Missing the Bus: The Promise and Failure of the Massachusetts Racial Imbalance Act

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.”).

Reforming Res Judicata for the Sake of Diffuse Interest Class Actions: Insights from Comparative Analysis with the Brazilian and Argentine Systems.

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.

An Analysis of the Current U.S. Regulatory Framework Surrounding Cryptocurrency

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.

Religious Accommodations and The Forgotten Secular Employees: Undue Hardship Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act

By Sara Kniaz

The special status of religion in the United States has long been emphasized in statutory schemes that protect the rights of employees. Most forms of employment discrimination cannot be legally justified. But when religious beliefs conflict with the requirements of a job, employers can refuse a  religious accommodation when it would cause an “undue hardship on the conduct of [an] employer’s business.” In its 2022–2023 session, the Supreme Court considered the meaning and role of undue hardship for the first time since 1977 in Groff v. DeJoy. Previously, in Trans World Airlines v. Hardison, the Court determined that an employer need not provide an employee with a religious accommodation if the employer must “bear more than a de minimis cost.” After Hardison, courts could not agree on the meaning of undue hardship and what constitutes a de minimis cost. Groff, decided by the Supreme Court in June 2023, clarified an undue hardship to be “substantial increased costs,” which requires more than a showing of de minimis. However, it remains unclear what burden this may have on secular coworkers….

From Founding Fathers to Founding Mothers: Lessons From Failed Amendments

By Julie Suk

In September 1787, thirty-nine men became the “Founding Fathers” of the nation by signing the U.S. Constitution in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, sending it on to ratifying conventions in the states. Constitution Day commemorates that moment every year. Constitution Day need not be devoted to veneration of the Founding Fathers or the document that emerged from their compromises.  It can be an opportunity for Americans to reflect on those eighteenth-century compromises, and to ask how well the Constitution is serving the democracy we aspire to be today….

Utilizing the Nurse Practitioner: Rethinking State-Level Regulatory Structures to Increase Access and Quality of Healthcare

By Abygail Hoey

In 2020, it is estimated that there were over 325,000 nurse practitioners (NPs) licensed to practice in the United States. NPs are registered nurses with “advanced training,” typically a master’s degree, who provide comprehensive services to patients by combining clinical training in diagnostics and the treatment of health conditions, with disease prevention and health management. Over the last decade, the demand for health care, specifically primary care, has increased. This increase results from several factors—one being newly insured Americans—but it is largely due to population growth and aging, which accounts for 81% of the change in demand from 2010 to 2020. The current number of physicians will not meet this growing demand. And marginalized populations and rural areas will be the most impacted, because physician shortages are particularly severe in these areas. Without addressing the physician shortage, access to primary care will become more delayed and widespread in underserved rural and urban areas. Medically underserved populations may face economic, cultural, or language barriers to health care.