This Article argues that the test case that gave rise to the 1896 decision in Plessy v. Ferguson is best understood as part of a well-established, cosmopolitan tradition of anticaste activism in Louisiana rather than as a quixotic effort that contradicted nineteenth-century ideas of the boundaries of citizens’ rights. By drawing a dividing line between civil and political rights, on the one hand, and social rights, on the other, the Supreme Court construed challenges to segregation as claims to a “social equality” that was beyond the scope of judicially cognizable rights. The Louisiana constitutional convention of 1867–68, however, had defined citizens’ rights within a quite different typology, conferring a state constitutional guarantee to all citizens of the same “civil, political, and public rights,” and providing the basis for successful litigation against forced separation on public transportation and in public accommodations.

By sheer dollars alone, the largest impact of the Alternative Minimum Tax is to deny many taxpayers the deduction for the taxes they paid to their state and local governments under § 164 of the Internal Revenue Code. This Article provides a fine-grained analysis of the overall fairness of the state-and-local-tax deduction—and, by implication, the fairness of its partial repeal through the Alternative Minimum Tax. I offer for the first time a close examination of how newly understood limits on taxpayer mobility and rationality might affect individuals’ choices of bundles of local taxes and local-government services, which in turn informs our assessment of the “fairness” of those exchanges. 

The obligation to provide fair and equitable treatment to foreign investors and investments has existed as a concept of international economic law at least since the 1919 Covenant of the League of Nations. The fair and equitable treatment provision is a key protection contained in the vast majority of modern bilateral investment treaties. Tribunals adjudicating alleged breaches of these fair and equitable treatment provisions have not arrived at a uniform interpretation of the term.