Volume 92.5
September
2025

Print
Article
Volume 92.5
Constitutional Rights as Protected Reasons
Stephanie Hall Barclay
Professor of Law at Georgetown University Law Center and Faculty Co-Director of the Georgetown Center for the Constitution.

For very helpful comments, conversations, and encouragement on this draft and earlier versions of this project, the author thanks Joel Alicea, Howard Anglin, Kristina Arriaga, Randy Barnett, William Baude, Rachel Bayefsky, Joseph Blocher, Samuel Bray, Christian Burset, Jud Campbell, Louis Capozzi, Piero Ríos Carrillo, Conor Casey, Nathan Chapman, Aimee Clesi, Nicholas Cole, Steve Collis, Caroline Mala Corbin, Katherine Mims Crocker, Marc DeGirolami, Michelle Dempsey, Alma Diamond, Hasan Dindjer, Richard Ekins, Timothy Endicott, David Enoch, Bridget Fahey, Richard Fallon, John Finnis, Frederick Gedicks, Nazila Ghanea, Sherif Girgis, Raphaël Grenier-Benoit, Simona Grossi, Jeremy Gunn, John Harrison, Michael Helfand, Richard Helmholz, Don Herzog, Steven Heyman, Kristin Hickman, Jessie Hill, Heidi Hurd, Michael Kang, Paul Kerry, Andrew Koppelman, Konrad Ksiazek, Genevieve Lakier, Lia Lawton, Douglas Laycock, Robert Leider, Tyler Lindley, Christopher Lund, Elinor Mason, Michael McConnell, Stefan McDaniel, Bradley Miller, Darrell Miller, Paul Miller, Robert Miller, Christina Mulligan, Jim Oleske, Filipa Paes, James Phillips, Richard Pildes, Jeffrey Pojanowski, Zachary Price, Haley Proctor, Eric Rassbach, Richard M. Re, Bradley Rebeiro, Veronica Rodriguez-Blanco, Zalman Rothschild, Angelo Ryu, 
Stephen Sachs, Josep Tirapu Sanuy, Micah Schwartzman, Amanda Shanor, Reva Siegel, Geoffrey Sigalet, Lawrence Solum, Anna Stelle, John Stinneford, Mark Storslee, Michael David Thomas, Rebecca Tushnet, Francisco Urbina, Pía Chible Villadangos, Eugene Volokh, Derek Webb, Grégoire Webber, Lael Weinberger, Andrew Willinger, John Witte, Kara Woodbury-Smith, Ilan Wurman, Paul Yowell, Mary Ziegler, the participants at the Women in Legal Philosophy Conference at Villanova Law School, the First Annual UChicago Constitutional Law Conference, the Oxford Public Law Discussion Group, the Oxford University Bonavero Institute of Human Rights Works-in-Progress session, Federalist Society Junior Scholar Panel at Association of American Law Schools, the Salmon P. Chase Colloquium, the Georgetown Law School Works-in-Progress session, the Minnesota Law School Works-in-Progress session, the Pepperdine Law School Nootbaar Fellows workshop, the Northwestern Law School Works-in-Progress session, the Northwestern Law School Public Law Colloquium, and the Stanford Law School Constitution Center Works-in-Progress workshop. For excellent research assistance, the author thanks Nat Deacon, Chris Ostertag, Jacob Feiser, Mathias Valenta, Anneliese Ostrom, and Athanasius Sirilla.

Professor Stephanie Hall Barclay proposes and defends a new theoretical model of constitutional rights. While virtually all the prevailing theories about constitutional rights envision, at some level, judges balancing the importance of various individual rights against the importance of other societal goods in tension with those rights and generally hold out the judiciary as the primary guardian of these rights, this Article explains why the existing accounts of constitutional rights are either incoherent or incomplete. It proposes and defends an alternative model that is more consistent with democratic principles and the institutional competencies of the various branches of government.

Constitutional Law
Print
Article
Volume 92.5
The Amended Statute
Jesse M. Cross
Professor of Law, Joseph F. Rice School of Law, University of South Carolina.

The author wishes to thank Aaron Galbraith for his outstanding data analysis contributions. The author also wishes to thank William Eskridge, Abbe Gluck, Anita Krishnakumar, Nicholas Parrillo, Josh Chafetz, Alexander Zhang, and all the participants in the Legislation Roundtable at the Georgetown University Law Center, the Legislation Colloquium at the Georgetown University Law Center, and the works in progress workshop at the Joseph F. Rice School of Law.

We live in a republic of amended statutes. In each Congress, our laws are amended tens of thousands of times. Individual statutes make amendments that number in the thousands. As a result, the amended statute has become the central democratic text of our age—a remarkable development for a type of document unknown at the Founding. Yet the amended statute has been relegated to an afterthought in legal theory. This is incredible neglect for an essential source of modern law—one that anchors innumerable rights in U.S. society. In this Article, Jesse M. Cross demonstrates that, instead, the amended statute belongs at the center of public law. To that end, he undertakes three projects with respect to the amended statute: documenting, theorizing, and interpreting.

Judicial Review Statutory Interpretation
Print
Comment
Volume 92.5
Eliminating the Malice Requirement for Fourth Amendment Malicious Prosecution Plaintiffs
Sabrina Huang
B.A. 2022, University of California, Los Angeles; J.D. Candidate 2026, The University of Chicago Law School.

I would like to thank Maria Sofia Peña, Joseph Oten, Zoë Ewing, Karan Lala, John Cooper, Chloe Li, Helen Chamberlin, Quinten Rimolde, Jonathan Tao, Luke Henkel, Jackson Cole, Robert Dohrman, Hana Ferrero, Miranda Coombe, and all the other wonderful editors and staff of The University of Chicago Law Review for their insightful feedback and careful editing. I would also like to thank my family for their unconditional support.

In this Comment, Sabrina Huang argues that courts should eliminate the subjective malice requirement for Fourth Amendment malicious prosecution claims. She draws on other constitutional torts that arise during encounters with actors in the criminal justice system to show that a plaintiff-friendly objective standard is more appropriate than a subjective standard. If courts are unwilling to eliminate the malice requirement, the Comment proposes an alternative to the requirement: a burden-shifting test. The intended effects of both proposals are to expand relief to more litigants across jurisdictions, harmonize Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, and deter police and prosecutorial misconduct.

Civil Rights Criminal Law
Print
Comment
Volume 92.5
On FRAND-ly Terms: Examining the Role of Juries in Standard-Essential Patent Disputes
Marta Krason
B.S., Massachusetts Institute of Technology; M.S., Stanford University; J.D. Candidate 2026, The University of Chicago Law School.

I would like to thank Professor Jonathan Masur and the editors and staff of The University of Chicago Law Review, including Andy Wang, Zoë Ewing, Jonah Klausner, Karan Lala, Eric Haupt, Eugene DeCosse, and Helen Chamberlin, for their thoughtful advice and insights.

Holders of patents covering technology standards, known as standard-essential patents (SEP), control the rights to an invention with no commercially-viable alternative or that cannot be designed around while still complying with a standard. This gives SEP holders significant leverage in licensing negotiations. Standards development organizations (SDOs) play an important role in curbing opportunistic behavior by patent holders. SDOs require SEP holders to license their patents on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms. However, courts have mischaracterized FRAND commitments, concluding that these disputes carry a Seventh Amendment guarantee to a jury trial. This mischaracterization undermines the fair resolution of FRAND disputes, and a different approach is necessary. In this Comment, Marta Krason proposes an alternative analytical framework that more accurately characterizes FRAND disputes by drawing on principles from contract and property law, concluding that the constitutionally proper adjudicator is a judge, not a jury.

Contract Law Contracts Intellectual Property Technology
Print
Comment
Volume 92.5
Leveraging the Federal Trust Responsibility to Safeguard Net Neutrality on Tribal Lands
Morgan O. Schaack
B.A. 2023, University of California, Los Angeles; J.D. Candidate 2026, The University of Chicago Law School.

I would like to thank Professor Sarah Konsky and the editors and staff of The University of Chicago Law Review for their invaluable input.

The internet plays a crucial role in modern life; however, equal access to it is not guaranteed. Drawing on existing tribal spectrum sovereignty arguments, Morgan Schaack writes that the control exercised by the FCC’s licensing of the electromagnetic spectrum and language common in many tribal treaties create a tribal access right to spectrum under the trust responsibility. Framing this access to spectrum as a trust-protected resource, the Comment situates allowing tiered internet service in the absence of net neutrality as a violation of the government's obligations under the trust responsibility.

Communications Law Indian Law Technology

Volumes