New Book: Getting to Reparations: How Building a Different America Requires a Reckoning with Our Past

New Book: Dorothy A. Brown, Getting to Reparations: How Building a Different America Requires a Reckoning with Our Past (2026). Overview below:

A bold manifesto arguing that there is a clear precedent for paying reparations to atone for America’s original sin of slavery, offering a compelling legal strategy to achieve this goal—from the acclaimed author of The Whiteness of Wealth.

The idea of reparations is not a new or original one; it is one that is baked into American history.

When the District of Columbia Emancipation Act of 1862 went into effect, wealthy slaveowners like Margaret Barber were compensated for the loss of their enslaved workers. Barber received $9,000—an equivalent to $250,000 today. When a group of Italian immigrants were lynched in 1892, President Harrison compensated Italy a total of $25,000 for their deaths—an equivalent to almost $766,000 today. The Indian Claims Commission, an arm of the federal government, paid Indigenous Americans $818 million for underhandedly stealing their land in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries—an equivalent to almost $350 billion today.

Dorothy A. Brown addresses the glaring question: if reparations can be achieved for others, why not for Black Americans? If lynching can be remedied for Italian immigrants, and slaveholders compensated for losses associated with abolition and emancipation, then the government’s failure to provide such remedies to Black communities harmed by similar violence, loss, and destruction is long overdue. The fight for reparations is truly a fight for the soul of America, to produce the country our founding fathers idealized but never achieved.

Getting to Reparations makes a logical and necessary case for reparations for Black Americans. It lays out a path as to how we might achieve this, built on the frameworks used throughout U.S. history by the government to pay restitution. It is now time to do the same for America’s Black population.

Call-for-Papers: Rural Sociology Society (this year’s theme: Rural Justice)

From the Rural Sociology Society: We are excited to announce that abstract submissions for the 2026 RSS Annual Meeting in Raleigh, NC July 30-August 2, are officially open! We invite proposals for oral and poster presentations that engage with the social, demographic, economic, environmental, and cultural dimensions of rural life. Whether you’re presenting new research, exploring applied practice, or contributing to theoretical advancement, we welcome submissions from scholars, students, and professionals across disciplines.

Submission Details: Opens: December 15, 2025. Closes: February 15, 2026, at 11:59 PM Pacific Time

Important Details: Submit your abstract on the RSS website by filling out the abstract submission form. You’ll receive a confirmation email once your submission is complete. Indicate your top 3 abstract categories based on the RIGs (Research Interest Groups). Please select up to three categories from the official list of RIGs that best represent the themes and focus of your submission. These selections will help organizers assign your abstract to appropriate reviewers and sessions. For the complete list of RIGs and their descriptions, please visit the RSS website or refer to the submission form. Review our Presentation Policy for key guidelines on preparing and delivering your presentation.

Submit Your Abstract Here.

New Article: Behind the Bench: Unmasking the Judicial Role in North America’s Prolonged Access to Justice Crisis

New Article: Brajesh Ranjan, Behind the Bench: Unmasking the Judicial Role in North America’s Prolonged Access to Justice Crisis, 2025 Wisc. L. Rev. 1489. Abstract below:

Delays in access to justice remain a persistent global challenge. Over the past fifty years, Canada and the United States have introduced sweeping reforms to address mounting court delays, shifting from litigant-driven adversarial models to the unorthodox approach of judge-controlled, casemanaged litigation. Prioritizing judicial economy over substantive adjudication underpinned these reforms, yet delays continue to escalate. This Article argues that by positioning judges as the solution, reforms concentrated excessive managerial power in judges’ hands without adequate oversight. This shift has fostered a judicial culture of complacency, where enhanced discretionary powers paradoxically prolong delays rather than resolve them. Efficiency reforms have thus altered the dynamics of delays, creating a new problem rather than solving existing ones. Drawing on decades of Canadian and American literature, this Article reveals that judicial complacency is not isolated, but rather a systemic problem deeply embedded in practice. Heightened judicial power that lacks robust accountability has become as much a part of the problem as it was intended to be the solution. By challenging prevailing silence on the judicial role in the access to justice crisis, this Article seeks to initiate a necessary conversation about how judicial conduct perpetuates delays and why rethinking accountability structures is essential for meaningful reform.

New Article: The Next Chapter in Health Care Federalism: Expanding Medicaid from the Ground Up

New Article: Michelle Wilde Anderson & Lina Volin, The Next Chapter in Health Care Federalism: Expanding Medicaid from the Ground Up, 2025 Wisc. L. Rev. 1223. Abstract below:

In much of the South and a few other conservative states, 1.4 million low-income adults have been excluded from access to Medicaid coverage. Now, in the wake of federal lawmaking in 2025, millions of additional Americans nationwide (including in these states) will lose access to Medicaid benefits and affordable health insurance. With America’s population of uninsured and underinsured people poised to grow dramatically, this might seem like a foolish time to talk about Medicaid expansion.

But new pressures can generate new politics. This Essay focuses on states that have opted out of Medicaid expansion, where a rising tide of newly uninsured people may nudge those states to seek new and politically lowprofile ways to make up for lost ground. This Essay argues that local governments—particularly, multicounty partnerships brokered with these states’ biggest central hospital complexes—should be the focus of a new phase of policy development for low-income health care. Just as local governments were at the vanguard of Medicaid expansion in early Affordable Care Act implementation, they can become important leaders in a new wave of lawmaking to, at long last, bring health care access to low-income communities in the South and Midwest.

New Article: Supply-Chain Wage Theft as Unfair Method of Competition

New Article: Eamon Coburn, Supply-Chain Wage Theft as Unfair Method of Competition, 134 Yale L.J. 615 (2025). Abstract below:

This Note argues that we should understand wage theft in the fissured economy as a competition problem, not just a labor problem. Specifically, it argues that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) should use its “unfair methods of competition” authority under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act to find supply-chain wage theft unlawful under certain circumstances. The Note first recovers and reasserts a historical understanding of substandard wages as an unfair method of competition. It then applies this understanding to the modern fissured economy, proposes FTC action, and defends the merits of the proposal.

New Article: From Kelo to Grants Pass v. Johnson: Public Use for Housing for the Homeless

New Article: Vicki Been & Yun-chien Chang, From Kelo to Grants Pass v. Johnson: Public Use for Housing for the Homeless, 43 Yale J. Reg. 197 (2025). Abstract below:

The Supreme Court’s 2024 City of Grants Pass v. Johnson decision allows jurisdictions to address homelessness by driving unhoused people away, and some have done so in the months since the decision. For those local governments that rise to the challenge of the homelessness crisis, various statutes and regulations, such as the Fair Housing Act, reduce the choice set of properties that can be used to provide housing for the homeless. The unintended consequence of such laws is an increase in the market power of certain owners of land suitable for such housing. This Article argues that the public-use clause should be interpreted to allow jurisdictions to use the eminent-domain power to address holdouts, including those whose behavior is endogenously created or aided by the legal system. Moreover, eminent domain should also be considered an appropriate tool to deal with owners we call “hold-inclined.” These landowners would be inclined to sell their land knowing it will be used for necessary but disfavored uses like emergency shelters, but they will refuse to sell voluntarily over concerns about damaging their reputation in the community. Allowing local governments to use the eminent-domain power to acquire land in this context solves the market deadlock. The trend toward narrow construction of the public-use clause after the 2005 landmark case Kelo v. City of New London should be regarded cautiously to avoid hampering governments’ ability to solve pressing contemporary issues like the homelessness crisis.

New Article: The Hunger Games: Food as a Right, Not a Privilege

New Article: Camesha F. Little, The Hunger Games: Food as a Right, Not a Privilege, 20 FIU L. Rev. 526 (2025). Abstract below:

Despite the United Nations’ explicit declaration that all humans have a right to food, food insecurity and hunger remain persistent problems in the United States and around the globe. The dystopian landscapes depicted in novels such as The Hunger Games and Parable of the Sower—societies crippled by poverty, oppression, and pervasive starvation—resonate with sobering contemporary realities. This Article examines existing food laws, food rights, and the current protections safeguarding the United States food supply from a humanitarian perspective. Ultimately, this Article argues that the human right to food must expand to encompass a right to healthy or natural food, and that the United States can ensure equitable access to quality food for all its citizens by considering a broader application of rights and duties under the public trust doctrine.

Food is a foundational human need, essential for life, health, and overall well-being. Despite this immense importance, robust legal protections to ensure equitable access to quality food remain insufficient. This Article proposes a more robust legal framework necessary to address the inadequacies of the current system, arguing that the United States can ensure equitable access to quality food for all its citizens by applying the public trust doctrine. As a common law doctrine, the public trust doctrine stipulates that certain natural resources are held by the government in a fiduciary trust for the benefit of current and future generations. This doctrine provides a flexible legal mechanism for safeguarding vital public assets from irrevocable damage or alienation. While traditionally applied to resources such as navigable waterways and coastlines, this Article contends that food in its natural state is similarly a public resource deserving of enhanced protection.

This Article unfolds in two principal arguments. First, it centralizes the position that all human beings have a human right to healthy, quality food because food is a natural resource that should be protected. Second, this Article proposes the application of the public trust doctrine to afford enhanced protection for natural food sources. Part I establishes the factual background of global and national food access, alongside contemporary challenges facing the United States food supply. Part II details the existing international legal framework for food rights and protections, subsequently examining current food safeguards within the United States, including the various regulatory bodies involved. Part III synthesizes scholarly analyses concerning the legal problems and proposed solutions related to food rights and protections.

The second half of this Article proposes the use of the public trust doctrine to protect natural food rights in America. Part IV discusses why the current protections of food in the United States are inadequate to ensure the supply of natural food. Part V describes and defines the public trust doctrine and what resources have been considered natural resources under the doctrine. Part VI proposes why food should be considered a natural resource under the public trust doctrine and explains why and how food should be protected under this framework. By establishing food as a natural resource held in trust by the government for the benefit of all citizens, this approach would impose a fiduciary duty on the state to ensure equitable access to healthy food, offering a more robust and ethically grounded framework for achieving food justice and fulfilling the human right to adequate and healthy food for all Americans.

New Article: “Trashing” Whiteness: Race Consciousness and the Failed Promise of Merit

New Article: Lihi Yona & Tammy Harel Ben-Shahar, “Trashing” Whiteness: Race Consciousness and the Failed Promise of Merit, 56 Ariz. St. L.J. 1075 (2025). Abstract below:

This Article revisits the convention that equality demands race neutrality from one unexpected perspective: the experiences of poor white students from rural Appalachia, often derogatorily referred to as “poor white trash” (“PWT”). The recent Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard case, where race-based admissions were struck down by the Supreme Court, brought the intersection of race and education back into the spotlight. The Court’s decision and Justice Thomas’s concurring opinion both hailed the ideal of meritocracy and “objective grading scales” as “the great equalizer.” Marginalized white students’ exclusion from higher education was rhetorically recruited to argue in favor of race-neutral admissions.

This Article challenges the notion that race-neutral decision-making in education benefits marginalized whites. By examining historical accounts of PWT and their stigmatization as intellectually inferior, the Article reveals how racist ideologies, including white supremacy, have perpetuated this group’s exclusion and segregation within the education system, precisely through “objective grading scales.” Centering the voices of self-identified PWT, as well as school ethnographies from recent years, this Article uncovers two mechanisms that perpetuate educational injustice of poor white students today: (1) the formation of ability-based groups; and (2) the classification of PWT students as having cognitive and behavioral disabilities. Together, this elementary-to-high-school segregative dynamic rigidifies path dependencies that inevitably influence college admission decisions.

PWT educational segregation rests on allegedly neutral logic. It is based on educational ability, a seemingly relevant criterion for separation, and it segregates poor whites, who are not typically viewed as a distinct social group. Therefore, it generally evades accusations of bias or discrimination. Developing a novel methodological PWT lens—comprised of class, race, disability, and gender—this Article is the first to both expose and lift the veil of neutrality from the current practice of PWT educational segregation and to place it in line with other forms of discrimination.

Moving beyond the descriptive, this Article develops a normative case against PWT educational segregation, arguing against the bias embedded in the initial classification of “abilities” and the social ramifications of such classifications. The argument raises doubts concerning seemingly meritbased classifications more generally. Finally, building on Justice Ginsburg’s groundbreaking strategy of promoting gender equality by centering male plaintiffs, this Article proposes recognizing PWT ability-based segregation as discrimination.

Societal unawareness of PWT ability segregation, this Article argues, is the crack through which white supremacy, sexism, ableism, and classism sneak into the U.S. educational system, shaping its core logics around superiority and exclusion. Developing new approaches to combat PWT ability-based segregation could open avenues for advancing racial justice and dismantling other forms of discrimination in schools and in higher education.

New Article: Racializing Three Strikes

New Article: Justin D. Levinson, G. Ben Cohen & Koichi Hioki, Racializing Three Strikes, 67 Ariz. L. Rev. 919 (2025). Abstract below:

“Three Strikes” laws sit at the fulcrum of racial disparities and mass incarceration. Despite clarity across decades that such laws have served to disproportionately punish Black Americans, legislatures have blessed them, courts permit them, prosecutors charge them, and juries convict based on them. Although it has long been clear that these laws have played a key role in the racialization of America’s criminal justice system, less clear are the mechanisms that drive and permit the embrace of this racialization. In this Article, we test empirically in a national study the hypothesis that Three Strikes laws exist because of race, are retained because of race, and are implemented because of race. Our national study finds, among other things, that Three Strikes laws indeed leverage automatic associations of repeat criminality with Black and Latino people, while inviting explicit biases to operate. The Article examines the racialization of Three Strikes laws, contextualizes the problem within modern implicit bias scholarship and decision theory, and measures the ways that implicit and explicit racial bias fuel the use and operation of these laws. The Article concludes by considering whether, given the study’s findings, repeat-offender laws should be retained.

News Coverage: Kansas City has spent $40 million on affordable housing. One project changed this woman’s life

News Coverage: Celisa Calacal, Kansas City has spent $40 million on affordable housing. One project changed this woman’s life, KCUR (Dec. 29, 2025).