Unjust Cities? Gentrification, Integration, and the Fair Housing Act

Olatunde C.A. Johnson* 

What does gentrification mean for fair housing? This article considers the possibility that gentrification should be celebrated as a form of integration alongside a darker narrative that sees gentrification as necessarily unstable and leading to inequality or displacement of lower-income, predominantly of color, residents. Given evidence of both possibilities, this article considers how the Fair Housing Act might be deployed to minimize gentrification’s harms while harnessing some of the benefits that might attend integration and movement of higher-income residents to cities. Ultimately, the article urges building on the fair housing approach but employing a broader set of tools to advance a more robust form of integration. This broader framework would attend to how public and private goods are distributed in gentrifying cities, and build governance and participation mechanisms that enhance the voice and participation of traditionally excluded groups.

Read more

Coordinated Action on School and Housing Integration: The Role of State Government

Megan Haberle* & Philip Tegeler**

In this essay, we assess the prospects for more coordinated government efforts to address housing and school segregation at the federal, state and local level. We conclude that multiple barriers to concerted action at the federal and local level, particularly to addressing racial and economic segregation across local boundaries, suggest a more central role for state governments than has previously been the case. State-level laws and programs can succeed as drivers of integration in a way that is distinct from either federal or local interventions, because of the state’s direct control over the key policies that drive modern school and housing segregation.

Read more

Katz v. United States: Back To The Future?

Michael Vitiello

Fifty years ago, in Katz v. United States, the United States Supreme Court developed a flexible approach to assessing when the police’s use of modern technology became a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Katz abandoned the importance of trespass law and reframed the debate in terms of expectations of privacy.

Decided towards the end of the Warren Court era, Katz, like other progressive Warren Court decisions, has undergone a retrenchment over most of the past fifty years. In a series of post-Warren Court cases, the Court routinely found that when a suspect exposed information to third parties, society did not recognize the suspect’s expectation of privacy as reasonable. Thus, when the police sought similar access, the police conduct did not amount to a search. The post-Warren Court did not focus on how much privacy is essential to a free society. The post-Warren Court cases had the effect of allowing technological innovation to determine how much privacy the Fourth Amendment protects. Framed differently, when companies developed technology that required us to expose information to third parties—for example, when we use cell phones or global monitoring technology—the act of sharing information with the technology company eroded Fourth Amendment protection.

Read more

Criminal Law And Procedure

Aaron J. Campbell

This article aims to give a succinct review of notable criminal law and procedure cases decided by the Supreme Court of Virginia and the Court of Appeals of Virginia during the past year. Instead of covering every ruling or rationale in these cases, the article focuses on the “take-away” of the holdings with the most precedential value. The article also summarizes noteworthy changes to criminal law and procedure enacted by the 2017 Virginia General Assembly.

Read more