Comment

Pure Consumption Cases under the Federal “Crackhouse” Statute

Michael E. Rayfield

BA 2006, Cornell University; JD Candidate 2009, The University of Chicago

Share The University of Chicago Law Review | Pure Consumption Cases under the Federal “Crackhouse” Statute on Facebook
Share The University of Chicago Law Review | Pure Consumption Cases under the Federal “Crackhouse” Statute on Twitter
Share The University of Chicago Law Review | Pure Consumption Cases under the Federal “Crackhouse” Statute on Email
Share The University of Chicago Law Review | Pure Consumption Cases under the Federal “Crackhouse” Statute on LinkedIn

The federal “crackhouse” statute, 21 USC § 856, makes it a felony to “knowingly open, lease, rent, use, or maintain any place . . . for the purpose of manufacturing, distributing, or using any controlled substance.” This Comment focuses on what it means for a defendant to open or maintain a place “for the purpose of . . . using” a controlled substance under § 856(a)(1).

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Criminal Law

Online

Post

Lobbying Language: How Supreme Court Opinions Invite Legislative Change

Jack Brake

Jack Brake is a J.D. Candidate at the University of Chicago Law School, Class of 2025.

The author thanks the University of Chicago Law Review Online team for their helpful feedback.

How often do Supreme Court opinions include what might be called “lobbying language,” which endorses a policy position while calling for another government entity to realize it? Reviewing relevant cases, this Essay finds that the sample set includes at least a dozen examples of lobbying language. As it turns out, lobbying is not so unusual for the Supreme Court.

Administrative Law Criminal Law

Comment

85.3

Righting Categorical Wrongs: A Holistic Solution to Rule 8(a)’s Same-or-Similar-Character Prong

Matthew Deates

BA 2012, University of Minnesota; JD Candidate 2018, The University of Chicago Law School

I would like to thank Professor Alison Siegler for introducing me to the law on joinder. This Comment would not exist without her guidance and support. I would also like to thank the talented editors of the Law Review for their helpful comments and suggestions.

A criminal defendant is charged with wire fraud in violation of 18 USC § 1343. As he and his defense attorney prepare for trial, the US Attorney’s Office notifies him that there is reason to believe he has previously committed bankruptcy fraud in violation of 18 USC § 152.

Criminal Law

Article

85.3

Rethinking Family-Court Prosecutors: Elected and Agency Prosecutors and Prosecutorial Discretion in Juvenile Delinquency and Child Protection Cases

Josh Gupta-Kagan

Assistant Professor of Law, University of South Carolina School of Law

The author would like to thank Albertina Antognini, Annette Appell, Elizabeth Chambliss, Martin Guggenheim, Avni Gupta-Kagan, Clare Huntington, Cortney Lollar, Adrian Smith, Robin Walker-Sterling, and participants in a faculty workshop at the University of Kentucky College of Law and Duke Law School’s 2015 conference on civil rights, “The Present and Future of Civil Rights Movements: Race and Reform in 21st Century America,” for thoughtful comments on earlier drafts. The author would like to thank Joni Gerrity for excellent research assistance.

The law and the academy have long recognized criminal prosecutors’ immense power, especially the power to determine which cases to prosecute and which not to. Less attention has been focused on related issues in juvenile delinquency and child protection cases litigated in state family courts.

Children and Families Criminal Law