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.
Print
Article
87.8
The Myth of Creditor Sabotage
Vincent S.J. Buccola
Assistant Professor, The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.

This Article was substantially written while Mah and Zhang were undergraduates, and it reflects neither the opinions of nor nonpublic information about their employers. The authors thank Ken Ayotte, Allison Buccola, Saul Levmore, Josh Macey, Adriana Robertson, Mike Simkovic, David Skeel, Matt Turk, and participants at a Wharton faculty workshop for criticism of defunct drafts.

Jameson K. Mah
Investment Analyst, Cyrus Capital Partners. BS (Economics), The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.
Tai Zhang
Analyst. BS (Economics), The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.

A basic assumption in the standard paradigm of corporate finance is that a company’s investors want the company to succeed. To be sure, investors of different classes—stockholders and bondholders, for example—bear risk and reward unequally.

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.