This book review looks at the life, work and impact of James Baldwin, a famous writer and civil rights activist that was born one hundred (100) years ago. It does so, for one of the first times in the field of law, by examining Baldwin’s influence on the legal system. The book review carries out its work by identifying Baldwin’s impacts upon U.S. law: before, during and after his public service career. In the process, this book review describes how governments can build on Baldwin’s writings and advocacy work.
Part I: Introduction
A recent symposium, James Baldwin at 100, examined the life, work, and impact of a famous writer and civil rights activist.1 My contribution to that symposium took the form of a talk and the following paper.2 This paper looks at Baldwin’s impact on U.S. law and policy over time.3
Prior to this symposium, which took place in August 2024, there was little said about how Baldwin has impacted contemporary understandings of law at the grassroots level.4 This fact is somewhat surprising, especially since Baldwin’s writings and advocacy informed so many of the institutional reforms that were put into place following George Floyd’s death in the Summer of 2020.5 As such, now is the time to explore Baldwin’s contributions to advancing the rule of law in the United States.6
It is this essay’s hope that more people will take a closer look at how Baldwin’s nonfiction shaped current understandings of the role played by U.S. laws in increasing the real freedoms that people enjoy.7 It could bring about such an outcome simply by identifying the variety of ways that Baldwin’s theoretical and practical work has nudged U.S. governments into doing better.8 One example is Baldwin’s collected nonfiction, The Price Of The Ticket, which called for recognition of the possibility that “a Black person in this democracy is certain to endure the unspeakable and the unimaginable . . . [and] . . . many . . . are ruined . . . [by negative governmental experiences].”9
Subsequent research that grows out of a renewed focus on Baldwin could yield even greater insights into whether scholars should “strive to publish pieces that honor . . . [the idea that] . . . no topic should be off-limits.”10 By doing so, it becomes increasingly clear that the way things are cannot be the only option. As Baldwin stated in a different context, such a clarification imposes a new level of responsibility for “one’s conduct and for the fortunes of the American state.”11
For example, legal scholars may seek to analyze how U.S. federal, state, and local governments make decisions about whether and how to protect African American property rights over time.12 Some of this future research could revolve around a series of related questions. One threshold question is whether governments do what they should, as evidenced by the express language in civil rights legislation. The short answer is that governments, all too often, do not perfectly carry out their work, especially if the rights of Black citizens are implicated.13
Related questions, therefore, also need to be answered. Among the universe of questions are: Why do U.S. governments fail to uphold civil rights laws, especially when they know that less than full enforcement only encourages additional unlawful behavior? Does failing to uphold civil rights generate hidden inefficiencies—and unexpected outcomes—for governments? How do we address any such inefficiencies or unexpected outcomes once U.S. governments are on notice?
My essay answers each question, at least on a preliminary basis, by building upon social science research about Baldwin’s writings and advocacy.14 It also draws on interdisciplinary scholarship concerning how Baldwin and other non-lawyers impact law and policy. The essay concludes by explaining how and why more governments should fully enforce existing civil rights laws.15
This essay proceeds in three additional Parts (II-IV). Part II provides some useful background information about Baldwin’s understanding of U.S. law and policy.16 Part III explains how to build upon Baldwin’s non-fiction writings.17 Part IV contains this essay’s recommendations.18 Part V examines how studying Baldwin’s writings and advocacy work could improve public service provision.19
Part II: Background
James “Jimmy” Baldwin, a now-famous African American writer and civil rights activist, was born in 1924.20 A 1941 graduate of DeWitt Clinton High School, Baldwin grew up in Harlem.21 Shortly after graduation, Baldwin set out to become a journalist and widely published author.22
Baldwin went on to become a famous writer and activist, at least in part, to understand his relationship with the larger world.23 For example, due in large part to what he learned about the world, Baldwin came to believe that the “will of the people . . . is revealed by . . . [societal] . . . institutions.”24 And “racist institutions . . . are meant to keep . . . [citizens, such as African Americans and other members of traditionally-marginalized groups] . . . in . . . [their] . . . place.”25
The need for positive analysis of government institutions is but one of five threads in Baldwin’s work.26 This first thread looks at how such institutions make decisions in the absence of perfect information.27 Much of this initial category revolves around what Baldwin considered a simple question: Is it true that governments perfectly carry out their required work? The short answer is a “no,” especially in situations wherein the rights of African Americans have been violated.28
Another thread in Baldwin’s work asks if governments even try to do what is required to protect Black citizens.29 According to this writer and advocate, “there are a great many ways of being un-American . . . and . . . the House Un-American Activities Committee might find . . . attitudes . . . more damaging to American life in … Gone With The Wind than in . . . Watch on the Rhine.”30 In doing so, Baldwin points out why governments must avoid selective enforcement of their laws.31
A third thread of Baldwin’s writing and advocacy work describes governmental motivations.32 Stated simply, Baldwin gives explanations for why certain U.S. governments do not perform as would be expected.33 For example, “just as a mountain of sociological investigations, committee reports, and plans for recreational centers have failed to . . . prevent . . . [African-Americans] . . . from growing up and facing . . . the unendurable frustration of being always . . . inferior, . . . there seems no hope for better . . . [public service provision] . . . without a change in the . . . pattern.”34
An additional strand of Baldwin’s work asks if hidden inefficiencies and unexpected outcomes may arise from the U.S. federal government failing to perfectly comply with its own civil rights laws. As such, it raises the following question: Do U.S. governments live up to their promise?35 The short answer, too often, is “no.” These hidden inefficiencies and unexpected outcomes, which are commonly referred to as negative externalities, increase the cost of doing business without adequate justification.36 Examples of the negative externalities faced by Black citizens include what Baldwin explained as the “commonwealth . . . [choosing] . . . to overlook what . . . [African-Americans] … are never able to forget: they are not really considered a part of it . . . [and may be denied its legal protections].”37
The final strand of Baldwin’s writings and advocacy deals with the downstream effects of such externalities, which too many U.S. governments refuse to internalize at the expense of African Americans.38 According to this writer and civil rights advocate, “[i]t is the peculiar triumph of society . . . that it is able to convince . . . people to whom it has given inferior status of the reality of this decree; it has the force . . . to translate this dictum into fact, so . . . the allegedly inferior are actually made so.”39 In doing so, Baldwin underscores the fact that U.S. governments can do better, especially with respect to making the American Dream seem as if it is available to all.40
Considering the aforementioned, there is clearly value in looking at how Baldwin’s past writings and advocacy shaped conventional understandings of the law and how it applies in practice. Much of this value arises from Baldwin’s laser focus on what governments owe Black citizens and how to retire this unpaid debt. One such example is when Baldwin wrote that:
I do not feel, alas, that my country has any reason for self-congratulation. If I were still in the pulpit . . . I would counsel my countrymen to the self-confrontation of prayer, the cleansing breaking of the heart which proceeds atonement. This is, of course, impossible . . . [U.S. governments] . . . are capable of many things, but atonement is not one of them.41
It is unclear what political effect Baldwin’s writing and advocacy had on anti-Black members of the general public.42 But it is clear that his call for more standard treatment impacted African Americans in a profound way: it showed that at least one public figure believed in the rule of law.43 As such, it likely encouraged Black citizens to assert their rights between 1948 and 1985.44
Even less certain is the social effect Baldwin’s actions, as both a writer and civil rights advocate, had on African Americans who were already well-acquainted with federal under-enforcement of the law.45 It is entirely possible that some Black citizens took pride in the fact that one of their own had directly challenged the federal government to do better by African American constituents.46 And although Baldwin suffered some fallout in economic, political, and social terms, Americans from every walk of life were forced to take note of Baldwin’s resolve.47 One result was an increase in the number of people who viewed writing and advocacy as ways to bring about social change, at least in cases where governments are sensitive to public opinion.48
To summarize, James Baldwin’s work yielded economic, political, and social benefits during his lifetime.49 These measurable benefits often took the form of nudging U.S. governments into providing the same type, quantity, and quality of goods and services to every American.50 Over time, it became increasingly difficult to provide sub-standard treatment exclusively to Black citizens and other traditionally marginalized groups.51 As such, it may not be an overstatement to say that Baldwin’s writings and advocacy underscore what U.S. governments owe every citizen.
In terms of less salient benefits, such as the fact that African Americans saw one of their own publicly asserting that U.S. governments owe Black citizens the exact same treatment as everybody else, many continue in force to this day.52 For example, there is a strong connection between scholarly writing, public advocacy, and U.S. movements for social change.53 One reason such a connection persists is that Baldwin’s writings and advocacy are hailed as true exemplars of excellence by a range of individuals, groups, and institutions.54
Within this context, the subsequent sections of this essay explain how to build upon Baldwin’s work, especially his call for U.S. governments to better protect Black citizens, mostly by making use of lessons from Baldwin’s writings and advocacy.55 It does so by describing how one government agency could limit racial discrimination by analyzing a broader set of public information. The sole focus of my essay is on the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”).
Part III: Positive Analysis
The current section describes a simple way to build on Baldwin’s writings about law and policy, which is informed by this author’s previous scholarly work.56 It does so by calling on the DOJ to better protect Black citizens from civil rights violations.57 Especially since the DOJ was created for this purpose a hundred and fifty years ago.58
It is frequently assumed that the DOJ provides African Americans with the exact same type, quality, and quantity of public goods and services as every other racial group.59 This assumption is readily accepted, at face value and with very little protest, by both scholars and practitioners.60 But if this assumption is correct, at least with respect to the DOJ’s treatment of Black citizens over time, then why does this federal agency continually receive criticism for doing less-than-progressive work?61
A recent talk by former Federal Bureau Of Investigation (FBI) Director James B. Comey, who reported directly to DOJ leadership, offers several possible explanations.62 This talk, which was delivered in February 2015 at Georgetown University, implied that shortfalls in DOJ protection may arise from an incomplete and unreliable assessment of civil rights violations.63 Such assessments may suffer from the existence of unconscious racial biases within this federal agency. Director Comey’s talk implied that the DOJ has not been honest about its historical treatment of African Americans, its employees sometimes rely on mental shortcuts in making enforcement decisions, the DOJ may not view attacks on African Americans in the same light that they see violations of other people’s rights and its employees fail to honestly report the actual reasons Black citizens have been treated differently than other Americans.64
In response, and in keeping with Baldwin’s writings and advocacy work, the DOJ should undertake a series of institutional reforms. For example, the DOJ may consider disclosing its issues with detecting and deterring crimes against African Americans. The agency also could take a revised approach to obtaining and verifying the civil rights work that DOJ employees undertake. Lastly, the DOJ can require its employees to make more informed decisions about enforcement.
But even the implementation of these reforms is unlikely to limit every manifestation of anti-Black bias by the DOJ and other U.S. governments.65 The aforementioned reforms are unlikely to be successful, for example, in cases wherein unlawful discrimination does not implicate federal subject-matter jurisdiction.66 Nor are such reforms likely to detect or deter discrimination whenever public employees are given excessive discretion, which can be used by biased individuals to limit accountability.67 Additional reforms, therefore, are needed to protect African Americans and other under-protected groups.
One additional option, which the DOJ has used successfully in other contexts,68 is to draw on sub-national public records.69 DOJ access may be facilitated in several different ways.70 Among the most cost-effective of these ways is through intergovernmental cooperation.71 By definition, this approach requires multiple governments to work together to achieve a shared policy goal.72
The DOJ already uses intergovernmental cooperation to limit certain types of crimes.73 An example is the Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System & Registry (NMLS).74 The NMLS does its work by drawing on local public records, so as to create a comprehensive mortgage fraud dataset.75
This federal agency has begun to use the NMLS, along with other third-party data, to inform its enforcement work.76 By doing so, the DOJ has increased its mortgage fraud conviction rate.77 Both scholars and practitioners have recently chronicled the DOJ’s increased conviction rate.78
The DOJ’s recent success, however, raises an additional question: How can this federal agency further limit crimes that disproportionately target Black citizens? Asking and answering this question is important, both for crime victims and DOJ, since it underscores a need for additional work.
Part IV. Normative Analysis
This essay recommends that the DOJ push for other NMLS-style registries, which may be used to assess the work of U.S. civil rights agencies such as the Missouri Commission on Human Rights.79 The DOJ should do so for three reasons. First, the recommendation could build on the DOJ’s reform efforts.80 Second, it may provide a remedy for victims of race and color-based discrimination.81 Lastly, this recommendation overcomes a lack of DOJ oversight of state civil rights agencies.82
It also should be recognized that certain groups, such as U.S. elected officials, could oppose this recommendation.83 This opposition may be overcome in several ways. DOJ, for example, could highlight the fact that NMLS-style registries are likely to detect and deter more sub-national crimes.84 The agency also may explain that additional administrative costs would be negligible.85 Finally, the DOJ could highlight the multiple benefits of more complete sub-national information.86
If the recommendation is accepted, the DOJ will need to create an implementation plan. This plan may take several forms. For example, the DOJ could award a grant through its Office of Justice programs.87 The agency also may issue a rule or call for legislative action so as to codify the recommendation.88 Lastly, the DOJ could negotiate a new intergovernmental agreement that shares public information between the U.S. federal government and various sub-national jurisdictions.89
Part V. Conclusion
This essay looks at the work of James Baldwin, a famous African American writer and activist. It does so, initially, by identifying Baldwin’s law-adjacent writings and advocacy work. Later, the essay explains how this work provides insights into how one U.S. government can reform itself.
The first reason Baldwin’s work provides such guidance is that it highlights the fact that U.S. governments owe Black citizens the exact same treatment as everyone else. A second reason is that Baldwin’s writings and advocacy draw attention to the fact that certain U.S. governments, such as the DOJ, traditionally fall short of assuring that every American receives standard treatment. The last reason is that Baldwin points out the need to make better use of scarce U.S. public resources, especially as doing so helps to narrow the gap between the DOJ’s theoretical and practical work.
This essay substantiates its claims by drawing on the DOJ’s public statements. It also does so by citing recent DOJ reports and related materials. My essay completes its analysis and identifies several useful recommendations by highlighting current shortfalls in DOJ protections. In the process, it draws a tighter connection between what James Baldwin called “the price of the ticket” and the protections U.S. governments owe every American.
* Professor of Law, University of Missouri-Kansas City (UMKC), School of Law. J.D., University of Chicago Law School; M.U.P., New York University; M.Sc., London School of Economics; B.A., University of Michigan.
1. See generally James Baldwin Project, ‘Appreciation, then Action’ A James Baldwin Celebration & Symposium, Urban Institute (Aug. 2, 2024), https://jamesbaldwinproject.org/ConversationsJimmy.html [https://perma.cc/RZX9-J8WD] (listing the paper’s author as a featured speaker).
2. Id.
3. Id.
4. A notable exception is an exceptionally thorough 2016 book about James Baldwin’s impact on U.S. criminal law. See D. Quentin Miller, A Criminal Power: James Baldwin And the Law (2016). Although the aforementioned book does include a comprehensive discussion of James Baldwin’s experiences with the French legal system, which also are chronicled by Baldwin himself, it does not give equal time to this famous author’s treatment by the U.S. system. As such, additional research needs to be done. For example, follow-up research could be done on cases arising in the wake of Baldwin’s 1987 death. Compare Roger Cohen, McGraw-Hill Drops Baldwin Suit, N.Y. Times, May 19, 1990, at 14 (describing a lawsuit brought against Baldwin’s estate by the deceased author’s former publisher, McGraw-Hill); with Campbell v. United States Dept. of Justice, 164 F.3d 20 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (describing a posthumous lawsuit brought against the FBI over records concerning Baldwin’s writings and advocacy).
5. See generally Farrell Evans, When James Baldwin And William Buckley Debated Race’s Role In the American Dream, History.com (Jan. 31, 2023), https://www.history.com/news/baldwin-buckley-debate [https://perma.cc/B2M3-XXQP] (explaining that “in the aftermath of the murders in 2020 of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor by police, Baldwin’s critique of American society gained new resonance.”).
6. See James Baldwin Project, supra note 1.
7. See generally Amartya Sen, Development As Freedom (1999) (explaining, in both implicit and explicit terms, that freedom is both the ends and the means of the process of institutional development).
8. See James Baldwin Project, supra note 1.
9. James Baldwin, The Price Of The Ticket: Collected Nonfiction, 1948-1985 (1985).
10. New York University Law Review, Special Online Issue on Academic Freedom, https://www.submissdions.scholasticahq.com/conversation/questions/nyu-law-review-special-online-issue-on-academic-freedom-call-for-submissions (last visited March 18, 2025) [https://perma.cc/RR8B-LX5C].
11. Baldwin, supra note 9, at 446.
12. See generally id.
13. Id.
14. See infra Part III.
15. See infra Part IV.
16. See infra Part II.
17. See infra Part III.
18. See infra Part IV.
19. See infra Part V.
20. See generally Nat’l Museum of Afr. Am. Hist. and Culture, An Introduction to James Baldwin, Smithsonian Inst. (July 30, 2017), https://nmaahc.si.edu/explore/stories/introduction-james-baldwin [https://perma.cc/38Z8-MHMD] (explaining that “James Arthur Baldwin (1924-1987) was born in Harlem, New York on August 2, 1924”).
21. See generally Nat’l Museum of Afr. Am. Hist. and Culture, The Lane to Literature, Smithsonian Inst. (July 29, 2017), https://nmaahc.si.edu/explore/stories/lane-literature [https://perma.cc/G9NZ-HPES] (explaining that Baldwin “in some blind and instinctive way, . . . Knew that what was happening in . . . books also was happening all around . . . [him] . . . And . . . [Baldwin] . . . was trying to make a connection between the books and the life . . . [he] . . . saw and the life . . . [he] . . . lived.”).
22. See generally Nat’l Museum of Afr. Am. Hist. and Culture, A Literary Life, Smithsonian Inst. (Aug. 1, 2017), https://nmaahc.si.edu/explore/stories/literary-life [https://perma.cc/NBT3-8GDM] (explaining that “Baldwin’s career as a writer . . . [and civil rights activist] . . . began soon after he graduated . . . in 1942, and it spanned five decades—the 1940s through the 1980s.”).
23. Id. (explaining that “the themes of his writings and public speeches included human identity, gender and sexuality, religion, poverty, race and the physical, structural and cultural violation of white supremacy.”).
24. Baldwin, supra note 9, at xvii.
25. Id.
26. See id.
27. See id. The entries that touch on the subject matter of institutions include the ones on pages 1, 122, 163, 201, 330 and 658. As such, these subjects are six (6) out of the 52 in The Price of the Ticket. Entries on institutions, thus, are about eleven (11) percent (%) of the total entries.
28. Id.
29. Id. The entries that touch on the subject matter of selective enforcement include the ones on pages 102, 251, 388, 418 and 647. As such, these subjects are five (5) out of the 52 in The Price of the Ticket. Entries on selective enforcement, thus, are about ten (10) percent (%) of the total entries.
30. Id.
31. See id.
32. Id. The entries that touch on governmental motivations include the ones on pages 13, 46, 51, 75, 179, 236 and 559. As such, these subjects are seven (7) out of the 52 in The Price of the Ticket. Entries on governmental motivations, thus, are about fourteen (14) percent (%) of the total entries.
33. Id.
34. Id. at 10.
35. See id. The entries that touch on the subject matter of governmental failure include the ones on pages 24, 30, 243, 270, 321, 413, 445, 449, 563, 662, 666, 676 and 685. As such these subjects are thirteen (13) out of the 52 in The Price of the Ticket. Entries on Governmental failures, thus, are about twenty five (25) percent (%) of the total entries.
36. Will Kenton, Externality: What it Means in Economics, with Positive and Negative Examples, Investopedia (June 18, 2024), https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/externality.asp [https://perma.cc/8ZXR-JRDZ].
37. Baldwin, supra note 9, at 21.
38. See id. The entries that touch on the cost of governmental failures include the ones on pages 33, 90, 111, 116, 137, 157, 170, 187, 190, 212, 221, 276, 296, 312, 325, 330, 401, 408, 429, 438 and 651. As such these subjects are twenty one (21) out of the 52 in The Price of the Ticket. Entries on the cost of governmental failures, thus, are about forty (40) percent (%) of the total entries.
39. Id.
40. See id.
41. Baldwin, supra note 9, at xviii.
42. See Miller, supra note 4.
43. Id. at 105.
44. See id.
45. See id.
46. See id. at 82–83.
47. See id. at 103–35
48. Id. at 5.
49. See generally id.
50. See generally id.
51. Id.
52. See generally id.
53. Id. at 5.
54. See generally id.
55. See Baldwin, supra note 9, at 624 (explaining that James Baldwin’s “first encounter with the FBI took place in 1945 . . . [and this Black citizen’s subsequent conclusion that] . . . once you have come to the attention of the FBI, they keep a friendly file on you, and your family, and your friends.”). Little did this writer and advocate know that his friendly FBI file, later, would give rise to important litigation. See, e.g., Campbell v. United States Dept. of Justice, 164 F.3d 20 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (describing a lawsuit brought against the FBI, which is overseen by the Department of Justice, over records concerning Baldwin).
56. See generally Randall K. Johnson, Why We Need a Comprehensive Recording Fraud Registry, 2014 NYU J. Of Leg. & Pub. Poly 87 (arguing for a modest expansion of the Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System and Registry).
57. Id.
58. See generally Bryan Greene, Created 150 Years Ago, The Justice Department’s First Mission Was To Protect Black Rights, Smithsonian Mag. (Jul. 1, 2020) https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/created-150-years-ago-justice-departments-first-mission-was-protect-black-rights-180975232/ [https://perma.cc/VND8-ANRM] (explaining that the DOJ’s “work on behalf of the emancipated population was so central to its early mission that . . . the department’s headquarters . . . [was located] . . . in the Freedman’s Savings Bank Building.”).
59. See generally Priority Questions Related to Strategic Goal 3: Protect Civil Rights, U.S. Dep’t Just., https://www.justice.gov/doj/doj-strategic-plan/priority-questions-related-strategic-goal-3-protect-civil-rights (last visited Mar. 18, 2025) [https://perma.cc/HU83-6FQC].
60. See generally Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division Highlights Efforts To Combat Hate Crimes Targeting Black People, U.S. Dep’t Just. (Sep. 5, 2024), https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/blog/justice-departments-civil-rights-division-highlights-efforts-combat-hate-crimes-targeting [https://perma.cc/2N6K-GK6Y] (unquestioned acceptance of aforementioned assumptions about DOJ’s treatment of Black citizens).
61. See generally Glenn Thrush, Justice Department Halts New Civil Rights Cases, N.Y. Times (Jan. 23, 2025), https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/22/us/politics/justice-department-civil-rights-work.html [https://perma.cc/6ZXU-ES6J] (explaining that:
The Justice Department has ordered an immediate halt to all new civil rights cases or investigations—and signaled that it might back out of Biden-era agreements with police departments that engaged in discrimination or violence, according to two internal memos sent to staff. The actions represent an about-face for a department that had been aggressively investigating instances of violence and systemic discrimination in local law enforcement and government agencies . . . [In 2025, the new leadership of this federal agency has moved quickly to] . . . roll back diversity, equity and inclusion programs, accused the . . . [previous leadership of the] . . . Justice Department . . .of hampering the police, even though nearly all of the law enforcement agencies investigated have admitted fault and many have embraced reforms.)
62. See James B. Comey, Hard Truths: Law Enforcement And Race, Fed. Bureau Investigation (Feb. 12, 2015), https://www.fbi.gov/news/speeches/hard-truths-law-enforcement-and-race [https://perma.cc/87H5-C4PF]
63. Id.
64. Id.
65. Compare Maryam Jameel, More and More Workplace Discrimination Cases are Being Closed Before They’re Even Investigated, VOX.com (Jun. 14, 2019), https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/6/14/18663296/congress-eeoc-workplace-discrimination [https://perma.cc/5493-9FYQ] (explaining that “[t]he EEOC said it has focused its limited resources ‘on charges where the government can have the greatest impact on workplace discrimination.’ But as it cut its backlog by 30 percent in the last decade—much of that in the past two years—the already-low share of workers getting help has dropped. Only 13 percent of all complaints the EEOC closed last year ended with a settlement or other relief for the workers who filed them, down from 18 percent in 2008.”); with Jonathan Shorman, How a Dysfunctional Missouri Human Rights Commission Slows Discrimination Lawsuits, Kansas City Star (Apr. 5, 2023), https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article273959450.html [https://perma.cc/FFV7-ZWTT] (explaining that some critics, such as Kansas City-area attorney Gene Graham, “suggested the . . . [Missouri Commission on Human Rights] . . . tries to please the . . . [local] . . . business community at the expense of victims of discrimination.”). One result is that even per se unlawful discrimination may go remedied by government agencies.
66. See Celisa Calacal, Kansas City and Brian Platt Sued for Discrimination by Ousted Civil Rights Director, KCUR.org (Mar. 14, 2024), https://www.kcur.org/news/2024-03-14/kansas-city-brian-platt-sued-andrea-dorch-discrimination-office-civil-rights-equal-opportunity [https://perma.cc/S4DZ-EDAZ] (explaining that “Andrea Dorch, former head of Kansas City’s civil rights department, is suing City Manager Brian Platt . . . [alleging] . . . Platt created obstacles that made it difficult for Dorch to carry out her duties).
67. See Allison Kite, Kansas City Mayor Accused of Skirting City Gift Ban by Using Nonprofit to Pay for Travel, Mo. Indep. (Dec. 5, 2024), https://missouriindependent.com/2024/12/05/kansas-city-mayor-accused-of-skirting-city-gift-ban-by-using-nonprofit-to-pay-for-travel/ [https://perma.cc/XBS9-JXZH] (alleging that Mayor Quenton Lucas “is using . . . [a] . . . nonprofit to evade transparency and the city’s ban on public officials accepting high-dollar gifts . . . [in a way that] . . . Patrick Tuohey . . . says . . . ‘[may improperly provide] . . . another way . . . [for] . . . moneyed interests to have access to politicians.’”).
68. One example is 28 CFR Part 23, which “provides guidance to law enforcement agencies on the implementation standards for operating interjurisdictional and multijurisdictional criminal intelligence systems funded under the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 . . . .” Bureau of Justice Assistance, A Guide to Criminal Intelligence Policies, BJA, https://28cfr.ncirc.gov/documents/28-CFR-Part-23-Overview.pdf (last visited Mar. 18, 2025) [https://perma.cc/3AK2-U3G4].
69. See Johnson, supra note 56, at 89.
70. Id.
71. Id. at 89–90.
72. See generally Richard G. Flood et. al., Intergovernmental Cooperation, Illinois Institute for Continuing Legal Education 8.2 (2012).
73. See Johnson, supra note 56, at 89–90.
74. See, e.g., NMLS, Information about NMLS Consumer Access, NMLS (Jul. 7, 2014), https://mortgage.nationwidelicensingsystem.org/licensees/resources/LicenseeResources/Information%20about%20NMLS%20Consumer%20Access.pdf [https://perma.cc/9XQL-XWEK].
75. Id
76. Id.
77. Id.
78. Nicole Forbes Stowell, Katherine Barker-Cagwin & James Fellows, Mortgage Fraud: Current Trends and Issues, 37 Real Est. Issues 42 (2012) (“According to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the number of mortgage and real estate fraud convictions increased by almost 40 percent from 2009 to 2011); accord IRS, Real Estate Fraud Investigations, IRS, https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-news/fs-05-12.pdf (last visited Mar. 18, 2025) [https://perma.cc/Q4QK-HGWZ] (“Special agents with IRS Criminal Investigation are uniquely equipped to investigate these types of . . . illegal real estate crimes because they are skilled financial investigators whose mission is to ‘follow the money.’”); IRS, How Criminal Investigations are Initiated, IRS, https://www.irs.gov/compliance/criminal-investigation/how-criminal-investigations-are-initiated (Mar. 3, 2025) [https://perma.cc/54A3-H5NZ].
79. Cf. Shorman, supra note 65 (explaining “that the . . . [MCHR] . . . rarely determines discrimination occurred. It found probable cause of discrimination in just five cases in . . . 2022 . . . despite receiving more than 1,000 complaints . . . . No probable cause findings were listed for . . . [2020 or 2021, either].”).
80. See Johnson, supra note 56, at 93–94.
81. Id.
82. Id.
83. Id.
84. Id.
85. Id.
86. Id.
87. Id.
88. Id.
89. Id.
The full text of this Article is available to download as a PDF.