Volume 2025, No. 3

Death is not free. Funeral, burial, or cremation costs are the thirdlargest category of expense over the lifetime of the average American, while poverty paradoxically remains the fourth leading cause of death. Many are unable to shoulder the often-exorbitant cost of death care without being forced to beg, borrow, or simply abandon human remains. Sufficient resources exist to ensure that everyone is laid to rest with dignity in the United States, but those resources are not evenly distributed. This Article proposes a way of leveraging the Internal Revenue Code to deliver death benefits to low- and middle-income taxpayers through the section 529 savings infrastructure. Section 529 plans are the fastest growing investment product in the United States, with every state administering a structure that provides parents with a tax-advantaged way to save for college. These existing pathways may be used to tax shelter deathcare savings. The 529 End-of-Life Plan is politically strategic in its subtlety; the same scaffolding that provides substantial tax incentives may be dual-purposed to deliver targeted safety-net death benefits to our most vulnerable.

This Article identifies and analyzes the category of state and private regulation that is invisible and subordinates women and other menstruators in ways that impact their privacy, liberty, and equality. Because this category of regulation is pervasive, bringing it to light is critical for considering how best to curb its harm. This Article considers potential legal strategies to counter such menstruation regulation and argues thatDobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organizationoffers some promise—but more cause for pessimism—regarding the U.S. Constitution’s power to do so. This Article therefore explains how subconstitutional law offers greater potential, while cautioning that political science research shows progressive law reform can be limited by a misogynistic strategy, that is, the political strategy of maintaining patriarchal order and female gender roles.

Businesses are at their most vulnerable during leadership transitions. Lack of succession planning has been recognized as a key risk factor, especially for closely held, family-owned businesses, but the problem is more extensive. Even public corporations with supposedly independent boards of directors too often fail to separate the corporation’s interests from those of charismatic leaders who enjoy the perquisites of control and may be loath to surrender it. Shareholders trust directors to manage business affairs, and ensuring leadership continuity is critical to this charge. Yet succession often remains overlooked in practice. It also remains understudied in the literature, and state legislatures have failed to create a specific statutory requirement to engage in succession planning. This Article draws on growing but still nascent succession scholarship, as well as robust literature on corporate fiduciary duties and mergers and acquisitions (M&A), to propose new solutions to the many problems that companies face at the time of succession.

Academics, policymakers, and judges alike almost universally agree that local subdivision preservation and compactness serve essential roles in redistricting. They often argue—and other times accept as given—that these criteria simultaneously protect against partisan gerrymanders and ensure nonpartisan communities receive the representation they deserve. This support is a normative and practical puzzle. It is well established both that local governments and their subdividing lines often create segregation and inequality and that compact communities reflect the same issues. Indeed, existing empirical research also finds that these criteria undermine partisan fairness and competitiveness—the stated goals of election law reform. This Article argues for replacing subdivision preservation and compactness as the primary redistricting criteria with a partisan fairness metric, as well as a geographically and conceptually expanded idea of communities of interest. Ultimately, this Article calls for a new conversation about which partisan and nonpartisan communities deserve representation in redistricting and how election law reformers and map-drawers can take new approaches to delivering that representation.

Human sex trafficking victims endure long-term adverse effects because of the coercive and manipulative victimization from their trafficking, one effect being a criminal record. However, even though the exploitation suffered is consistent, the protections provided by jurisdictions differ substantially. The Wisconsin Legislature paved the way for an effective, complete affirmative defense available to any victim who can show their criminal behavior is a direct result of their sex trafficking. Therefore, no offense is off the table, including homicide. The Wisconsin Supreme Court confirmed the Legislature’s intent with its statutory interpretation, both that “direct result” is a logical connection between the charged crime and sex trafficking and concluding that no crime is off limits. This Comment argues that Wisconsin’s approach is balanced, effective, and carefully crafted for human sex trafficking victims and therefore the best choice. Wisconsin’s approach to a logical causation requirement, regardless of the crime, is ideal for a human-trafficking affirmative defense. Finally, this Comment identifies pitfalls in other states’ approaches and explains why those states should take action to follow Wisconsin’s approach.