Constitutional Law

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
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
84.3
Taming Cerberus: The Beast at AEDPA's Gates
Patrick J. Fuster
BA 2014, University of California, Berkeley; JD Candidate 2018, The University of Chicago Law School

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) established the current regime under which federal courts address petitions for a writ of habeas corpus by state prisoners.

Criminal Law Federalism Habeas Corpus
2
Article
Contrived Threats versus Uncontrived Warnings: A General Solution to the Puzzles of Contractual Duress, Unconstitutional Conditions, and Blackmail
Einer Elhauge
Carroll and Milton Petrie Professor of Law, Harvard Law School.

I am grateful for funding from the Petrie-Flom Center and Harvard Law School and for helpful comments from Michael Abramowicz, Jonathan Adler, Albert Alschuler, Scott Altman, Ian Ayres, William Baude, Adam Cox, Elizabeth Emens, Richard Fallon, Joe Farrell, Brian Fitzpatrick, Charles Fried, John Goldberg, Wendy Gordon, Rick Hills, Bert Huang, Daryl Levinson, John Manning, Eric Rasmusen, Chris Robertson, Louis Michael Seidman, Christopher Serkin, Steven Shavell, Suzanna Sherry, Sonja Starr, Matt Stephenson, Cass Sunstein, Mark Tushnet, Adrian Vermeule, Abe Wickelgren, and participants in the Harvard Law Faculty Workshop, the Harvard Law and Economics Workshop, the Vanderbilt Law Faculty Workshop, and the 2014 Yale conference on Medicare and Medicaid.

I.  Threats That Induce Contract Modifications

1
Essay
The West Wing, the Senate, and “The Supremes” (Redux)
Lisa McElroy
Associate Professor at Drexel University Thomas R. Kline School of Law.

This Essay borrows a few lines from an essay the author wrote for Slate in the days immediately following Justice Antonin Scalia’s death. See Lisa T. McElroy, This West Wing Episode Predicted the Controversy around Scalia’s Replacement in Eerie Detail (Slate, Feb 16, 2016), online at http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2016/02/16/the_west_wing_episode_the_supremes_prefigured_the_controversy_around_scalia.html (visited May 13, 2016) (Perma archive unavailable).

Or so said a talking head about Justice Antonin Scalia this spring, right?

Volumes