Print
Comment
87.7
Exhaustion of Local Remedies and the FSIA Takings Exception: The Case for Deferring to the Executive’s Recommendation
Ikenna Ugboaja
AB 2018, Harvard College; JD Candidate 2021, The University of Chicago Law School.

By 1976, Congress recognized that foreign states and their business enterprises were common participants in the global economy, often transacting with US citizens. It further recognized that there were no uniform or comprehensive rules governing when and how private parties could bring suit against those foreign governments in the courts of the United States.

Print
Comment
87.7
Simplifying Patent Venue
Micah Quigley
BA 2018, Grove City College; JD Candidate 2021, The University of Chicago Law School.

Many thanks to Colin Freyvogel for helping me sort out this piece’s most difficult arguments, and to my parents for taking an interest in this project for my sake.

From the 1990s to 2017, life was good for plaintiffs in patent infringement lawsuits. In 1990, the Federal Circuit1 interpreted the patent venue statute—28 USC § 1400(b)—to allow patent venue in any district with personal jurisdiction over a corporate defendant.

Print
Comment
87.7
Litigating the Line Drawers: Why Courts Should Apply Anderson-Burdick to Redistricting Commissions
Andrew C. Maxfield
BA 2018, University of Wisconsin–Madison; JD Candidate 2021, The University of Chicago Law School.

I’d like to thank Professor Nicholas Stephanopoulos, Claire Rogerson, Brenna Ledvora, Becky Gonzalez-Rivas, Javier Kordi, Meghan Holloway, Daly Brower, and the entire editing team of The University of Chicago Law Review for incredible suggestions and advice on this piece. I’d also like to thank my high school English teacher Mr. Hale, who I was taught by that the passive voice should sparingly be used in my writing.

In the battle against partisan gerrymandering, redistricting commissions are now on the front lines.

Print
Comment
87.7
California’s Proposition 47 and Effectuating State Laws in Federal Sentencing
Brenna Ledvora
BS 2015, Northwestern University; JD Candidate 2021, The University of Chicago Law School.

Vickie Sanders was convicted in a California state court of felony drug possession, sixteen years before California voters would pass Proposition 47. Proposition 47, which was passed in 2014, reduces most possessory drug offenses from felonies to misdemeanors, and allows California courts to retroactively redesignate individuals’ felonies as misdemeanors.

Print
Article
87.7
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.

Print
Book review
87.7
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.

Print
Comment
87.4
The Golden Share: Attaching Fiduciary Duties to Bankruptcy Veto Rights
Yiming Sun
BA 2018, University of California, Los Angeles; JD Candidate 2021, The University of Chicago Law School.

I wish to thank Professors Douglas Baird and Anthony Casey, as well as The University of Chicago Law Review editors, for their guidance and advice throughout the writing process.

Suppose you are a large investment fund that just loaned money to a company. Like many large lenders, you secured the loan with the company’s equipment as collateral. But unfortunately, the company missed an interest payment and defaulted under the terms of its notes. What’s worse, it subsequently filed for bankruptcy.

Print
Article
87.4
The Case for Noncompetes
Jonathan M. Barnett
Torrey H. Webb Professor, University of Southern California, Gould School of Law.

We thank Shyam Balganesh, Norman Bishara, Michael Burstein, Richard Castanon, Bryan Choi, Victor Fleischer, Lee Fleming, Ronald Gilson, John Goldberg, Robert Gomulkiewicz, Charles Tait Graves, Michael Guttentag, Ryan Holte, Justin Hughes, David Levine, Orly Lobel, Greg Mandel, Karl Mannheim, Matt Marx, Adam Mossoff, Natasha Nayak, Ruth Okediji, David Orozco, Eric Posner, Greg Reilly, Michael Risch, Ben Sachs, David Schwartz, Joseph Singer, Henry Smith, Kathy Spier, Matt Stephenson, James Stern, Olav Sorenson, Evan Starr, David Taylor, Saurabh Vishnubhakat, Polk Wagner, and Stephen Yelderman, as well as attendees at the 2015 Works in Progress in Intellectual Property Conference, the 2017 Conference of the American Law and Economics Association, and workshops at Harvard Law School, University of Pennsylvania Law School, Loyola Law School, Los Angeles, the Center for Law and the Social Sciences at the University of Southern California School of Law, and the University of San Diego School of Law for their helpful discussions and comments on prior versions of this paper. We also thank Carolyn Ginno, Matthew Arnold, Anna Ayar, Vanand Baroni, Haley Dumas, Ryan Foley, David Javidzad, Rachel Stariha, and Millicent Whitemore for their valuable research assistance.

Ted Sichelman
Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of Law.

On February 23, 2017, two titans of Silicon Valley went to war in federal court: Google filed a lawsuit against Uber, accusing it of using intellectual property allegedly stolen by one of the lead engineers on Waymo, Google’s self-driving automotive subsidiary. Specifically, Google alleged that Anthony Levandowski had misappropriated Google’s intellectual property before departing (along with other Google engineers) to found Otto, a self-driving car startup subsequently acquired by Uber for $680 million.

Print
Article
87.4
The Spectrum of Procedural Flexibility
Ronen Avraham
Professor of Law, Tel Aviv University Faculty of Law; Lecturer, University of Texas at Austin School of Law.

We are grateful for comments from Bob Bone, Alon Klement, Shay Lavie, Jay Tidmarsh, Diego Zambrano, and participants at the Law Faculty Workshops at the University of Chicago, the University of Notre Dame, Tel Aviv University, and the University of Texas School of Law, as well as the 2018 ALEA Annual Meetings. We thank Ramon Feldbrin, Kathryn Garcia, Sakina Haji, Deanna Hall, Adam Picker, Jill Rogowski, and Kelly Yin for valuable research assistance. William Hubbard thanks the Paul H. Leffmann Fund and the Jerome F. Kutak Faculty Fund for research support.

William H.J. Hubbard
Professor of Law, The University of Chicago Law School.
Print
Article
87.3
The Origins of Substantive Due Process
Ilan Wurman
Visiting Assistant Professor and incoming Associate Professor, Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law, Arizona State University.

Thanks to William Baude, David Bernstein, Nathan Chapman, and John Harrison; to the participants of the 2018 Rocky Mountain Junior Faculty Colloquium, the 2019 Federalist Society Young Legal Scholars panel, and the 2019 University of Richmond Junior Scholars Workshop; and in particular to my colleagues Zack Gubler, Rhett Larson, Kaipo Matsumura, Trevor Reed, Josh Sellers, Bijal Shah, and Justin Weinstein-Tull for their early interventions. Thanks also to Jessica Kemper and Katherine Johnson for tremendous research assistance.

There has been renewed interest in recent years in the original understanding of “due process of law.” In a recent article, Professors Nathan Chapman and Michael McConnell argue that historically, due process meant only that an individual could not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without a general and prospective standing law, the violation of which had been adjudicated according to a certain minimum of common-law judicial procedures.

Print
Article
87.3
Some Doubts About “Democratizing” Criminal Justice
John Rappaport
Assistant Professor of Law and Ludwig and Hilde Wolf Research Scholar, University of Chicago Law School.

I am indebted to Monica Bell, Merav Bennett, Stephanos Bibas, Andrew Crespo, Justin Driver, Roger Fairfax, Trevor Gardner, Bernard Harcourt, Emma Kaufman, Brian Leiter, Richard McAdams, Tracey Meares, Martha Nussbaum, Dan Richman, Jocelyn Simonson, Roseanna Sommers, and Fred Smith for terrific comments on drafts. Thanks as well to Will Baude, Genevieve Lakier, Lauren Ouziel, and participants at the Criminal Justice Roundtable, the Junior Criminal Justice Roundtable, the University of Chicago Works-in-Progress Workshop, and the University of Virginia Faculty Workshop for generative conversations. For research assistance, thanks to Merav Bennett, Dylan Demello, Morgan Gehrls, Alli Hugi, Kevin Kennedy, and especially Alex Song. The Darelyn A. and Richard C. Reed Memorial Fund furnished financial support.

For the uninitiated, a brief rehearsal of the facts of the matter: The United States presently incarcerates over two million individuals, with another four million under other forms of correctional supervision.