The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (“CRPD”) represents a historic achievement for the global disability rights movement. Yet, when the U.S. Senate refused to ratify it on December 4, 2012, its influence on American law and policy seemed doomed. The Founders, after all, had conceived of a constitutional vision—“dual federalism”—where the federal government acts as the ultimate arbiter of questions of international policy. But dual federalism has not endured. Cities, counties, and states have become key decision-makers in areas once dominated by the federal government, and they have also become champions of the CRPD. This Article explains that “foreign affairs federalism” is at the heart of this paradigm shift. This new status quo reveals that the Constitution leaves ample room for subnational entities to engage on issues of international scale.

This Article argues that a functional approach to family law—treating those who have acted like family as family—undermines principles of family privacy and autonomy, and ultimately may not secure equal treatment for certain families within communities of color and and LGBTQ communities. In doing so, this Article challenges not only the functional turn in family law, but feminist scholarship that has been critical of family autonomy and privacy doctrine. Building on the consistent defense of privacy that emanates from women scholars of color, Professor Katharine K. Baker demonstrates how functional analyses demand interference and judgement that is likely to tear at the fabric of minority communities.