Spring 2021
Tiny Homes: Addressing Housing and Educational Opportunity Inequities in New Hampshire’s HB588
With the rise of unemployment amidst the economic recession created by the spike in COVID-19 cases in the United States, homelessness has become an increasingly pressing issue; from early 2018 to early 2019 alone, the national homeless population has grown by 15,000 people. Furthermore, the Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey found that twenty-three million Americans report a deficit in their food intake and 1 in 4 renters reported that they were behind on rent. However, despite the growing financial burden of the economic recession, its disproportionate influence on low-income and racial minority households, and the steady growth in systemic wage gaps, there is still significant controversy surrounding a proposed New Hampshire law that might help to mitigate housing inequities. HB588, a copy of the 2020 bill SB482 which died during the COVID-19 shutdown, would allow “tiny houses” — 100 to 400 square foot dwelling units — to reside next to regular homes in every New Hampshire county. A version of this bill was passed in 2016 but allowed counties to refuse the occupancy of tiny houses, but HB588 would make this allowance universal. I argue that HB588 should be passed because it enforces the constitutionally-guaranteed assertions under the Federal Fair Housing Act of 1968 and addresses the educational gap in different socioeconomic communities under the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974.
Confessions of a Corporate Shill: Shareholder Primacy Must Prevail
A growing number of corporate executives, activists, and politicians would like for corporations to consider the impact of their decisions on the welfare of all of their stakeholders — rather than only their shareholders. Legal scholars have also begun to question the assumption that corporate officers have a fiduciary responsibility to maximize shareholder profits. However, precedent in the most important jurisdiction, the State of Delaware, forbids corporate executives from making decisions for reasons other than the betterment of shareholder welfare. Moreover, a shift away from shareholder primacy would cripple courts' oversight of corporations, give unprecedented power to corporate officers, and result in economic inefficiency.
Indigenous Rights in the U.S. and Hong Kong - A Comparative Analysis
Author Biography: Rachelle Lam recently completed her undergraduate Law degree at the University of Cambridge, with First Class Honors. She was also the Managing Editor of the Cambridge Law Review, and Senior Editor of the Cambridge Human Rights Law Journal.
Abstract: In 2019, the Hong Kong Court of First Instance ruled that Indigenous villagers do not enjoy the right to build on government land at concessionary premium, as this does not constitute a “traditional” right of the New Territories Indigenous inhabitants protected under Article 40 of the Basic Law. In the same year, the U.S. Supreme Court rendered several landmark decisions clarifying its methodology on the interpretation of Native American rights. This essay examines how the jurisprudence of the U.S. Supreme Court can provide an illuminating guide as to how the Hong Kong Court could approach statutory interpretation of Indigenous rights in the future.