Displaying 561 - 570 of 1304
Supreme Court Advocacy and the Separate Sovereigns Doctrine
https://lawreview.uchicago.edu/uclr-online/briefly-podcast/supreme-court-advocacy-and-separate-sovereigns-doctrine
This is Briefly, a production of the University of Chicago Law Review. Today we’re covering Supreme Court advocacy and the separate sovereigns doctrine with Michael Scodro, partner at Mayer Brown. We discuss Mr.
Originalism as Faithfulness
https://lawreview.uchicago.edu/online-archive/originalism-faithfulness
Eric Segall’s Originalism as Faith is a quick, easily-digestible summary of the conventional wisdom about the Supreme Court’s relationship to original meaning for large portions of the legal academy.
Volume 86.7 (November 2019) 1737-1981
https://lawreview.uchicago.edu/volume-867-november-2019-1737-1981
Articles
Reviewing Presidential OrdersLisa Manheim & Kathryn A. Watts
Settlement Malpractice
https://lawreview.uchicago.edu/print-archive/settlement-malpractice
Most clients likely believe that their lawyers have provided outstanding service in such contexts—and most clients are likely correct in that assessment. Given that most lawsuits settle3 and that lawyers play a central role in settlement negotiations and decision-making, however, we must assume that at least some lawyers sometimes fall short of the profession’s standards of care in the settlement context.
High-Value, Low-Value, and No-Value Guns: Applying Free Speech Law to the Second Amendment
https://lawreview.uchicago.edu/print-archive/high-value-low-value-and-no-value-guns-applying-free-speech-law-second-amendment
The Supreme Court ushered in a dramatic shift in Second Amendment jurisprudence in District of Columbia v Heller, holding that the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms for “the core lawful purpose of self-defense.” This decision made clear that possession of a firearm need not be tethered to service in a militia. But the Court left open significant questions regarding what exactly that newly defined right entails.
Reviewing Presidential Orders
https://lawreview.uchicago.edu/print-archive/reviewing-presidential-orders
In early 2017, a newly inaugurated President Donald J. Trump tried to force policy change through a flurry of written orders. While some opponents took to the streets to protest, others identified a different forum for resistance: the federal courts. Lawyers, mobilizing at a breakneck pace, sued the President in name to enjoin the implementation of several of his signature orders, including his first travel ban and an executive order involving sanctuary cities.