Comment

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
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
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.

Print
Comment
87.7
California’s Proposition 47 and Effectuating State Laws in Federal Sentencing
Brenna Ledvora
BS 2015, Northwestern University; JD Candidate 2021, The University of Chicago Law School.

Vickie Sanders was convicted in a California state court of felony drug possession, sixteen years before California voters would pass Proposition 47. Proposition 47, which was passed in 2014, reduces most possessory drug offenses from felonies to misdemeanors, and allows California courts to retroactively redesignate individuals’ felonies as misdemeanors.

2
Comment
87.6
Statutes and Spokeo: The Case of the FDCPA
Jason R. Smith
AB 2018, The University of Chicago; JD Candidate 2021, The University of Chicago Law School.

Thank you to Jon Fish, Garrett Solberg, and all of the editors at The University of Chicago Law Review for their comments and advice.