Property is a course that contains a great deal of
foundational legal vocabulary and concepts--such as first possession & estates and future interests--but it also contains a great deal of public law
and “social justice” content. Most of the latter will arise a few weeks into the course when we study constitutional property rights under the Takings Clause, zoning restrictions on religious land use, and exclusionary zoning and equal
protection under the 14th Amendment.
But be aware that no one ideological side has a monopoly on “social justice.” There are many sides of “social justice” and no one side—not progressives, not conservatives, not moderates—has a monopoly on social justice. Indeed, in many cases there are competing views of “social justice” on each side of the case. For example, when burdensome environmental regulations are imposed on the use of land, we may have a conflict between environmental “justice” on one side and protecting private property rights under the Constitution (economic “justice”) on the other.
Neither side is “right” and neither side is “wrong.” There are no ideological truths, just ideological opinions and arguments. There are also no non-debatable arguments. Public interest lawyers are often involved on both sides, and again neither progressives nor conservatives have a monopoly on what is good policy and what is in the public interest.
Inclusive leaders in the law acknowledge this and recognize
that the lawyers and parties on both sides of these cases are
reasonable persons of good will. The cancel culture is anathema to inclusion and diversity.
Both conservatives and progressives should consider getting involved in public interest law and pro bono service. In other words, "social justice" means different things to different lawyers, and thus "social justice" law is for everyone.
Question to think about:
Suppose Terrific Tenant is unable to pay his rent for several months. Lovely Landlord, brings an action to evict Terrific Tenant for nonpayment of rent. Which lawyer in this case is on the side of justice--Tenant's lawyer seeking to stop the eviction, or Landlord's lawyer seeking to recover the property so it can be leased to a new tenant who will pay the rent? Or, perhaps, both lawyers? What is justice in a case like this? Are both tenants and landlords deserving of justice? If justice means getting what you deserve, where is justice in a case like that between Terrific Tenant and Lovely Landlord? Tenant is entitled to the protections determined by the law, and Landlord is entitled to payment of rent or his property back.
