Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-2h6rp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-13T21:40:27.937Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

10 - New Legal Realism and Inequality

from Section III - NEW LEGAL REALIST TRANSLATIONS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 May 2016

Elizabeth Mertz
Affiliation:
American Bar Foundation and University of Wisconsin School of Law
Stewart Macaulay
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin, Madison
Thomas W. Mitchell
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin, Madison
Get access

Summary

INTRODUCTION

Poor and minority property owners have lost millions of acres of land over the past 150 years, and much of this land loss has been involuntary. This history of land loss within minority communities had not received a great deal of popular attention at the national level until the late 1990s and early 2000s. However, after African-American farmers filed a class action lawsuit against the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) in 1997 claiming that the USDA had systematically discriminated against black farmers for decades, other groups of farmers, including Latino and Native American farmers, filed discrimination claims against the USDA as well (Mitchell, Malpezzi, and Green 2010, 656).

One of the central claims the plaintiffs in all of these lawsuits made was that the USDA had discriminated against minority farmers in how it handled loans and in how it administered certain agricultural benefit programs. The USDA discrimination in fact led to significant loss of land among the impacted minority farmers, mostly as a result of foreclosure sales that occurred when loan applications were improperly denied or were approved in a very untimely way in comparison to how the USDA processed loan applications from white farmers. Further, as a result of the black farmers’ lawsuit, many in the media reported on the demise of black farmers in general – and some also reported on the plight of other minority farmers. In addition, some in the media also started reporting more generally on the phenomenon of land loss among African-American landowners – in particular, land loss that was attributable to either discrimination or at least to very underhanded, if technically legal, practices (Mitchell 2005, 567). Though the media correctly reported that African-Americans had lost millions of acres of property over the course of several decades, the reporters did not argue that black landowners as a whole were destined to lose all their remaining property, although many reported that the subset of black landowners who were also farmers was in danger of becoming extinct (as some others had been warning for quite some time).

Media coverage of land loss within the African-American community revealed that some legal scholars had identified a small number of legal processes that a range of public and private actors have used to force the sale of black-owned land over the course of several decades.

Type
Chapter
Information
The New Legal Realism
Translating Law-and-Society for Today's Legal Practice
, pp. 203 - 222
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2016

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bell, Abraham, and Parchomovsky, Gideon. 2005. “A Theory of Property.” Cornell Law Review 90: 531–615.Google Scholar
Craig-Taylor, Phyllis. 2000. “Through a Colored Looking Glass: A View of Judicial Partition, Family Land Loss, and Rule Setting.” Washington University Law Quarterly 78: 737–788.Google Scholar
Dagan, Hanoch, and Heller, Michael A.. 2001. “The Liberal Commons.” Yale Law Journal 110: 549–623.Google Scholar
Emergency Land Fund. 1984. “The Impact of Heir Property on Black Rural Land Tenure in the Southeastern Region of the United States.” Washington DC: The United States Department of Agriculture/Farmers Home Administration.
Kelley, Chris. 1985. “Stemming the Loss of Black Owned Farmland Through Partition Action – A Partial Solution.” Arkansas Law Notes 1985: 35–41.Google Scholar
Lewan, Todd, and Barclay, Dolores. 2001. “Torn from the Land.” Associated Press, December 1; “Legality Used to Take Land from Blacks.” Associated Press, December 4; and “Land Often the Motive for Attacks on Blacks, Lynchings.” Associated Press, December 4.
Miceli, Thomas J., and Sirmans, C.F.. 2000. “Partition of Real Estate; Or, Breaking Up Is (Not) Hard To Do.” Journal of Legal Studies 29(2): 783–96.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Thomas W. 2001. “From Reconstruction to Deconstruction: Undermining Black Landownership, Political Independence, and Community Through Partition Sales of Tenancies in Common.” Northwestern University Law Review 95(2): 505–580.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Thomas W. 2005. “Destabilizing the Normalization of Rural Black Land Loss: A Critical Role for Legal Empiricism.” Wisconsin Law Review 2005: 557–615.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Thomas W. 2014. “Reforming Property Law to Address Devastating Land Loss.” Alabama Law Review 66: 1–61.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Thomas W., Malpezzi, Stephen, and Green, Richard K.. 2010. “Forced Sale Risk: Class, Race, and The ‘Double Discount.’Florida State University Law Review 37: 589–658.Google Scholar
Taha, Ahmed E. 2006. “Data and Selection Bias: A Case Study.” University of Missouri Kansas City Law Review 75: 171–182.Google Scholar
Stoebuck, William B., and Whitman, Dale A., 2000. The Law of Property, edition. St. Paul: West Group.
United States Department of Agriculture. 1999. “National Agricultural Statistics Service, 1997 Census of Agriculture: Agricultural Economics and Land Ownership Survey” (AELOS). Available at http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/1997/Agricultural_Economics_and_Land_Ownership/.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×