New Report: “A Subsidized Jobs Program for the 21st Century: Unlocking Labor-Market Opportunities for All Who Seek Work”

New Report: Rachel West, Rebecca Vallas & Melissa Boteach, A Subsidized Jobs Program for the 21st Century: Unlocking Labor-Market Opportunities for All Who Seek Work (Center for American Progress 2015).

Blog Post: “Regulating Social Finance: Can Social Stock Exchanges Meet the Challenge?”

Blog Post: Sarah Dadush, Regulating Social Finance: Can Social Stock Exchanges Meet the Challenge?, The CLS Blue Sky Blog, Apr. 8, 2015.

News Coverage: What is it like to be poor at an Ivy League school? – Magazine – The Boston Globe

What is it like to be poor at an Ivy League school? – Magazine – The Boston Globe.

News Coverage: San Jose affordable housing law faces key legal test – San Jose Mercury News

San Jose affordable housing law faces key legal test – San Jose Mercury News.

New Report: “Assessing the Merits of Photo EBT Cards in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program”

New Report: Gregory B. Mills & Christopher Lowenstein, Assessing the Merits of Photo EBT Cards in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Urban Inst. 2015).  Related NY Times story here.

Student / Clinic work: Homeless Rights Advocacy Project

From the Legislation Law Prof Blog [focusing on work by Seattle U. students under the direction of Sara Rankin].

New Report: “Unaccompanied Child Migration to the United States: The Tension between Protection and Prevention”

New Report: TransAtlantic Council on Migration, Unaccompanied Child Migration to the United States: The Tension between Protection and Prevention (2015).

Op-Ed: “The double-standard of making the poor prove they’re worthy of government benefits” – The Washington Post

Op-Ed: The double-standard of making the poor prove they’re worthy of government benefits – The Washington Post.

New Article: ” Social Entrepreneurship and Uncorporations”

New Article: Jesse Finfrock and Eric L. Talley, Social Entrepreneurship and Uncorporations, 2014 U. Ill. L. Rev. 1867 (2014) [Corporate law but perhaps relevant to some readers].  Abstract below:

Larry Ribstein’s pioneering analysis of alternative business forms during the late twentieth century highlighted the contractarian freedom that these forms provided. The rise of the LLC model was of particular interest to Ribstein, who assessed how this model brought greater freedom to those who held duties and obligations within the corporate structure. This Article takes up Ribstein’s mantle by assessing the development the alternative “social enterprise” business forms manifested in benefit corporations (BC) and flexible purpose corporations (FPC). Both forms allow an incorporated entity to articulate and pursue a social benefit alongside the maximization of shareholder returns. Despite its utility, the uptake of the social enterprise corporation, as assessed through a case study of California, appears underwhelming. Yet, by using the arc of the LLC uptake path as a comparative historical benchmark, the authors argue that there is hope that these new social enterprise corporations will see an increasing rate of uptake in the future.

New Article: “Political Powerlessness”

New Article: Nicholas Stephanopoulos, Political Powerlessness, forthcoming NYU L. Rev.  Abstract below:

There is a hole at the heart of equal protection law. According to long-established doctrine, one of the factors that determines whether a group is a suspect class is the group’s political powerlessness. But neither courts nor scholars have reached any kind of agreement as to the meaning of powerlessness. Instead, they have advanced an array of conflicting conceptions: numerical size, access to the franchise, financial resources, descriptive representation, and so on.

My primary goal in this Article, then, is to offer a definition of political powerlessness that makes theoretical sense. The definition I propose is this: A group is relatively powerless if its aggregate policy preferences are less likely to be enacted than those of similarly sized and classified groups. I arrive at this definition in three steps. First, the powerlessness doctrine stems from Carolene Products’s account of “those political processes ordinarily to be relied upon to protect minorities.” Second, “those political processes” refer to pluralism, the idea that society is divided into countless overlapping groups, from whose shifting coalitions public policy emerges. And third, pluralism implies a particular notion of group power — one that (1) is continuous rather than binary; (2) spans all issues; (3) focuses on policy enactment; and (4) controls for group size; and (5) type. These are precisely the elements of my suggested definition.

But I aim not just to theorize but also to operationalize in this Article. In the last few years, datasets have become available on groups’ policy preferences at the federal and state levels. Merging these datasets with information on policy outcomes, I am able to quantify my conception of group power. I find that blacks, women, and the poor are relatively powerless at both governmental levels; while whites, men, and the non-poor wield more influence. These results both support and subvert the current taxonomy of suspect classes.