Recent Commentary from Inter Alia

YLPR’s online edition

Presidential Power To Protect Dreamers: Abusive or Proper? 

Kevin J. Fandl
Monday, January 29, 2018 - 9:00pm

Many young undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children, affectionately known as “Dreamers,” enjoy substantial protection from deportation under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. President Trump’s administration is attempting to withdraw this protection, purportedly in an effort to promote the rule of law by limiting executive overreach into matters of congressional concern. This Essay argues that the attempted rescission of DACA is not only out of step with broadly held American values, but premised on a flawed vision of the relationship between the legislative and executive branches. Our constitutional tradition wisely grants the President flexibility to make social policy through enforcement discretion, within the broad legal contours drawn by Congress. DACA is a legitimate exercise of that presidential power.

Slam the Door: Why Congress Should End the Backdoor Roth IRA

Amanda Parsons
Thursday, August 10, 2017 - 12:45pm

In September 2016, U.S. Senator Ron Wyden released a discussion draft of a “Retirement Improvements and Savings Enhancements Act” that would reform retirement planning policy. Among the proposed reforms is ending “backdoor” Roth individual retirement account (IRA) conversions. Backdoor Roth IRA conversion is a method for higher-income taxpayers to avoid the income limits for Roth IRA contributions by rolling funds from a traditional IRA into a Roth IRA. This method provides a variety of tax advantages for taxpayers, including paying no tax on investment gains and avoiding required lifetime distributions.

For Freedom of Expression, For Due Process, and For Yale: The Emerging Threat to Academic Freedom at a Great University

José A. Cabranes
Friday, January 13, 2017 - 2:00pm

We have good news and bad news today. The good news is that we are printing in hard copy the Woodward Report on Freedom of Expression at Yale. The bad news is that we need to reprint the Woodward Report. We are dealing today with interrelated developments at Yale that threaten freedom of expression and the institutions that protect it, including faculty due process rights, sometimes described as academic tenure. Many writers on this subject understandably focus on the fate of students. But it is important to recognize that today’s developments are also redefining the rights of faculty—and the role of faculty in the governance of this University. These are developments that, if not addressed, ultimately threaten Yale’s place among the great universities of the world.

The Effectiveness of Certificates of Relief as Collateral Consequence Relief Mechanisms: An Experimental Study

Peter Leasure & Tia Stevens Andersen
Monday, November 7, 2016 - 10:15am

Obtaining employment is difficult for ex-offenders due to the stigma of having a criminal record. In recognition of this difficulty, some state legislatures have created certificates of relief (also known as certificates of recovery), which lift occupational licensing restrictions, limit employer liability for negligent hiring claims, and aim to ensure that employment decisions about certificate holders are made on a case-by-case basis. The current study, which examines Ohio’s program for certificates of relief, presents the results of the first empirical test of the effectiveness of such certificates. This test indicates that having a certificate of relief increases the likelihood of receiving an interview invitation or job offer more than threefold. Importantly, certificate holders and their counterparts with clean criminal backgrounds were nearly equally likely to receive an interview invitation or job offer. These promising preliminary results suggest certificates of relief may be an effective avenue for lessening the stigma of a criminal record for ex-offenders seeking employment.

Bank Markazi and the Undervaluation of Legislative Generality

Evan C. Zoldan
Wednesday, September 7, 2016 - 10:30am

In its recent Bank Markazi opinion, the Supreme Court of the United States permitted Congress to direct judgment in favor of a particular party in a pending case. This Essay explains why the Court’s failure to invalidate targeted legislation is inconsistent with constitutional history, text, and widely held jurisprudential commitments.