UC Irvine Law Review

Detroit is experiencing historic levels of property tax foreclosure. More than 100,000 properties, or one in four throughout the city, have been foreclosed upon for nonpayment of property taxes since 2011. Simultaneously, there is strong evidence that the City is over assessing homeowners in violation of the Michigan Constitution, calling into question the record number of property tax foreclosures. This Article is the first attempt to measure the impact of unconstitutional tax assessments on property tax foreclosures. Controlling for purchase price, location, and time-of-sale, we show that residential properties with higher assessment ratios sold in Detroit since 2009 were more likely to experience a subsequent tax foreclosure. We estimate that 10% of all these tax foreclosures were caused by illegally inflated tax assessments. Moreover, since lower-priced homes were over-assessed at a greater frequency and magnitude than higher priced homes, we estimate that 25% of tax foreclosures among homes in the bottom price quintile (less than $9000 in sale price) were due to unconstitutional property tax assessments. Consequently, property tax malfeasance has unjustly displaced thousands of Detroit homeowners, most of whom are African- American. While the numbers in Detroit are extreme, there is reason to be concerned that similar practices are widespread.

This Article examines the widespread phenomenon of exorbitant child support debt owed by noncustodial fathers in no- and low-income and predominately Black families. Drawing from qualitative data—including a court-based ethnography and in-depth interviews with lawyers, litigants, and judges—this Article explores the inflated and arbitrary nature of the debt, detailing how states utilize family law rules, child support system practices, and court processes to construct burdensome child support arrears that many poor noncustodial fathers will never have the means to pay off. It concludes by arguing that inflated child support arrears should be questioned and challenged.

Throughout her Negotiation and Mediation course at the University of California, Irvine School of Law, Professor Carrie Menkel-Meadow1 instructed her students to be prudent, diligent, creative and cooperative negotiators. This note is based on an assignment from Professor Menkel-Meadow’s course and is thus subject to inherent limitations in its scope.

As a renowned national and international expert in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), Professor Menkel-Meadow facilitated the growth and frequency of use of ADR in the United States since the late 1970s and early 1980s, and has continued to develop this field of study to present day.

This note focuses on three concepts that make a negotiator effective: (1) necessity of strategic and thorough preparation before negotiations; (2) use of framing and establishment of reputation during negotiations; and (3) flexibility in resorting to facilitated mediation. My analysis of these concepts is discussed through the thirteen days of negotiations between President John F. Kennedy (JFK) and Soviet Premier Nikita S. Khrushchev (Khrushchev) during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. This paper is divided into two major components. First, I will analyze the United States’ initial contemplation in response to evidence of the Soviet Union’s construction of offensive-weapon bases in Cuba. Then, I will analyze the correspondences between JFK and Khrushchev leading up to the United Nations-based mediation sessions.

Shortly into the Trump presidency in 2017, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) began to have an active presence at the municipal court in Gardendale, Alabama. When individuals were brought in on minor offenses or violations, court personnel used racial markers such as language and surname to identify them as potential targets for removal. ICE would then close in to interrogate, detain, and deport them in short order. This collaboration between court personnel and ICE was corroborated by documents obtained in response to a 2017 Freedom of Information Act request. Specifically, an email chain in the documents confirmed that ICE had received support from municipal police, court administrators, and the judge.

Because of ICE’s aggressive enforcement tactics—resulting in an overinclusive dragnet that has targeted Latinxs generally and swept up citizens as well as noncitizens—this Note considers the viability of 42 U.S.C. § 1985 (Section 1985), a Reconstruction Era statute, to challenge ICE’s collusion with law enforcement at state courts. Specifically, this Note considers whether Adelante Alabama Worker Center (Adelante), a non-profit organization in Hoover, Alabama with predominantly Latinx membership, would have standing to sue. ICE’s enforcement in and around the Gardendale Municipal Court and apparent collusion with court personnel impacted Adelante members, some of whom have been questioned and detained inside the courthouse.

Notwithstanding the inherent limits of Section 1985, which is unavailing to noncitizen plaintiffs, this Note suggests that citizens suspected of being undocumented by virtue of their race or national origin and pulled into ICE’s “dragnet” may bring a claim under the state court prong of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2). By characterizing ICE’s collusion with local officials as not only intentionally discriminatory, but deliberately or recklessly indifferent, those citizen plaintiffs (or perhaps an organizational plaintiff representing them like Adelante) might be able to demonstrate harm to not only those physically restrained in the courthouse, but also to those deterred from attending, and secure injunctive relief against future enforcement actions.