Vol. 128 No. 6 When residents of Ferguson, Missouri, took to the streets last August to protest the death of Michael Brown, an unarmed black teenager killed by...
Vol. 128 No. 6 A. One evening in early December 2014, thousands of people gathered on the historic Boston Common, not to view the annual Christmas-tree lighting, but...
Vol. 128 No. 6 The deaths of Michael Brown and Eric Garner, two unarmed African American men killed by white police officers in the summer of 2014, and...
Vol. 128 No. 6 There are few acts committed by local government that draw more controversy than a police department’s use of lethal force. Broad cross-sections of the...
Vol. 124 No. 5 The preemption regime grounded in the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) is understood to preclude state and local innovation in the field of labor law. Yet preemption doctrine has not put an end to state and local labor lawmaking. While preemption has eliminated traditional forms of labor law in cities and states, it has not prevented state and local reconstruction of the NLRA’s rules through what this Article terms “tripartite lawmaking.” The dynamic of tripartite lawmaking occurs when government actions in areas of law unrelated to labor – but of significant interest to employers – are exchanged for private agreements through which unions and employers reorder the rules of union organizing and bargaining. These tripartite political exchanges produce organizing and bargaining rules that are markedly different from the ones the federal statute provides but that are nonetheless fully enforceable as a matter of federal law.