Addressing consistency in the application of the law, former Attorney General Robert Jackson told Congress in 1940: “It is obviously repugnant to one's sense of justice that the judgment meted out . . . should depend in large part on a purely fortuitous circumstance; namely the personality of the particular judge before whom the case happens to come for disposition.” Yet in asylum cases, which can spell the difference between life and death, the outcome apparently depends in large measure on which government official decides the claim. [...]

This Article is about consistency in adjudication. With the United States asylum system as a backdrop, I explore why consistency matters, what its determinants are, and whether it can be substantially achieved at a price that is worth paying.This Article is also about the United States asylum adjudication system. Asylum challenges the national conscience in distinctive ways. [...]

In Refugee Roulette: Disparities in Asylum Adjudication (the Asylum Study), Professors Ramji-Nogales, Schoenholtz, and Schrag provide a comprehensive analysis of new data to document decisional disparities that undermine the fairness of asylum adjudication. The Asylum Study is an empirical project of remarkable scope. It examines patterns of asylum decisions at four different adjudication levels: at the asylum office interview, in immigration court, on administrative appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), and on petition for review to the federal courts of appeals. [...]

The Fourth Amendment protects reasonable expectations of privacy, but the Supreme Court has refused to provide a consistent explanation for what makes an expectation of privacy “reasonable.” The Court's refusal has disappointed scholars and frustrated students for four decades. [...]

In August 2006, a federal district court held that the Terrorist Surveillance Program violates the Fourth Amendment. Scholars have debated the legality and constitutionality of the program extensively since the New York Times first publicized its existence in December 2005. In this Article, I look beneath the surface of that raging debate to one of the premises underlying the court's conclusion, that the Fourth Amendment protects the confidentiality of communications. I explore the origins of the notion that the Fourth Amendment protects communications privacy. [...]

The decades following the end of the Cold War have witnessed the growing proliferation of international regulatory institutions with overlapping jurisdictions and ambiguous boundaries. Practicing jurists have expressed concern about the effects of this increased fragmentation of international law, but for the most part international legal theorists have tended to dismiss such concerns as unwarranted. [...]

In recent years, corporate governance scholarship has begun to focus on the most common distribution of public corporation ownership: outside of the United States and the United Kingdom, publicly owned corporations often have a controlling shareholder. The presence of a controlling shareholder is especially prevalent in developing countries. In Asia, for example, some two-thirds of public corporations have one, most of whom represent family ownership. [...]