Print Archive

Print
Article
v88.2
The Corpus and the Critics
Thomas R. Lee
Associate Chief Justice of the Utah Supreme Court and Distinguished Lecturer in Law at Brigham Young University J. Reuben Clark Law School, Lecturer on Law at Harvard Law School, and Lecturer in Law at The University of Chicago Law School.

The authors acknowledge the editorial input of James Heilpern and Benjamin Lee, who contributed to an early draft of this paper, and express thanks to those who commented on earlier drafts or offered insights in response to presentations in various conferences, symposia, and talks. Thanks to the Association of American Law Schools and Brigham Young University, who each sponsored conference sessions at which the ideas in this piece were initially vetted. Thanks also to Seth Cannon, Brian Casper, Dante Chambers, Spencer Crawford, Josh Jones, Zachary Lutz, Christopher Melling, Elizabeth Nielson, Monick Perone, Jackson Skinner, and Kyle Tanner for their able research assistance.

Stephen C. Mouritsen
Shareholder at Parr Brown Gee & Loveless and Adjunct Professor at Brigham Young University J. Reuben Clark Law School.

A decade ago we proposed the use of the tools of corpus linguistics in the interpretation of legal language.

Print
Article
v88.2
Competing Algorithms for Law: Sentencing, Admissions, and Employment
Saul Levmore
William B. Graham Distinguished Service Professor of Law, The University of Chicago Law School.

We benefited from discussions with colleagues at a University of Chicago Law School workshop and with Concetta Balestra Fagan and Eliot Levmore.

Frank Fagan
Associate Professor of Law, EDHEC Business School, France.

When the past is thought to predict the future, it is unsurprising that machine learning, with access to large data sets, wins prediction contests when competing against an individual, including a judge. Just as computers predict next week’s weather better than any human working alone, at least one study shows that machine learning can make better decisions than can judges when deciding whether or not to grant bail.

Print
Article
v88.2
The Missing Indian Affairs Clause
Lorianne Updike Toler
Olin Searle Fellow, Yale Law School’s Information Society Project.

This Article is dedicated to my former law professor, Larry Echo Hawk, a member of the Pawnee Nation and Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Indian Affairs for President Barack Obama. I am greatly indebted to those who have provided helpful insights and comments on earlier drafts and underlying research, including Akhil Amar, Jack Balkin, William Baude, Steve Calabresi, Bradford Clark, Nicholas Cole, William Ewald, Lawrence Friedman, Shlomo Klapper, David Landau, Soren Schmidt, Michalyn Steele, Larry Solum, and Kevin Worthen. I thank my parents, John B. Updike and V. Lauri Updike, for acting as technical editors, and the very able editors of The University of Chicago Law Review. My heartfelt thanks also goes to Lee Arnold at the Historical Society of Pennsylvania for providing access to James Wilson’s Papers and particularly his drafts of the Constitution, and to Julie Miller, Julie Biggs, and Jennifer Evers from the Conservation Division of the Library of Congress for providing images and doing further forensic research of Randolph’s sketch. Finally, my thanks go to the indispensable Yale Law librarians, who never cease to lend valuable and timely assistance.

Billy Jo Lara, a Turtle Mountain Native American, struck a federal officer on the Spirit Lake Reservation.

Print
Essay
v88.2
Classaction.gov
Amanda M. Rose
Professor of Law, Vanderbilt University Law School.

For helpful comments and conversations, I would like to thank Lynn Baker, Ben Berry, Brian Broughman, Elizabeth Cabraser, Brian Fitzpatrick, Todd Hilsee, Lee Kovarsky, Craig Lewis, Debbie Matties, Robert Mikos, David Siffert, Charlie Silver, Randall Thomas, Yesha Yadav, participants and panelists at the FTC’s workshop on Consumers and Class Action Notices, participants at Vanderbilt Law School’s 22nd Annual Law & Business Conference, and students enrolled in the University of Texas’s Colloquium on Current Issues in Complex Litigation. I am grateful to Regan Vicknair for excellent research assistance.

Class actions, brought on an opt-out basis under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) and state analogues, are highly controversial.

Print
Comment
88.1
A Class of One: Multiracial Individuals Under Equal Protection
Desirée D. Mitchell
B.A. 2018, Brigham Young University; J.D. Candidate 2021, The University of Chicago Law School.

For centuries, mixed-race Americans have felt a sense of isolation as unique as their racial makeup. Whether society perceived a multiracial person as White or non-White could determine everything from whom they could marry to which jobs they could work to which areas and homes they could live in.

Print
Article
88.1
Proximate Cause Explained: An Essay in Experimental Jurisprudence
Joshua Knobe
Professor of Philosophy and Psychology and Linguistics, Yale University.

For comments on an earlier version, we are deeply grateful to Guilherme Almeida, Fiery Cushman, Mihailis Diamantis, Ivar Hannikainen, Scott Hershovitz, Brian Leiter, James Macleod, Roseanna Sommers, Andy Summers, Kevin Tobia, John Witt, Ben Zipursky, and Gideon Yaffe. Katya Botchkina provided excellent research assistance and her philosophical suggestions were immensely helpful to us in drafting Part VI.

Scott Shapiro
Charles F. Southmayd Professor of Law and Professor of Philosophy, Yale University.

A few days before Christmas 1924, William Markowitz sold an air rifle to Richard Kevans. Markowitz should not have made that sale.

Print
Article
88.1
Stickiness and Incomplete Contracts
Julian Nyarko
Assistant Professor of Law, Stanford Law School.

For helpful comments and suggestions, I thank Adam Badawi, Douglas Baird, Robert Bartlett, Andrew Bradt, Guy-Uriel Charles, Benjamin Chen, Adam Chilton, Albert Choi, Ryan Copus, Robert Cooter, John Coyle, Kevin Davis, John DeFigueredo, Josh Fischman, Jeffrey Gordon, Joe Grundfest, Mitu Gulati, Andrew Guzman, Deborah Hensler, Tim Holbrook, Bert Huang, William Hubbard, Matthew Jennejohn, Francine Lafontaine, Katerina Linos, Jonathan Masur, Justin McCrary, Joshua Mitts, Kevin Quinn, Bertrall Ross, Sarath Sanga, Robert Scott, Megan Stevenson, Eric Talley, Glenn West, Diego Zambrano, and Eyak Zamir, as well as the participants of workshops at Columbia Law School, NYU School of Law, Stanford Law School, the University of Chicago Law School, University of Virginia School of Law, University of Michigan Law School, UC Davis School of Law, University of Hamburg Faculty of Law, the 2020 American Bar Association M&A Committee Meeting, the 2020 Association of American Law Schools Annual Meeting, the 2020 Stanford-IACCM Symposium, the 2019 Northwestern Conference on Law and Textual Analysis, the 2019 Annual Empirical Contracts Workshop at Penn, the 2019 Annual Meeting of the German Law and Economics Association, the 2018 Conference on Empirical Legal Studies, the 2018 Conference on Empirical Legal Studies in Europe, and the 2018 International Conference on the Economics of Litigation.

In the 1990s, Sprint PCS, one of the leading telecommuni-cations companies in the United States, created a wireless af-filiate program.
Print
Article
88.1
The Comparative Constitutional Law of Presidential Impeachment
Tom Ginsburg
Leo Spitz Professor of International Law and Ludwig and Hilde Wolf Research Scholar, The University of Chicago Law School.

For helpful discussions, the authors thank Joshua Braver, Yoav Dotan, Roberto Dalledone Machado Filho, Juliano Zaiden Benvindo, Sabrina Ragone, Jeong-In Yun, and participants at the ICON-S Conference in Santiago, Chile, July 2019, as well as workshops at Georgetown University Law Center, the University of Chicago Law School, University of Maryland Carey School of Law, NYU School of Law, Vanderbilt Law School, and the University of California-Berkeley School of Law. Thanks to Young Hun Kim for providing useful data and to Kali Cilli and Delhon Braaten for research assistance.

Aziz Huq
Frank and Bernice N. Greenberg Professor of Law, The University of Chicago Law School.
David Landau
Mason Ladd Professor and Associate Dean for International Programs, Florida State University College of Law.
The president must go! Thus rings the call across many democracies, including our own.
Print
Comment
87.8
“What Shall I Give My Children?”: Installment Land Contracts, Homeownership, and the Unexamined Costs of the American Dream
Caelin Moriarity Miltko
BA 2017, University of Notre Dame; JD Candidate 2021, The University of Chicago Law School.

I’d like to thank Professor Lior Strahilevitz for his insightful comments on an earlier draft, without which this Comment would not exist in this form at all. I’m also grateful to all the editors of The University of Chicago Law Review for their assistance in editing and refining this piece and to all my friends who listened to me talk about installment land contracts for months as I wrote and rewrote (and rewrote) this Comment.

A white picket fence. A house in the suburbs. 2.5 kids. There may be nothing more central to the modern conception of the American Dream than homeownership.

Print
Comment
87.8
A (Very) Unlikely Hero: How United States v Armstrong Can Save Retaliatory Arrest Claims After Nieves v Bartlett
Brenna Darling
BA 2016, New York University; JD Candidate 2021, The University of Chicago Law School.

In May 2019, the Supreme Court attempted to clarify the long-disputed standard for First Amendment retaliatory arrest claims. Nieves v Bartlett holds that, as a threshold matter, a plaintiff must prove a lack of probable cause for their arrest, but that a “narrow qualification”—an exception to the probable cause burden—“is warranted for circumstances where officers have probable cause to make arrests, but typically exercise their discretion not to do so.”

Print
Comment
87.8
Necessary “Procedures”: Making Sense of the Medicare Act’s Notice-and-Comment Requirement
Josh Armstrong
BA 2017, The University of Texas at Austin; JD Candidate 2021, The University of Chicago Law School.

Many thanks to Professor Jennifer Nou for her help and advice throughout the drafting process.

Perhaps no problem has caused more consternation and outright confusion in administrative law circles than the Ad-ministrative Procedure Act’s (APA) exemptions to notice-and-comment rulemaking, the process by which agencies present proposed rules to the public for feedback before issuing them in final form.

Print
Article
87.8
Exporting American Discovery
Yanbai Andrea Wang
Assistant Professor of Law, University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School.

For generous conversations and comments, I am grateful to Aziza Ahmed, Kevin Benish, Pamela Bookman, Beth Burch, Guy‑Uriel Charles, Kevin Clermont, Zachary Clopton, Brooke Coleman, William Dodge, David Engstrom, Nora Engstrom, George Fisher, Maggie Gardner, Myriam Gilles, Jasmine Harris, Larry Helfer, Deborah Hensler, Aziz Huq, Mark Kelman, Amalia Kessler, Tim Lovelace, Rick Marcus, Doug Melamed, Jenny Martinez, Anne O’Connell, Katerina Ossenova, Aaron Simowitz, Shirin Sinnar, David Sklansky, David Sloss, Norman Spaulding, Al Sykes, Justin Weinstein-Tull, Steve Yeazell, Diego Zambrano, as well as participants at the American Society of International Law Research Forum, Annual Civil Procedure Workshop, Bay Area Civil Procedure Forum, Emerging Scholars Workshop, Grey Fellows Forum, Junior Faculty Federal Courts Workshop, Northern California International Law Scholars Workshop, “The Extraterritorial State” Symposium at Willamette, and workshops at UC Berkeley, Boston College, Cardozo Law, Cornell, UC Davis, Duke, Emory, the University of Florida, Fordham, Georgetown, the University of Michigan, the University of Pennsylvania, and the University of Virginia. For exceptional research assistance, I thank Alexis Abboud, Douglas Callahan, Wesley DeVoll, Jeffrey Ho, Aletha Dell Smith, Sam Sherman, and Leonardo Villalobos. Thanks also to the thoughtful editors of The University of Chicago Law Review.

Across the country, federal courts now routinely have a hand in the resolution of foreign civil disputes. They do so by compelling discovery in the United States—typically as much discovery as would be available for a lawsuit adjudicated in federal district court—and making it available for use in foreign civil proceedings governed by different procedural rules.