Legal History

Frankfurter, Abstention Doctrine, and the Development of Modern Federalism: A History and Three Futures
Lael Weinberger
Raoul Berger-Mark DeWolfe Howe Legal History Fellow, Harvard Law School.

For helpful conversations and thoughtful feedback that made this Article better, I am grateful to Patrick Barry, William Baude, Lisa Bernstein, Samuel Bray, Zachary Clopton, Michael Collins, Richard Epstein, Patrick Fuster, Daniel Hemel, Zac Henderson, Aziz Huq, Daniel Kelly, Adam Mortara, Michael Solimine, Manuel Valle, Laura Weinrib, Hon. Diane Wood, Ilan Wurman, and participants in workshops and conferences at the University of Chicago, Loyola University Chicago, and the American Association of Law Schools. Thanks also to the editors of The University of Chicago Law Review for their hard work and helpful input.

The Supreme Court did not use the term “federalism” in any opinions in its first 150 years. The Court had (of course) previously talked about federal-state relations, but it did so without the term “federalism”—it preferred a different vocabulary, discussing the police powers of the states and the enumerated powers of the federal government.

Book review
This Land Is Not Our Land
K-Sue Park
Associate Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center.

Many thanks to Amna Akbar, Maggie Blackhawk, Guy Charles, Sheila Foster, Aziz Rana, Justin Simard, Madhavi Sunder, and Gerald Torres for helpful feedback on this piece. I am also grateful to Thanh Nguyen, Tammy Tran, Taylor Ridley, and Rikisha Collins for invaluable research assistance, and to the editors of The University of Chicago Law Review for all their thoughtful work preparing this piece for publication.

In asserting that “this land is our land” in his new book by that title,1 Professor Jedediah Purdy hopes to craft a narrative of possibility and common plight that can serve as a banner high and wide enough for all to unite beneath. The task he undertakes in this meditative collection of essays, written in a colloquial and often poetic tone, is no less than to sketch out a “horizon to aim for”—for all to aim for—a vision of the future to guide the kind of legal, social, and political change he wishes to see.