New Article on "The State Constitutional Case Against Exclusionary Zoning"

ReasonParty-alignedCenterFactual 85Objective 80yesterday

A new academic paper titled 'The Constitutional Case Against Exclusionary Zoning,' coauthored by the author and Josh Braver, argues that exclusionary zoning—zoning laws that restrict housing development—is a major contributor to the U.S. housing crisis. The paper explores how state constitutions can be leveraged to challenge such zoning practices through legal action and potential constitutional amendments. It critiques the current interpretation of state takings clauses, which often aligns with federal standards like the Penn Central test, and highlights exceptions in states like New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey. The authors propose alternative legal strategies rooted in state-level takings and due process doctrines, suggesting both litigation and constitutional reform as viable solutions. They build upon previous research, including a shorter version published in The Atlantic, and express hope that state courts can act more decisively on this issue before federal courts reach a resolution.

Bias read (Center): The article presents a legal argument against exclusionary zoning using constitutional principles, without overt ideological framing. While the authors have differing philosophical views (progressive living constitutionalism vs. libertarian originalism), they agree on the core issue. The piece does

Why factuality (85): The article accurately summarizes the primary source document's argument about exclusionary zoning being a constitutional issue under the takings clause. It references the coauthored work and discusses state constitutional strategies, aligning with the original text's focus on legal solutions. Howev

Why objectivity (80): The tone remains academic and focused on legal analysis, presenting both sides of the debate regarding state court interpretations and proposed reforms. While it presents a clear argument for using state constitutions, it maintains a balanced approach by acknowledging scholarly skepticism about the

The HillIndependentProgressiveFactual 60Objective 454 days ago

The article discusses how the modern plea bargain system undermines the constitutional right to a jury trial, suggesting that this legal practice has become a significant point of contention in American justice. It frames the debate around the historical significance of the Constitution and raises concerns about the erosion of due process rights in contemporary criminal proceedings.

Bias read (Progressive): The article presents the plea bargain system as a threat to constitutional rights, implying a critique of current judicial practices. This framing aligns with progressive perspectives that emphasize individual rights and systemic reform.

Why factuality (60): The article discusses the modern plea bargain and its impact on the constitutional right to a jury trial, but lacks specific data or citations to support its claims. While the topic aligns with broader legal discussions, the lack of concrete evidence or references limits its factual depth. Cross-sou

Why objectivity (45): The tone is somewhat polemic, suggesting that the plea bargain 'undercuts' the constitutional right to a jury trial, implying a strong negative judgment. The language is more interpretive than neutral, and the framing leans toward criticism of the current system without presenting alternative perspe

ReasonParty-alignedCenter16 hr. ago

The article discusses how exclusionary zoning contributes to the U.S. housing crisis, limiting affordable housing and disproportionately affecting low-income and minority communities. It argues that state constitutional law offers a viable pathway to challenge such zoning practices, which often restrict multi-family housing developments. The authors, including Joshua Braver and the author, suggest that state constitutions can be used to litigate against exclusionary zoning, either through existing provisions or proposed amendments. They highlight that while federal courts have not yet adopted their interpretation of the Takings Clause, state-level legal strategies could lead to meaningful change. The authors note their differing ideological backgrounds—Braver identifies as a progressive living constitutionalist, while the author describes himself as a libertarian and originalist—but emphasize their shared commitment to addressing housing inequality.

Bias read (Center): The article presents a balanced discussion of the issue, highlighting both the problem of exclusionary zoning and potential solutions through state constitutional law. While the authors advocate for specific legal approaches, they acknowledge ideological differences between them and emphasize their