Loading
Volume 116, Issue 1, October 2006
6
Articles
  • 2
    Criminal Law Comes Home
    Jeannie Suk, Saturday, 30 September 2006
    116 Yale L.J. 2 (2006)

    Though traditionally criminal law did not reach into the home to punish domestic violence, today such intervention in the home is well accepted and steadily growing. Because we all welcome that remedial development, we have taken little notice of the legal innovations in misdemeanor domestic violence enforcement that are transforming the role of criminal law in the home beyond the criminal punishment of violence. An important legal tool in this transformation is the protection order, which bans a person from the home on pain of arrest and enables treatment of presence at home as a proxy for violence. Through prosecutors' routine deployment of protection orders in the criminal process at arraignment, plea bargaining, and sentencing, the home is becoming a space in which criminal law deliberately reorders and controls private rights and relationships in property and marriage--not as an incident of prosecution but as its goal. The growing criminal law use of protection orders to prohibit the cohabitation and contact of intimate partners (often when substantial jail time is not imposed) is a form of state-imposed de facto divorce that subjects the practical and substantive continuation of intimate relationships to criminal sanction. This displacement of the choice to live like intimate partners exemplifies the changing legal meaning of the home, wherein the archetype of private space becomes a site of intense public investment suitable for criminal law control.

     

    Read Professor Cheryl Hanna's Response, Because Breaking Up Is Hard To Do.

    Read more...
  • 72
    How To Remove a Federal Judge
    Saikrishna Prakash and Steven D. Smith, Saturday, 30 September 2006
    116 Yale L.J. 72 (2006)

    Most everyone assumes that impeachment is the only means of removing federal judges and that the Constitution's grant of good-behavior tenure is an implicit reference to impeachment. This Article challenges that conventional wisdom. Using evidence from England, the colonies, and the revolutionary state constitutions, the Article demonstrates that at the Founding, good-behavior tenure and impeachment had only the most tenuous of relationships. Good-behavior tenure was forfeitable upon a judicial finding of misbehavior. There would have to be a trial, the hearing of witnesses, and the introduction of evidence, with misbehavior proved by the party seeking to oust the tenured individual. Contrary to what many might suppose, judges were not the only ones who could be granted good-behavior tenure. Anything that might be held--land, licenses, employment, etc.--could be granted during good behavior, and private parties could grant good-behavior tenure to other private individuals. Impeachment, by contrast, referred to a criminal procedure conducted in the legislature that could lead to an array of criminal sanctions. In England and in the colonies, impeachment was never seen as a means of judging whether someone with good-behavior tenure had forfeited her tenure by reason of misbehavior. Whether a landholder, employee, or government officer with good-behavior tenure had misbehaved would be determined in the ordinary courts of law. Moreover, the vast majority of state constitutions did not equate good-behavior tenure with impeachment either. To the contrary, many distinguished them explicitly. Taken together, these propositions devastate the conventional conflation of good-behavior tenure with impeachment. More importantly, they indicate that the original Constitution did not render impeachment the only possible means of removing federal judges with good-behavior tenure. Given the long tradition of adjudicating misbehavior in the ordinary courts, Congress may enact necessary and proper legislation permitting the removal of federal judges upon a finding of misbehavior in the ordinary courts of law.

     

    Read Professor Prakash and Professor Smith's accompanying Pocket Part essay, Removing Federal Judges Without Impeachment.

    Read more...
Response
Articles
Note
  • 170
    From Employment to Contract: Section 1981 and Antidiscrimination Law for the Independent Contractor Workforce
    Danielle Tarantolo, Saturday, 30 September 2006
    116 Yale L.J. 170 (2006)

    The American workplace has undergone a fundamental transformation as businesses increasingly have replaced traditional employees with independent contractors. Yet many of these individuals fall outside federal employment law, including Title VII's antidiscrimination protections. This Note addresses the legal gap in coverage and proposes using 42 U.S.C. § 1981, a Reconstruction-era provision that forbids race discrimination in "mak[ing] and enforc[ing] contracts," to modernize the workplace antidiscrimination regime to cover these workers. Drawing on the history and original purpose of the provision, the Note proposes reforms to § 1981 that would leave it structurally, doctrinally, and theoretically sound.
    Read more...
Comment

Yale Law Journal Archive