Connecticut Law Review Volume 47 - Issue 3

The (Questionable) Legality of High-Speed “Pinging” and “Front Running” in the Futures Markets

Institutional investors complain that high-frequency trading (HFT) firms engage in high-speed “pinging” and “front running” of their orders for trades. By sending out lightning fast “ping” orders for trades that operate much like sonar does in the ocean, HFT firms can detect when institutional investors will make large trades in futures contracts. Once a large […]

Read More :: View PDF

Show and Tell?: Students’ Personal Lives, Schools, and Parents

Public schools learn about their students’ personal lives in many ways. Some are passive: a teacher observes a student kissing someone, or overhears a conversation among friends. But schools also engage in more active information-gathering about students’ personal lives, through surveys and informal conversations between students and teachers, administrators, school psychologists, counselors, coaches, and other […]

Read More :: View PDF

Demand Side Reform in the Poor People’s Court

A crisis in civil justice has seized the lowest rungs of state court where the great majority of American justice is meted out. Nineteen million civil cases are filed each year in the so-called “poor people’s court,” and seventy to ninety-eight percent of those matters involve an unrepresented litigant who is typically low-income and often […]

Read More :: View PDF

Emotional Duties

The distinction between physical and emotional harm is fundamental. Legal disciplines from torts to constitutional law rely on a hierarchy that places bodily integrity over emotional tranquility. This hierarchy is now under attack by scientists and scholars. Neuroscientists have undermined the view that emotional harm is more subjective; social scientists have refuted the position that […]

Read More :: View PDF

Due Process and the Non-Citizen: A Revolution Reconsidered

In the pantheon of the Supreme Court’s procedural due process jurisprudence, commentators typically describe Mathews v. Eldridge—the canonical case balancing governmental interests and individual rights—as a low point for individual liberty and a retreat from the high-water mark of Goldberg v. Kelly. But the due process revolution, and Mathews in particular, has dramatically affected the […]

Read More :: View PDF

The Unavoidable Implication of McCullen v. Coakley: Protection Against Unwelcome Speech is not a Sufficient Justification for Restricting Speech in Traditional Public Fora

The First Amendment rights of speakers and the government’s power to restrict speech to protect unwilling listeners come together in the Supreme Court’s buffer-zone jurisprudence. Litigation brought by sidewalk counselors to eliminate buffer zones around reproductive healthcare facilities has reached the Supreme Court several times. Before Hill v. Colorado, the Court was reluctant to hold […]

Read More :: View PDF