Print
Comment
85.8
To Move or Not to Move? That Is the Metaphysical Question
David J. Sandefer
BA 2016, Auburn University; JD Candidate 2019, The University of Chicago Law School

Philosophers have long pondered the metaphysical meaning of an object’s “location” or the “where of a thing.”

Print
Comment
85.8
Waiving Chevron
Jeremy D. Rozansky
AB 2012, University of Chicago; JD Candidate 2019, University of Chicago Law School

I wish to thank William Baude, Brian Feinstein, Daniel Hemel, Aziz Huq, Aaron Nielson, Jennifer Nou, Adam J. White, and the editors of The University of Chicago Law Review for setting me on the right track and improving the Comment at every stage

The Supreme Court’s decision in Chevron, U.S.A., Inc v Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc has been a boon for federal agencies.

Print
Article
85.8
The Constitutionality of Income-Based Fines
Alec Schierenbeck
JD, Stanford Law School, 2015

The author thanks Robert Weisberg, Beth Colgan, Alexandra Brodsky, Emma Kaufman, Andrew Rohrbach, and Gary Dyal for their generous guidance and comments. Special thanks to the student editors who labored to improve this piece: John Butterfield, Megan Coggeshall, Blake Eaton, Carly Gibbs, Jordan G. Golds, Jing Jin, Matthew LaGrone, Valentina Oliver, Eric Petry, Kimon Triantafyllou, and Lael Weinberger. All errors are mine.

When Americans break the law—whether it’s a minor offense like littering or a serious crime like felony assault—they tend to face the same financial penalties, no matter their income.

Print
Comment
85.7
Inferentialism, Title VII, and Legal Concepts
Lee Farnsworth
BA 2012, Dartmouth College; JD Candidate 2019, The University of Chicago Law School

Of all the things that judges do, central to those activities is saying what the law is, which means saying what the words in statutes mean.

Print
Article
85.7
Is Efficiency Biased?
Zachary Liscow
Associate Professor, Yale Law School

Thanks to Bruce Ackerman, Matt Adler, Anne Alstott, Ian Ayres, Bob Cooter, Dan Farber, Lee Fennell, Ed Fox, Heather Gerken, Jacob Goldin, Michael Graetz, Andrew Hayashi, Christine Jolls, Amy Kapczynski, Louis Kaplow, Max Kasy, Al Klevorick, Lewis Kornhauser, Doug Kysar, Daniel Markovits, Mitch Polinsky, Alex Raskolnikov, Susan Rose-Ackerman, Chris Sanchirico, David Schleicher, Alan Schwartz, Steve Shavell, Matt Stephenson, Judge Stephen Williams, Gui Woolston, and participants at the Columbia Tax Policy Workshop, Yale Law School Faculty Workshop, National Tax Association Annual Meetings, Loyola Law School Tax Policy Workshop, Boston University Law and Economics Workshop, Boston College Tax Policy Workshop, and William and Mary Faculty Workshop for helpful comments. Thanks to Daniel Giraldo, Brian Highsmith, Quentin Karpilow, Michael Loughlin, Brian McGrail, Farrah Ricketts, Kate Tian, and Jacob Waggoner for excellent research assistance.

Suppose that a city is considering building neighborhood parks, each of which costs $1 million to build. The residents of a rich neighborhood are willing to pay $2 million for the park, but the residents of a poor neighborhood are willing to pay only $500,000, less than the cost of construction.
Print
Article
85.7
In Defense of Territorial Jurisdiction
Cody J. Jacobs
Visiting Assistant Professor, Chicago-Kent College of Law

Thanks to Stephen Sachs, Patrick Borchers, Alex Boni-Saenz, Mark Rosen, Chris Schmidt, Mike Gentithes, Lori Andrews, Richard Wright, Greg Reilly, and Harold Krent for their helpful comments on this Article .

Brent Tyrrell worked for railroads all his life. When he was working for BNSF, a multibillion-dollar company and one of the largest railroads in North America, Brent developed terminal kidney cancer, allegedly as a result of his on-the-job exposure to harmful industrial chemicals.

Print
Comment
85.6
Not So Different after All: The Status of Interpretive Rules in the Medicare Act
Graham Haviland
BA 2011, The University of Chicago; JD Candidate 2019, The University of Chicago Law School

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) distinguishes between “legislative rules” that bind with the force of law and “interpretive rules” that merely interpret existing statutes or rules.

Print
Comment
85.6
i4i Makes the Patent World Blind
Michael J. Conway
BA 2014, Loyola University Chicago; JD Candidate 2019, The University of Chicago Law School

A patent does not magically ensure that an inventor receives the twenty-year personal monopoly to which she is entitled over the personal and commercial use of her invention. To maximize a patent’s value, the patent holder must diligently enforce the patent in federal court against infringers.

Print
Comment
85.6
Defining “Second or Successive” Habeas Petitions after Magwood
Megan Volin
BA and BS 2016, Northern Arizona University; JD Candidate 2019, The University of Chicago Law School

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) governs the filing and adjudication of federal habeas corpus petitions.

Print
Article
85.6
Relational Contracts of Adhesion
David A. Hoffman
Professor of Law, University of Pennsylvania Law School

I would like to thank the individuals who agreed to be interviewed for this article: Hissan Bajwa, Michal Rosenn, Bonnie Broeren, Rob Chesnut, Eric Goldman, Jay Monahan, Ari Shahdadi, Curtis Anderson, Ed Ferguson, Michael Cheah, Hansen Tong, and Miranda Lerner. Katherine Schloss Ackerman (Penn ’17), Elyssa Eisenberg (Penn ’18), and Michelle Kao (Penn ’18) provided research assistance. Tom Baker, Shyam Balganesh, Danielle Citron, Zev Eigen, Meirav Furth-Matzkin, Eric Goldman, Ethan Leib, Sophia Lee, Greg Klass, Florencia Marotta-Wurgler, Melanie McMenamin, Lior Strahilevitz, Rick Swedloff, Michael Risch, Tess Wilkinson-Ryan, David Wishnick, and participants at faculty workshops at the University of Pennsylvania, Boston University, UC Hastings, Villanova University, University of Chicago, and the Second Empirical Contracts Working Group provided useful feedback.

Consumer contract theory is myopically focused on the unread fine print. Because consumers don’t read their contracts, firms can make “hidden” terms worse without lowering prices.