Prosecutors seem to be the primary target for criminal justice reformers today, and with good reason: they are key gatekeepers to whether criminal charges get brought or not, and the particular charges they bring often dictate a defendant’s sentence. In a world dominated by plea bargains, prosecutors are essentially the final adjudicators in most criminal… Continue reading Criminal Justice Reform and the Courts by Rachel E. Barkow
I. Mississippi and Tennessee’s water fight in the U.S. Supreme Court Water is pretty important. There’s a reason why people have been fighting over it for over a thousand years. We need it for the essentials—drinking, washing, and shipping things. We need it for the conveniences—our grassy front yards, our bottled water, and our… Continue reading Why Mississippi’s Plea to the Supreme Court That It “Owns” Its Water and That Tennessee Is “Stealing” It Is Just Wrong by Joseph Regalia
Forensic reports linking a defendant to a crime—such as drug tests, blood analysis, DNA profiles, and much more—often constitute the most powerful and persuasive evidence that can be offered at a criminal trial. Yet the Supreme Court is sharply divided about the constitutionally required foundation for the admission of such reports. Its opinions on the… Continue reading The Admissibility of Forensic Reports in the Post–Justice Scalia Supreme Court by Laird Kirkpatrick
Earlier this year, after suffering from depression, University of Michigan football lineman James Hudson applied to transfer to the University of Cincinnati. Hudson aimed to start anew at Cincinnati, immediately joining the school’s football team. But unfortunately, Hudson’s hopes were dashed. The NCAA’s “year-in-residence” rule requires Division I college athletes to sit out a year… Continue reading Why the NCAA’s No-Transfer Rule Is No Good by Michael A. Carrier & Marc Edelman
Notice-and-comment rulemaking is often thought of as a fixed process: if agency X follows the process then it creates binding regulation Y. Yet, there is considerable variation in how the notice-and-comment rulemaking process actually proceeds. For instance, Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency allotted only 15 days for public comment on a recently proposed rule. This amount… Continue reading Taking Rulemaking Procedures Seriously in Bending the Rules by Rachel Augustine Potter
Introduction The equal state sovereignty principle may be “our historic tradition,” but it is an ill-defined, unexplored, and ambiguous one. In Shelby County v. Holder, the Supreme Court invalidated Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act (“VRA”) as a violation of the “fundamental principle of equal sovereignty.” Section 4(b) contained a formula that required some… Continue reading Unequal State Sovereignty: Considering the Equal State Sovereignty Principle Through Nineteenth-Century Election Laws by Zachary Newkirk
Our recent article, War Manifestos, was the first work of legal scholarship to examine the documents that set out the legal reasons sovereigns provided for going to war from the late fifteenth century until the mid-twentieth century. The article described these “war manifestos” and explored their history and evolution over the course of five centuries.… Continue reading The Origins of War Manifestos by Oona A. Hathaway, William S. Holste, Scott J. Shapiro, Jacqueline Van De Velde, and Lisa Wang Lachowicz
See Mr. Epstein's article in the Online Journal here The federal pleading threshold is probably the most confronted, least understood, threshold in American law. We know that to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss in the post-Twombly and -Iqbal world, a pleading must state a claim to relief that is “plausible” on its face.… Continue reading How Probable is “Plausible”? by Daniel A. Epstein
This is Briefly, a production of the University of Chicago Law Review. Today we’re discussing who corporations serve. There has been a widespread belief for several decades that corporations exist to serve the interests of their shareholders. But that idea has come under increasing pressure by those who believe corporations should serve the interests of… Continue reading Briefly 3.6 – Who Do Corporations Serve?
This is Briefly, a production of the University of Chicago Law Review. Today we’re discussing an article by Samuel Moyn, Professor at Yale Law School, called "Law Schools Are Bad for Democracy" and a response to that article by Yuval Levin, editor of National Affairs. We spoke to Professor Moyn and Mr. Levin about their… Continue reading Briefly 3.5 – Are Law Schools Bad for Democracy?
This is Briefly, a production of the University of Chicago Law Review. Today we’re discussing the Chicago School of Antitrust and whether it should be reassessed in the modern, digital economy. We spoke to Timothy Muris, Professor at the Antonin Scalia Law School and former Chairman of the FTC, Jonathan Nuechterlein, partner at Sidley Austin… Continue reading Briefly 3.4 – The Chicago School of Antitrust and the Digital Economy