Print
Article
85.4
Cost-Benefits Analysis and the Judicial Role
Jonathan S. Masur
John P. Wilson Professor of Law and David and Celia Hilliard Research Scholar, The University of Chicago Law School

Thanks to David Driesen, Jerry Ellig, Jake Gersen, Daniel Hemel, Jennifer Nou, Cathy Sharkey, David Strauss, Cass Sunstein, Kip Viscusi, and participants at workshops at The University of Chicago Law School and Syracuse Law School for helpful comments, to the Russell Baker Scholars Fund, the David and Celia Hilliard Fund, and the Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz Program in Behavioral Law, Finance and Economics for research support, and to Mei Ying Barnes, Hanan Cidor, Kathrine Gutierrez, Christina McClintock, Isabella Nascimento, Holly Newell, and Michael Wheat for excellent research assistance.

Eric A. Posner
Kirkland & Ellis Distinguished Service Professor and Arthur and Esther Kane Research Chair, The University of Chicago Law School

CBA is a decision procedure whose normative basis is what Professor Matthew Adler and one of us has called weak welfarism. Welfarism is the principle that the well-being of people is morally important.

Print
Article
85.4
Citizens of the State
Maeve Glass
Associate Professor of Law, Columbia Law School

For helpful comments on earlier drafts, many thanks to Tomiko Brown-Nagin, Jessica Bulman-Pozen, Christine Desan, Einer Elhauge, Elizabeth F. Emens, Marie-Amélie George, Noah Glass, Jeffrey Gordon, Annette Gordon-Reed, Jamal Greene, Ariela J. Gross, Hendrik Hartog, Bert I. Huang, Freya Irani, Olatunde C. Johnson, Jeremy Kessler, Ryan Liss, Kenneth W. Mack, Jane Manners, Henry P. Monaghan, Shaun Ossei-Owusu, Christina Duffy Ponsa-Kraus, Vlad Perju, David Pozen, Alex Raskolnikov, Martha A. Sandweiss, Carol Sanger, Matthew A. Shapiro, Emily Stolzenberg, Sarah L. Swan, Sean Wilentz, and Rebecca E. Zietlow, as well as the editors of The University of Chicago Law Review and participants in the Columbia Law School Associates and Fellows Workshop, the Harvard Legal History Workshop, and the American Society for Legal History.

In the midst of a New England winter long ago, young people of Boston filed into a drafty meeting hall up the road from the harbor. They had assembled on that January morning in 1839 for the seventh annual meeting of the New England Anti-Slavery Society.

Print
Comment
85.3
Righting Categorical Wrongs: A Holistic Solution to Rule 8(a)’s Same-or-Similar-Character Prong
Matthew Deates
BA 2012, University of Minnesota; JD Candidate 2018, The University of Chicago Law School

I would like to thank Professor Alison Siegler for introducing me to the law on joinder. This Comment would not exist without her guidance and support. I would also like to thank the talented editors of the Law Review for their helpful comments and suggestions.

A criminal defendant is charged with wire fraud in violation of 18 USC § 1343. As he and his defense attorney prepare for trial, the US Attorney’s Office notifies him that there is reason to believe he has previously committed bankruptcy fraud in violation of 18 USC § 152.

Print
Article
85.3
Rethinking Family-Court Prosecutors: Elected and Agency Prosecutors and Prosecutorial Discretion in Juvenile Delinquency and Child Protection Cases
Josh Gupta-Kagan
Assistant Professor of Law, University of South Carolina School of Law

The author would like to thank Albertina Antognini, Annette Appell, Elizabeth Chambliss, Martin Guggenheim, Avni Gupta-Kagan, Clare Huntington, Cortney Lollar, Adrian Smith, Robin Walker-Sterling, and participants in a faculty workshop at the University of Kentucky College of Law and Duke Law School’s 2015 conference on civil rights, “The Present and Future of Civil Rights Movements: Race and Reform in 21st Century America,” for thoughtful comments on earlier drafts. The author would like to thank Joni Gerrity for excellent research assistance.

The law and the academy have long recognized criminal prosecutors’ immense power, especially the power to determine which cases to prosecute and which not to. Less attention has been focused on related issues in juvenile delinquency and child protection cases litigated in state family courts.
Print
Article
85.3
Defining Flight Risk
Lauryn P. Gouldin
Associate Professor, Syracuse University College of Law; JD, New York University School of Law; AB, Princeton University

I thank the Criminal Justice Section of the Association of American Law Schools for honoring this work as the First Runner-Up in the 2017 Junior Scholars Paper Competition. For their thoughtful comments and feedback, I am grateful to Laura Appleman, Shima Baradaran Baughman, Todd Berger, Keith Bybee, Michael Cahill, Nicolas Commandeur, Jessica Eaglin, Nicole Smith Futrell, Cynthia Godsoe, Russell Gold, Nina Kohn, Corinna Lain, Kate Levine, Sandy Mayson, Janet Moore, Lauren Ouziel, Ellen Podgor, Anna Roberts, Laurent Sacharoff, Tim Schnacke, Jocelyn Simonson, Cora True-Frost, and Sam Wiseman. Thank you also to the participants in the NYC Markelloquium at Brooklyn Law School; the participants in the 2016 AALS Hot Topics program, “Responding to the Money Bail Crisis”; the participants in CrimFest 2016 at Cardozo Law School; and the participants in the Junior Scholars Criminal Justice Roundtable at Brooklyn Law School and St. John’s University School of Law. With much appreciation also to Hillary Anderson, S. Alex Berlucchi, Jordan Charnetsky, Irem Karacal, David Katz, Amy Rhinehardt, and Erin Shea for outstanding research assistance. I am also indebted to Kyle Jorstad, Pat Ward, Carly Gibbs, John McAdams, Eian Katz, and the other editors of The University of Chicago Law Review for their insightful suggestions.

The number of low-risk defendants who spend time in pretrial detention in this country is staggering: “Every year, more than 11 million people move through America’s 3,100 local jails, many on low-level, non-violent misdemeanors.”

Print
Article
85.3
Courts, Congress, and the Conduct of Foreign Relations
Kristen E. Eichensehr
Assistant Professor, UCLA School of Law

For their generous engagement with this project, I am grateful to Aslı Bâli, Will Baude, Curt Bradley, Sam Bray, Josh Chafetz, Zach Clopton, Stephen Gardbaum, Carole Goldberg, Robert Goldstein, Jon Michaels, Kal Raustiala, Richard Re, Ryan Scoville, Shirin Sinnar, Stephen Vladeck, the editors of The University of Chicago Law Review, and participants in the Junior Faculty Federal Courts Workshop, Southern California International Law Scholars Workshop, and UCLA School of Law Summer Works-in-Progress Workshop. Andrew Brown, Nicholas Garver, Danielle Hesse, and Joshua Ostrer provided excellent research assistance.

In the US constitutional system, the executive branch generally conducts foreign relations. But in recent years, the nonexecutive branches—the judiciary and Congress—have challenged the exclusivity of the president’s authority to conduct foreign relations by opening direct channels of communication with foreign governments’ executive branches.

Print
Essay
85.2
Against Constitutional Excess: Tocquevillian Reflections on International Investment Law
David Schneiderman
Faculty of Law and Department of Political Science (courtesy), University of Toronto

Political sociologist Claus Offe has diagnosed the participatory deficit in North Atlantic democracies as the product of an imbalance in state–market relations. When the market is supreme, public policy can do little to constrain the market’s ever-expanding realms.

Print
Essay
85.2
Autocratic Legalism
Kim Lane Scheppele
Laurance S. Rockefeller Professor of Sociology and International Affairs in the Woodrow Wilson School and University Center for Human Values, Princeton University

Research for this Essay was conducted while the author was Visiting Professor of Law and John Harvey Gregory Lecturer on World Organization, Harvard Law School, Spring 2017. She would like to thank the members of the Group on Autocratic Legalism (GOAL) at Harvard Law School, particularly Cem Tecimer, Isabel Roby, and Jakub Jozwiak for their excellent research assistance on Turkey, Venezuela, and Poland, respectively, as well as Mark Tushnet, Vicki Jackson, Scott Brewer, Oren Tamir, and others who attended these sessions for providing both a sounding board and new cases to consider. For valuable research assistance on Hungary, she would also like to thank Panna Balla of Harvard Law School and Cassie Emmons and Miklós Bánkuti, currently and formerly of Princeton. She also appreciates the daily counsel of Jan-Werner Müller, Dan Kelemen, Laurent Pech, Dimitry Kochenov, Tomasz Koncewicz, and Gábor Halmai for constant exchanges on these topics in real time. And she thanks participants in the symposium organized by Tom Ginsburg and Aziz Huq on The Limits of Constitutionalism, as well as the editors of The University of Chicago Law Review for insightful suggestions.

By now, we know the pattern: A constitutional democracy, flawed but in reasonably good standing, is hit by a transformative election.

Print
Essay
85.2
Populist Constitutions
David Landau
Mason Ladd Professor and Associate Dean for International Programs, Florida State University College of Law

With the rise of populist political leaders in the West, such as President Donald Trump and Marine Le Pen, the study of populism has become a central concern.

Print
Essay
85.2
Democracy’s Deficits
Samuel Issacharoff
Bonnie and Richard Reiss Professor of Constitutional Law, New York University School of Law

Prior versions of this Essay were presented as lectures at the School of Law of the University of Buenos Aires, the Faculty of Law of the University of São Paolo, the University of Texas School of Law, and at the American Philosophical Association Pacific Division Meeting in Vancouver. My deep appreciation goes to Gregory Crane, David Drew, and Stephen Levandoski for their research assistance.

History confounds certainty. Barely a quarter century after the collapse of the Soviet empire, it is democracy that has entered an intense period of public scrutiny.