Print
Essay
Volume 89.2
Identifying and Measuring Excessive and Discriminatory Policing
Alex Chohlas-Wood
Executive Director, Stanford Computational Policy Lab
Marissa Gerchick
Data Scientist, Stanford Computational Policy Lab.
Sharad Goel
Professor of Public Policy, Harvard Kennedy School.
Aziz Z. Huq
Frank and Bernice J. Greenberg Professor of Law, University of Chicago.
Amy Shoemaker
Data Scientist, Stanford Computational Policy Lab.
Ravi Shroff
Assistant Professor of Applied Statistics, New York University.
Keniel Yao
Data Scientist, Stanford Computational Policy Lab.

We describe and apply three empirical approaches to identify superfluous police activity, unjustified racially disparate impacts, and limits to regulatory interventions.

Print
Essay
Volume 89.2
Racially Territorial Policing in Black Neighborhoods
Elise C. Boddie
Henry Rutgers Professor, Professor of Law, and Judge Robert L. Carter Scholar, Rutgers Law School.

I thank Michelle Adams, Devon W. Carbado, Don Herzog, and R.A. Lenhardt for their very helpful comments and feedback. Any errors are my own.

This Essay explores police practices that marginalize Black people by limiting their freedom of movement across the spaces of Black neighborhoods.

Print
Essay
Volume 89.2
Barbed Wire Fences: The Structural Violence of Education Law
LaToya Baldwin Clark
Assistant Professor, University of California, Los Angeles, School of Law.

I thank Guy-Uriel Charles, Hiba Hafiz, Osamudia James, Etienne Toussaint, the participants of this Symposium and the Culp Colloquia, as well as the excellent editors of the University of Chicago Law Review. To William, Ahmir, Amina, and Ahmad: thank you for giving me the time, space, and motivation to write about issues that matter to me. All mistakes are mine.

In this Essay, I argue that, in urban metros like Chicago, poor Black children are victims of not just gun violence but also the structural violence of systemic educational stratification.

Print
Essay
Volume 89.2
An Abolitionist Critique of Violence
Allegra McLeod
Professor, Georgetown University Law Center.

I wish to thank Sherally Munshi, Erum Kidwai, Saba Rewald, and participants at the University of Chicago Law School’s Symposium on violence for their engagement with this project. I am also most grateful to the abolitionist organizers, writers, and thinkers whose work to confront violence expands our collective imagination and contributes much to the realization of a more peaceful and just world.

This article proceeds by engaging the critical reflections, writing, organizing, and imaginative visions of contemporary abolitionists who are confronting the sources of violence by building solidaristic and equitable economic alternatives, proliferating peaceful and constructive approaches to violence that do not rely on militarized criminal law enforcement, working to reallocate resources from militarism toward human flourishing, and to commence a just transition to more environmentally sustainable forms of organizing human life on earth.

Print
Essay
Volume 89.2
Cities, Preemption, and the Statutory Second Amendment
Joseph Blocher
Lanty L. Smith ’67 Professor of Law, Duke Law School.

Many thanks to Richard Briffault, Jacob Charles, Aziz Huq, Darrell A.H. Miller, Richard Schragger, and Rachel Simon for comments and to participants in this symposium and the State & Local Government Works-in-Progress Conference at Willamette University College of Law.

Although the Second Amendment tends to dominate the discussion about legal limits on gun regulation, nothing has done more to shape the state of urban gun law than state preemption laws, which fully or partially limit cities’ ability to regulate guns at the local level. The goals of this short Essay are to shed light on this “Statutory Second Amendment” and to provide a basic framework for evaluating it.

Print
Article
Volume 89.1
Civil Procedure as the Regulation of Externalities: Toward a New Theory of Civil Litigation
Ronen Avraham
Professor of Law, Tel Aviv University Faculty of Law; Lecturer, University of Texas at Austin School of Law
William H.J. Hubbard
Professor of Law, The University of Chicago Law School.

We are grateful for comments from Lynn Baker, Bob Bone, Alon Klement, Shay Lavie, Jay Tidmarsh, Diego Zambrano, and participants at the Law Faculty Workshops at the University of Chicago, the University of Notre Dame, Tel Aviv University, and the University of Texas, as well as the ALEA Annual Meetings. We thank Ramon Feldbrin, Kathryn Garcia, Sakina Haji, Deanna Hall, Adam Picker, Jill Rogowski, and Kelly Yin for valuable research assistance. William Hubbard thanks the Paul H. Leffmann Fund and the Jerome F. Kutak Faculty Fund for research support. An earlier version of this Article was titled “Procedural Flexibility in Three Dimensions.”

Civil procedure serves a multitude of goals, from regulating the cost of fact gathering to dictating the rules of advocacy in court to promoting public participation in trials. To what extent can procedural design serve them all, or must rules sacrifice some interests to serve others? In this Article, we are the first to introduce a theory of procedural design that answers this question.

Print
Article
Volume 89.1
Remembering: The Constitution and Federally Funded Apartheid
Joy Milligan
Professor, the University of Virginia School of Law.

For helpful feedback, I thank Abhay Aneja, Darby Aono, Abbye Atkinson, Emily Bruce, Guy-Uriel Charles, Erwin Chemerinsky, Gabriel Chin, David Engstrom, Jonathan Glater, Michele Gilman, Becca Goldstein, Jon Gould, Kristen Holmquist, Olatunde Johnson, Daryl Levinson, Melissa Murray, Saira Mohamed, Tejas Narechania, Manisha Padi, Michael Pinard, Richard Primus, Bertrall Ross, Erik Stallman, Aaron Tang, Karen Tani, Rebecca Wexler, and participants in the Northern California Junior Faculty Workshop, Loyola Constitutional Law Colloquium, Poverty Law Mini-Workshop, AALS Civil Rights Section Works-in-Progress, NYU Constitutional Theory Colloquium, and the law faculty workshops at Duke, UCLA, the University of Miami, the University of Michigan, and the University of Virginia. I am grateful to the University of Chicago Law Review staff for their exceptional editing, and to Maya Campbell, Toni Mendicino, Talia Stender, and Graham Wyatt for their excellent research assistance.

The substantive Fifth Amendment ideal of preventing the federal government from aiding systemic discrimination receded because of increasing challenges to its substance, judicial fatigue with institutional oversight, and the sweeping scope of the problem—along with collective amnesia regarding the prior decades of constitutional struggle. This Article reveals that forgotten constitutional history. After excavating the Fifth Amendment struggles, I argue that the no-aid norm, and the underlying reality of long-term federal participation in racial apartheid, should be remembered and debated once again.

Print
Article
Volume 89.1
Foreign Dictators in U.S. Court
Diego A. Zambrano
Associate Professor, Stanford Law School.

This Article received an honorable mention in the national 2021 Association of American Law Schools Scholarly Papers Competition, awarded on a blind basis by a committee of established scholars. For thoughtful comments and conversations, I thank Pam Bookman, Curtis Bradley, John Coyle, William Dodge, Robin Effron, Maggie Gardner, Tom Ginsburg, Manuel Gómez, Aziz Huq, Erik Jensen, Chimène Keitner, Michael McConnell, David Sklansky, Beth Van Schaack, Allen Weiner, Ingrid Wuerth, and participants at the Junior International Law Scholars Association conference. I am most grateful to Mackenzie Austin and Chris Meyer for invaluable research assistance and also thank Alice Bishop, Nitisha Baronia, and Mathew Simkovits for their help.

The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, the court-created “act of state” doctrine, and other common-law immunities shield foreign officials and governments from most lawsuits. For instance, courts have dismissed claims against China, Cuba, Venezuela, and Russia over allegations of torture, detentions, and election interference. Yet foreign governments have unfettered access to U.S. courts as plaintiffs. And foreign dictatorships—including Russia, China, Turkey, and Venezuela—have leveraged this access to harass political dissidents, critics, and even newspapers in the United States. These doctrines create an asymmetry at the heart of this Article: foreign dictators and their proxies can access our courts as plaintiffs to harass their opponents, but their regimes are, in turn, immune from lawsuits here. This Article exposes that asymmetry and argues that U.S. courts and Congress should make it harder for foreign dictators to abuse our legal system.

Print
Comment
Volume 89.1
The Power of Attorneys: Addressing the Equal Protection Challenge to Merit-Based Judicial Selection
Zachary Reger
B.J. & B.A. 2017, University of Missouri; J.D. Candidate 2022, The University of Chicago Law School.

Many thanks to the staffers and editors of the University of Chicago Law Review for their helpful comments on this piece.

This Comment responds to the equal protection challenge to merit selection. It argues that merit selection is constitutional by way of multiple exceptions, both recognized and implicit, to the “one person, one vote” principle. And though critics of merit selection often couch their arguments in prodemocratic terms, this Comment argues that merit selection—like the “one person, one vote” principle—promotes rather than thwarts the will of the people.

Print
Comment
In Defense of 5G: National Security and Patent Rights Under the Public Interest Factors
Kenny Mok
B.A. 2016, Northwestern University; J.D. Candidate 2021, The University of Chicago Law School.

A big thank you to Professor Jonathan Masur for his advice on this piece.

From 2017 to 2019, two U.S. technology giants, Apple and Qualcomm, engaged in a war of patent suits across the world. One battle took place at the International Trade Commission (ITC), a federal agency that prevents patent-infringing products from entering the United States.

Print
Comment
Intellectual Property Norms in American Theater
Kelly Gregg
B.A. 2015, Stanford University; J.D. Candidate 2022, The University of Chicago Law School.

Thank you to the editors of the University of Chicago Law Review, especially Will Strench, Conley Hurst, Henry Walter, and Tyler Wood.

Professor Robert Ellickson has proposed that a close-knit community will develop rules, customs, and traditions addressing property that maximize the group’s welfare—independent of government intervention.