Print Archive

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.
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.