Issues
Browse By:
Volume 20 - Issue 1
Earned Wage Access: A Loan by Any Other Name?
Over the past decade, a new financial product called earned wage access (EWA) has emerged and is being marketed to workers. These products allow workers to access wages they have already earned but have not yet received in a paycheck, usually incurring a fee for the advance. While the companies selling these products claim to financially empower workers who live paycheck to paycheck, consumer advocates have noted EWA’s concerning similarities to payday lending. As EWA use has proliferated, regulators have begun addressing it head on. The primary debate is whether to consider these products loans subject to federal and state lending laws. This Note aims to place EWA within the context of the payday lending industry and assess the recent actions taken by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and states to regulate it. Part I traces the history of payday lending, how states have approached regulating that industry, and the normative justifications for permitting or prohibiting it. Part II discusses how EWA compares to payday lending in terms of risks and benefits. Lastly, Part III examines the emerging regulatory responses and evaluates them in light of the discussions in Parts I and II. I conclude that the crux of the current debate––whether or not EWA products are loans––sidesteps the more important question of how regulators can shape these products to be a viable alternative to payday loans for consumers in need of short-term liquidity.
The Promise of Lived Experience: Assessing Race and Merit After SFFA
70 years after Brown, students of color remain underrepresented in U.S. colleges and universities and in professions like law, medicine, business, and academia, which, in turn, drives inequitable social and economic outcomes. Recent Supreme Court decisions threaten to further exacerbate this inequity by preventing schools from considering race when making admissions decisions and shaping their classes. This article contends that by placing greater emphasis on applicants’ experiences of race, admissions officers can more accurately assess merit, improve services to disadvantaged communities, and achieve the pedagogical benefits of diversity. The article situates the lived experience approach within a well-established tradition permitting the consideration of racialized experience in contexts from K-12 admissions and redistricting to criminal investigations and reparations. Although compliance with current legal interpretations is important in the near term, the lived experience approach’s greatest promise lies in advancing the true purpose of the Reconstruction Amendments—actively dismantling racial inequities and actualizing a multiracial democracy.
A Puerto Rico for Whom? Race, Neglect, and Empire
This article examines the persistent colonial relationship between the United States and Puerto Rico, highlighting the paradox of a nation that champions democracy while maintaining colonial rule over millions of disenfranchised citizens. Over 120 years of exploitation, neglect, and subordination have shaped Puerto Rico’s status as the largest U.S. territory, where residents live in stark inequality compared to those on the mainland. Despite the veneer of sovereignty created by the U.S. through legal frameworks, Puerto Rico exemplifies a sophisticated and undemocratic form of modern colonialism, recently termed “new legal colonialism.” This approach uses legal structures to maintain economic and strategic dominance while projecting an image of progress and autonomy. Focusing on developments in the past two decades, the article explores the escalation of economic exploitation under this framework, demonstrating how corporate revenue extraction—facilitated by the U.S. federal government—continues a colonial pattern established in the early 20th century. Through a historical, cultural, political, and legal analysis, it reveals how innovative forms of economic subjugation are perpetuating Puerto Rico’s colonial status and exacerbating its socio-economic challenges.
“All They Did Was Change the Name”: Evaluating Reforms to Solitary Confinement
In the last decade, the United States has seen a wave of efforts to greatly reduce or eliminate the use of solitary confinement. In the light of growing international recognition that such treatment amounts to torture, these efforts are certainly encouraging and have contributed to a reduction of the number of people held in long-term isolation. But it is worthwhile to examine the extent of these reforms and what solitary confinement now looks like in states that have implemented such changes. A robust literature exists on the harms of solitary confinement and ideas for reforming or eliminating its use. This paper adds to the literature by evaluating the success of such efforts, several years into this wave, now that there is more data available. It examines two states that have presented themselves as success stories, Massachusetts and Colorado, where the correctional agencies purport to have eliminated long-term solitary confinement. Although its use has been greatly reduced, it persists for some number of incarcerated people—prompting the question of why these agencies are not more forthright about their progress. This paper uses these two states to illustrate larger trends and concludes by suggesting ways that advocates can ensure that their efforts are maximally successful as the trend of eliminating solitary confinement hopefully continues. It contributes to the scholarship evaluating how our democracy’s branches—judicial, executive, and legislative—can provide meaningful restraints on correctional agencies’ actions in order to protect the people in their custody.
Humanizing The Mexican Migrant
Given the past election season and craze about the “immigration crisis,” it is of paramount importance to reflect on how and why migrants, particularly Mexican migrants, are positioned as “less than” in our society. Immigration is more than a political platform issue; it concerns real people whose real lives are affected. Mexican migrants are used as political scapegoats for any and all issues in the United States whether it be increased crime rates, a lack of available jobs, or overall poor economic conditions. They are dangerously mischaracterized and stereotyped as “criminals” and “national security threats.” These labels are inextricably tied to racism and xenophobia, yet are cited as a rationale for restrictive, militarized, and criminalized immigration policies. This rhetoric perpetuated by our laws, leaders, and media serves to create a narrative about migrants and immigration that is entirely detached from humanity, divorcing the individual from society, and labeling them as “other.” Citizenship status should not be determinative of which civil and human rights are afforded to human beings. As a society, we must demand an interrogation of the relationship between racism, nationalism, and xenophobia, accompanied by a reckoning of the United States’ white supremacist roots, to alter the way we view and speak about all migrants, to demilitarize the border, and to decriminalize immigration policy. This Paper serves as a detailed account of the subjugation and subordination of Mexican migrants throughout history to argue Mexican migrants will never be humanized until white supremacy is confronted because white supremacy is everpresent in our laws, lives, and language. Most importantly, this Paper is a reminder to treat migrants as they are—human.