Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- First Amendment; Freedom of Speech; Free speech; Constitutional Law; John Roberts; Roberts Court; Free Expression; Freedom of Expression; First Freedom; Supreme Court jurisprudence; Constitution; Constitutional Principles (7)
- AAID (1)
- Affirmative action (1)
- Anthony Kennedy (1)
- Antitrust Law; Labor Law; Sports Law; Nonstatutory Labor Exemption; Collective Bargaining; Ohio State; NCAA; football; NWSL; Portland Thorns; soccer; Professional Sports; Mandatory Subjects of Bargaining; Rule of Reason; Clarett v. NFL; Moultrie v. National Women’s Soccer League; Mackey v. National Football League; Brown v. Pro Football (1)
-
- Atkins (1)
- Attenuated circumstances (1)
- Bailout Provisions (1)
- Black lives matter (1)
- Briseño factors (1)
- Broken Windows (1)
- Capital punishment (1)
- Chevron; Chevron (1)
- Circuit split; school; students; First Amendment; Internet; electronic speech; digital age; Tinker v. Des Moines; off-campus speech; school officials; school discipline; schoolhouse gate; free speech (1)
- Civil procedure; internet; personal jurisdiction; multidistrict litigation (1)
- Content-based (1)
- Death penalty (1)
- Democracy (1)
- Discrimination (1)
- Earl Warren (1)
- Elections (1)
- Elements; means; elements test; removal; deportation; criminal procedure; criminal law; immigration; Breyer; Kagan; Descamps; Mathis; Taylor; categorical approach; modified categorical approach; divisibility; juror agreement; ACCA; Armed Career Criminal Act; recidivism; Apprendi; constitutional avoidance; sentencing enhancement; federal sentencing; crimmigration (1)
- Environmental Law; Climate Litigation; West Virginia v. EPA; Environmental Protection Agency; Clean Air Act; Conservative Supreme Court; Michigan v. EPA; Massachusetts v. EPA; Greenhouse Gas Emissions; Statutory Amendment; Political Polarization; Canvassing (1)
- Equal protection (1)
- Eric Garner (1)
- Exclusionary rule (1)
- Fifteenth Amendment (1)
- Fifth Amendment (1)
- First Amendment (1)
- First Amendment; Establishment Clause; Religion; Kennedy (1)
Articles 1 - 30 of 30
Full-Text Articles in Law
Agency Deference After Loper: Expertise As A Casualty Of A War Against The “Administrative State”, Michael M. Epstein
Agency Deference After Loper: Expertise As A Casualty Of A War Against The “Administrative State”, Michael M. Epstein
Brooklyn Law Review
Chevron deference has been a foundational principle for administrative law for decades. Chevron provided a two-step analysis for determining whether an agency would be given deference in its decision-making. This deferential test finds its legitimacy on the grounds of agency expertise and accountability. However, when the Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari in Loper Bright Enterprise v. Raimondo, it positioned itself to potentially overrule or severely limit Chevron. An overruling of Chevron would place judicial deference to administrative agency decisions in peril by allowing courts to substitute their own views over the informed opinions of agency experts. This …
Clarett, Moultrie, And Applying The Nonstatutory Labor Exemption To Professional Sports’ Draft Eligibility Rules, Mathew Santoyo
Clarett, Moultrie, And Applying The Nonstatutory Labor Exemption To Professional Sports’ Draft Eligibility Rules, Mathew Santoyo
Brooklyn Law Review
Collective bargaining is the mechanism by which major sports leagues and their players unions have negotiated the terms and conditions of employment for many decades. One standard provision of these collective bargaining agreements is a draft eligibility rule governing the conditions by which prospective athletes are eligible for the league’s entry draft. These collective bargaining agreements exists at the intersection of two somewhat discordant areas of law: antitrust and labor law. Under antitrust law, Congress enacted a policy favoring competition and prohibiting unreasonable restraints on trade. On the other hand, under labor law, Congress enacted a policy favoring collective bargaining. …
When Life Takes Your Lemons: Resolving The Legislative Prayer Debate In School Board Settings In Light Of Kennedy V. Bremerton School District, Jordan Halper
Brooklyn Law Review
The COVID-19 pandemic fanned the flames of a fire that had been slowly but steadily burning since 2016, arming the loudest warriors of America’s endless culture war with a slew of new divisive issues. Virtually overnight, parental rights groups began capitalizing on the frustration in their communities in order to spur political change, training their ire toward public schools. What began as a crusade against mask mandates and vaccines manifested into a well-funded effort by ultraconservative groups to undermine the public education system as a whole. Against this backdrop, the legislative prayer exception—which was meant to sanction the practice of …
The Major Questions Doctrine’S Domain, Todd Phillips, Beau J. Baumann
The Major Questions Doctrine’S Domain, Todd Phillips, Beau J. Baumann
Brooklyn Law Review
In West Virginia v. EPA, the Supreme Court elevated the major questions doctrine to new heights by reframing it as a substantive canon and clear statement rule rooted in the separation of powers. The academic response has missed two unanswered questions that will determine the extent of the doctrine’s domain. First, how will the Court apply the doctrine to a range of different regulatory schemes? The doctrine has so far only been applied to nationwide legislative rules that are both (1) economically or politically significant and (2) transformative. It is unclear whether the doctrine applies to alternative modes of regulation …
Puerto Rican Presidential Voting Rights: Why Precedent Should Be Overturned, And Other Options For Suffrage, Sigrid Vendrell-Polanco
Puerto Rican Presidential Voting Rights: Why Precedent Should Be Overturned, And Other Options For Suffrage, Sigrid Vendrell-Polanco
Brooklyn Law Review
The United States has continued to hold Puerto Rico as a colony, much like the British empire did the US colonies, and has given it no clear path to incorporation, statehood, or independent sovereignty. It has also denied its citizens the right to vote for their president and have voting representation in Congress. Current case law regarding Puerto Rican presidential voting rights and voting representation in Congress rests on precedent that dates almost as far back as its acquisition—the infamous Insular Cases. This case law is inconsistent with prior precedent, constitutional principles, and does not account for Puerto Rico’s contributions …
My Body, Whose Choice? A Case For A Fundamental Right To Bodily Autonomy, Miri Trauner
My Body, Whose Choice? A Case For A Fundamental Right To Bodily Autonomy, Miri Trauner
Brooklyn Law Review
In 2022, the US Supreme Court decided Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade and the fundamental right to abortion it had established nearly fifty years prior. The Court’s decision threw into uncertainty the future of not only reproductive rights in this country, but also many other individual rights. At the same time as the decision, the world was still reeling from a global pandemic, and the development of COVID-19 vaccines had spurred widespread controversy over the constitutionality of vaccine mandates. Both advocates for abortion access and opponents to vaccine mandates shared a common cry: “my …
First Amendment Scrutiny: Realigning First Amendment Doctrine Around Government Interests, John Inazu
First Amendment Scrutiny: Realigning First Amendment Doctrine Around Government Interests, John Inazu
Brooklyn Law Review
This article proposes a simpler way to frame judicial analysis of First Amendment claims: a government restriction on First Amendment expression or action must advance a compelling interest through narrowly tailored means and must not excessively burden the expression or action relative to the interest advanced. The test thus has three prongs: (1) compelling interest; (2) narrow tailoring; and (3) proportionality. Part I explores how current First Amendment doctrine too often minimizes or ignores a meaningful assessment of the government’s purported interest in limiting First Amendment liberties. Part II shows how First Amendment inquiry is further confused by threshold inquiries …
Tribal Sovereignty Preempted, Michael Doran
Tribal Sovereignty Preempted, Michael Doran
Brooklyn Law Review
In June of 2022, the US Supreme Court held in Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta that a state may prosecute a non-Indian for a crime committed against an Indian within Indian country. That decision effectively overruled Worcester v. Georgia, an 1832 landmark case in which Chief Justice Marshall said that state law “can have no force” in Indian country. Although the conventional wisdom about Castro-Huerta sees the case as a radical departure from first principles of federal Indian law, this article argues that Castro-Huerta is the natural—although deeply deplorable—next step in a long line of Supreme Court cases expanding state governmental authority …
Reimagining Financial Whistleblower Protection: A Proposal For Stronger Protection Under The Sarbanes-Oxley Act, Matthew J. Gilligan
Reimagining Financial Whistleblower Protection: A Proposal For Stronger Protection Under The Sarbanes-Oxley Act, Matthew J. Gilligan
Brooklyn Law Review
Whistleblowers occupy a unique place in American society. They operate in nearly every sphere of modern life, exposing unlawful conduct by financial institutions, technology companies, and government entities, just to name a few. When whistleblowers encounter retaliatory behavior, they are faced with an uphill battle to hold their employer accountable. This note discusses the circuit split regarding whistleblower protections under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which was recently granted cert by the US Supreme Court. Until recently, no circuit required whistleblowers suing their employers for engaging in retaliatory behavior to show that the employer acted with retaliatory intent. The Second Circuit broke …
A Civil Shame: The Failure To Protect Due Process In Discretionary Immigration Bond Hearings, Stacy L. Brustin
A Civil Shame: The Failure To Protect Due Process In Discretionary Immigration Bond Hearings, Stacy L. Brustin
Brooklyn Law Review
Over the last four years, the US Supreme Court has granted certiorari in four immigration bond review cases. The sheer number of cases the Court has recently considered underscores the significance of this area of immigration law. Each case centers on whether the Immigration and Nationality Act or the Constitution mandates a bond review hearing after prolonged detention. Yet these cases leave unresolved the issue of whether initial bond hearings themselves meet the due process threshold required of civil confinement proceedings. Federal circuit and district courts have addressed aspects of this question and found procedural due process violations. However, most …
The Cost Of Cutting Corners: Jurisdictional Implications Flowing From Removal Proceedings Commenced By A Defective Notice To Appear, Juliana M. Lopez
The Cost Of Cutting Corners: Jurisdictional Implications Flowing From Removal Proceedings Commenced By A Defective Notice To Appear, Juliana M. Lopez
Brooklyn Law Review
A Notice to Appear (NTA) in removal proceedings is a written notice served on noncitizens that, among other things, alerts them that they must appear in immigration court for a hearing. In 2018, contrary to statute and common sense, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) admitted to issuing almost all NTAs without the accurate date, time, and place of the initial proceeding. In response, the Supreme Court, in Pereira v. Sessions, clarified that an NTA without the date and place of the hearing is statutorily defective and cannot be used to bar noncitizens from cancellation of removal. However, DHS circumvented …
Cracks In The Clean Air Act: Fixing The Foundation Of Us Climate Policy, Emily Joshi-Powell
Cracks In The Clean Air Act: Fixing The Foundation Of Us Climate Policy, Emily Joshi-Powell
Brooklyn Law Review
The urgent need to cool the atmosphere and slow the effects of climate change is evident all around us. However, half of Congress and large swaths of the American public are still not on board, and the highest Court in the land just knee-capped the EPA’s power to regulate effectively. This note looks at the implementation and amendment of the Clean Air Act and subsequent deviation from the Act’s bipartisan roots to its current highly political polarizing status. It then reviews twenty-first century caselaw affecting climate policy to highlight statutory and judicial barriers to progress. Culminating with the recent Supreme …
Social Media And The Common Law, Leslie Y. Garfield Tenzer
Social Media And The Common Law, Leslie Y. Garfield Tenzer
Brooklyn Law Review
The framers of the United States Constitution and those who developed the early common law were no strangers to printed media. They could not, however, have anticipated the widespread ability of average people to communicate instantaneously with large audiences via platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter. Despite this new technology, courts have primarily relied on pre-social media precedent, rules of law, and the Constitution for guidance when confronted with civil and criminal social media misconduct. On the one hand, relying on existing law is a good thing; it reaffirms the judiciary's commitment to precedent and stare decisis. On the other …
Introductory Remarks: The Roberts Court And The First Amendment: An Introduction, Geoffrey R. Stone
Introductory Remarks: The Roberts Court And The First Amendment: An Introduction, Geoffrey R. Stone
Brooklyn Law Review
On April 9, 2021, Geoffrey R. Stone delivered the following introductory remarks at The Roberts Court and Free Speech Symposium at Brooklyn Law School. An adaptation of Geoffrey R. Stone, Free Speech in the Twenty-First Century: Ten Lessons from the Twentieth Century Lead Article (2008), Dean Stone detailed the history of the pre-Roberts Court First Amendment jurisprudence and laid the foundation for the symposium’s scholarly discourse.
The Roberts Court—Its First Amendment Free Expression Jurisprudence: 2005–2021, Ronald K.L. Collins, David L. Hudson Jr.
The Roberts Court—Its First Amendment Free Expression Jurisprudence: 2005–2021, Ronald K.L. Collins, David L. Hudson Jr.
Brooklyn Law Review
The decisional law of the First Amendment is an area of law formulated, for the most part, by the high court of the land. At the same time, the study of free speech is equally a study in political philosophy and law. Supreme Court justices have left their mark on the First Amendment free speech doctrine and have made names for themselves in the process. This study explores the impact of Chief Justice John Roberts and the Roberts Court on the free speech doctrine. By examining the case law in this area and the justices and lawyers who craft it, …
The Anti-Free Speech Movement, Robert Corn-Revere
The Anti-Free Speech Movement, Robert Corn-Revere
Brooklyn Law Review
What does it mean for the Supreme Court, under Chief Justice John Roberts, to be “good” when it comes to the First Amendment? First Amendment lawyer Robert Corn-Revere tackles this question, by looking at the history of censorship in the United States. Through a historical lens, Mr. Corn-Revere examines the arguments for regulating “bad” speech in order to promote “good” speech, and analogizes this approach to the work of early American censors like Anthony Comstock. This article examines how the history of censorship has shaped First Amendment law, and ultimately through his analysis, Mr. Corn-Revere identifies several examples of what …
Free Speech Still Matters, Joel M. Gora
Free Speech Still Matters, Joel M. Gora
Brooklyn Law Review
In its first ten years, the Roberts Court proved to be the most speech protective Court in a generation, if not in our history; however, in the intervening five years, the Court has faced intense pressures, ranging from heightened criticism of its First Amendment jurisprudence to seismic changes in the makeup of the Court to very real proposals for court “packing.” Despite these powerful forces, the Roberts Court has surprisingly stayed true to its commitment to—and guardianship of—the First Amendment. Nevertheless, in the face of modern political correctness and cancel culture, free speech has rarely been in a more precarious …
The Law Of License Plates And Other Inevitabilities Of Free Speech Context Sensitivity, William D. Araiza
The Law Of License Plates And Other Inevitabilities Of Free Speech Context Sensitivity, William D. Araiza
Brooklyn Law Review
This article, written for a symposium on Ronald Collins’s and Professor David Hudson’s catalogue of the Roberts Court’s First Amendment free speech jurisprudence, reconsiders the longstanding tension between rigid free speech rules and more contextual standards. It examines that debate by considering a set of relatively recent free speech cases in which the Court ostensibly adopted rigid rules, but in doing so arguably cloaked its reliance on more contextual factors by manipulating those rules. In cases dealing with national security and judicial electoral speech, the Court manipulated the strict scrutiny the Court insists applies to nearly every content-based speech restriction …
Transcript: The Roberts Court And Free Speech Symposium, Michael T. Cahill, Joel M. Gora, Geoffrey R. Stone, Ronald K.L. Collins, David L. Hudson Jr., Floyd Abrams, Ellis Cose, Robert Corn-Revere, Genevieve Lakier, William D. Araiza, Helen Norton, Nadine Strossen, Erwin Chemerinsky
Transcript: The Roberts Court And Free Speech Symposium, Michael T. Cahill, Joel M. Gora, Geoffrey R. Stone, Ronald K.L. Collins, David L. Hudson Jr., Floyd Abrams, Ellis Cose, Robert Corn-Revere, Genevieve Lakier, William D. Araiza, Helen Norton, Nadine Strossen, Erwin Chemerinsky
Brooklyn Law Review
On April 9, 2021, the Brooklyn Law Review gathered a panel of First Amendment scholars for a symposium on the Roberts Court's free speech jurisprudence. This transcript captures the panelists' diverse perspectives on the free speech themes highlighted by the Roberts Court's free speech jurisprudence.
Foreword: The Free Speech Record Of The Roberts Court, William D. Araiza
Foreword: The Free Speech Record Of The Roberts Court, William D. Araiza
Brooklyn Law Review
On April 9, 2021, scholars gathered at Brooklyn Law School to consider the free speech themes highlighted by a catalogue of the Roberts Court’s free speech jurisprudence. The speakers provided incisive and timely insight on these themes—insight that is reflected in the catalogue and accompanying papers published in this symposium issue of the Brooklyn Law Review. This introduction provides an overview of this symposium issue and the questions presented by each article and essay.
Without A Voice, Without A Forum: Finding Iirira Section 1252(G) Unconstitutional, Amanda Simms
Without A Voice, Without A Forum: Finding Iirira Section 1252(G) Unconstitutional, Amanda Simms
Brooklyn Law Review
The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) abrogates sovereign immunity in certain circumstances to allow private individuals, regardless of citizenship, to sue the United States for specific torts committed by government officials. Yet when two lawful permanent residents—located in different parts of the country—separately tried to sue the government for wrongful removal, one court dismissed the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction while the other court did not. These decisions, though reaching opposite conclusions, both relied on federal immigration statute 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) in order to determine whether judicial review of immigrants’ removal orders is precluded. This note argues …
Virtual Pretrial Jurisdiction For Virtual Contacts, Max D. Lovrin
Virtual Pretrial Jurisdiction For Virtual Contacts, Max D. Lovrin
Brooklyn Law Review
Personal jurisdiction is a threshold requirement for any civil court’s constitutional exercise of adjudicative authority over a defendant, and one of civil procedure’s most fundamental concepts. The Supreme Court is acutely aware of difficulties facing personal jurisdiction doctrine in an evolving world and the need for jurisprudential solutions to those problems. But recent inconsistent trends in Supreme Court personal jurisdiction jurisprudence have served to further complicate the doctrine. Such overcomplication often leads to unpredictability, which both increases expenses for litigants and creates additional work for the already overburdened federal civil docket. This problem is exacerbated when litigation arises out of …
A New Voting Rights Act For A New Century: How Liberalizing The Voting Rights Act’S Bailout Provisions Can Help Pass The Voting Rights Advancement Act Of 2017, Mario Q. Fitzgerald
A New Voting Rights Act For A New Century: How Liberalizing The Voting Rights Act’S Bailout Provisions Can Help Pass The Voting Rights Advancement Act Of 2017, Mario Q. Fitzgerald
Brooklyn Law Review
The U.S. Supreme Court struck down the coverage formula of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) in Shelby County. v. Holder in 2013. Members of Congress have attempted to renew the VRA with an updated coverage formula through the Voting Rights Advancement Acts of 2015 and of 2017. Unfortunately, Congressional Republicans have not supported either bill. Even if passed in its current form, the Supreme Court is likely to strike down the Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2017 (VRAA) for violating the principle of “equal sovereignty between the States” as set forth by the Court in Shelby County. Therefore, this note …
Essay: Insiders, Outsiders, & Fair Access: Identifying Culpable Insider Trading, Jonathan D. Glater
Essay: Insiders, Outsiders, & Fair Access: Identifying Culpable Insider Trading, Jonathan D. Glater
Brooklyn Law Review
The Supreme Court’s insider trading doctrine has become increasingly convoluted as each effort to cope with novel fact patterns results in a new rule not tethered to principled understanding of the nature of the wrong committed. That this is not a terribly controversial claim is evidence of how far the Court’s jurisprudence has drifted. This essay proposes that the early error was abandonment of concern for third parties who trade on exchanges but who do not enjoy legal access to information possessed by insiders or tippees who receive information from insiders. The Court’s error, the essay contends, rests on a …
Finally, A True Elements Test: Mathis V. United States And The Categorical Approach, Rebecca Sharpless
Finally, A True Elements Test: Mathis V. United States And The Categorical Approach, Rebecca Sharpless
Brooklyn Law Review
The fate of defendants facing lengthy federal sentence enhancements often turns on what the U.S. Supreme Court calls the categorical approach. The approach controls whether a federal defendant might face an additional decade or longer in prison based solely on having prior convictions of a certain type. At a time when many question the wisdom of mass incarceration, the Court has taken great care to delimit the circumstances in which a federal sentencing judge can lengthen sentences based on recidivism. The categorical approach also governs most immigration cases involving deportation for a crime. As Congress has cut back deportation defenses …
Denying Certiorari In Bell V. Itawamba County School Board: A Missed Opportunity To Clarify Students’ First Amendment Rights In The Digital Age, Elizabeth A. Shaver
Denying Certiorari In Bell V. Itawamba County School Board: A Missed Opportunity To Clarify Students’ First Amendment Rights In The Digital Age, Elizabeth A. Shaver
Brooklyn Law Review
In the last decade, the federal circuit courts have grappled with the issue whether, and to what extent, school officials constitutionally may discipline students for their off-campus electronic speech. Before 2015, three federal circuit courts had extended school authority to off-campus electronic speech by applying a vague test that allows school officials to reach far beyond the iconic “schoolhouse gate” referenced in the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District. Two other federal circuits had avoided the issue altogether by deciding the cases before them on other grounds. In 2015, the Fifth Circuit Court …
Policing In The Era Of Permissiveness: Mitigating Misconduct Through Third-Party Standing, Julian A. Cook Iii
Policing In The Era Of Permissiveness: Mitigating Misconduct Through Third-Party Standing, Julian A. Cook Iii
Brooklyn Law Review
On April 4, 2015, Walter L. Scott was driving his vehicle when he was stopped by Officer Michael T. Slager of the North Charleston, South Carolina, police department for a broken taillight. A dash cam video from the officer’s vehicle showed the two men engaged in what appeared to be a rather routine verbal exchange. Sometime after Slager returned to his vehicle, Scott exited his car and ran away from Slager, prompting the officer to pursue him on foot. After he caught up with Scott in a grassy field near a muffler establishment, a scuffle between the men ensued, purportedly …
Panhandling And The First Amendment: How Spider-Man Is Reducing The Quality Of Life In New York City, Steven J. Ballew
Panhandling And The First Amendment: How Spider-Man Is Reducing The Quality Of Life In New York City, Steven J. Ballew
Brooklyn Law Review
Recently, New York and other cities have taken steps to regulate panhandling activity in their communities. These regulations are informed by Broken Windows policing, which emphasizes addressing quality-of-life issues as a strategy for reducing crime. Yet government-imposed limitations on panhandling raise concerns about whether such measures violate panhandlers’ First Amendment rights. This note explores whether it is possible to separate the act of panhandling—defined as approaching a stranger in public and requesting immediate and gratuitous cash payment for oneself—from expression that is protected by the First Amendment. It concludes that, based on a concurrence from Justice Kennedy in International Society …
"Outsmarting" Death By Putting Capital Punishment On Life Support: The Need For Uniform State Evaulations Of The Intellectually Disabled In The Wake Of Hall V. Florida, Taylor B. Dougherty
"Outsmarting" Death By Putting Capital Punishment On Life Support: The Need For Uniform State Evaulations Of The Intellectually Disabled In The Wake Of Hall V. Florida, Taylor B. Dougherty
Brooklyn Law Review
While the Supreme Court has yet to hold capital punishment per se unconstitutional, the Court has exempted certain groups of individuals from being eligible for capital punishment, due to concerns about the protection against cruel and unusual punishment provided for in the 8th Amendment. One such group is individuals who are intellectually disabled (the term which replaced the long-used mental retardation). But in exempting such individuals from capital punishment in its decision in Atkins v. Virginia, the Court left it to the states to establish metrics for determining which defendants are in fact intellectually disabled so as to warrant …
Race, Restructurings, And Equal Protection Doctrine Through The Lens Of Schuette V. Bamn, Steve Sanders
Race, Restructurings, And Equal Protection Doctrine Through The Lens Of Schuette V. Bamn, Steve Sanders
Brooklyn Law Review
In 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled that Michigan voters had violated principles of the fair lawmaking process when they amended their state constitution to prohibit race-conscious affirmative action in public university admissions, reasoning that the amendment, known as “Proposal 2,” constituted a political restructuring that had violated the Equal Protection Clause by disadvantaging African Americans from being able to equally access political change. However, the Sixth Circuit was careful to avoid saying that Proposal 2 created a racial classification or was motivated by a purpose of discriminating on the basis of race. Instead, consistent …