president to leave office in order for him or her to face the consequences of his or her criminal conduct. Impeachment, the Constitution’s explicit tool for effecting a president’s immediate removal from office, has shown itself to be a far less reliable safeguard against serious presidential criminal activity than is ideal. DOJ policy regarding the indictment of sitting presidents should better reflect this reality . . .

Can a President Pardon Himself? Law School Faculty Consensus

By Dr. Michael J. Conklin*

President Donald Trump sparked a debate after tweeting, “As has been stated by numerous legal scholars, I have the absolute right to PARDON myself . . . .” The self-pardon has inspired passionate and discordant views within the legal community. Despite competing claims in the media, there is no clear consensus among legal professionals concerning the constitutionality of the presidential self-pardon, which has never been attempted by a U.S. President. The presidential self-pardon is an amorphous concept that finds no clear authority either in the text of the Constitution, which provides only one sentence describing the President’s pardon power, or in Supreme Court precedent, which has only minimally discussed the pardon power’s scope.  There has been no objective attempt to measure a consensus in legal academe, and no media outlet has comprehensively surveyed legal experts to determine whether a consensus actually exists. This article discusses the results of a survey conducted across ninety-five faculty members representing twenty-nine U.S. law schools to illustrate whether an actual consensus exists. In addition, it examines potential correlations between political affiliation, age, and law school tier with faculty members’ opinions on the issue. Finally, this article serves as a tool to inform the public by clarifying conflicting media accounts . . . .

 


* Powell Endowed Professor of Business Law, Angelo State University    

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 . . .