Article

Print
Article
88.1
The Comparative Constitutional Law of Presidential Impeachment
Tom Ginsburg
Leo Spitz Professor of International Law and Ludwig and Hilde Wolf Research Scholar, The University of Chicago Law School.

For helpful discussions, the authors thank Joshua Braver, Yoav Dotan, Roberto Dalledone Machado Filho, Juliano Zaiden Benvindo, Sabrina Ragone, Jeong-In Yun, and participants at the ICON-S Conference in Santiago, Chile, July 2019, as well as workshops at Georgetown University Law Center, the University of Chicago Law School, University of Maryland Carey School of Law, NYU School of Law, Vanderbilt Law School, and the University of California-Berkeley School of Law. Thanks to Young Hun Kim for providing useful data and to Kali Cilli and Delhon Braaten for research assistance.

Aziz Huq
Frank and Bernice N. Greenberg Professor of Law, The University of Chicago Law School.
David Landau
Mason Ladd Professor and Associate Dean for International Programs, Florida State University College of Law.
The president must go! Thus rings the call across many democracies, including our own.
Print
Article
87.8
Exporting American Discovery
Yanbai Andrea Wang
Assistant Professor of Law, University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School.

For generous conversations and comments, I am grateful to Aziza Ahmed, Kevin Benish, Pamela Bookman, Beth Burch, Guy‑Uriel Charles, Kevin Clermont, Zachary Clopton, Brooke Coleman, William Dodge, David Engstrom, Nora Engstrom, George Fisher, Maggie Gardner, Myriam Gilles, Jasmine Harris, Larry Helfer, Deborah Hensler, Aziz Huq, Mark Kelman, Amalia Kessler, Tim Lovelace, Rick Marcus, Doug Melamed, Jenny Martinez, Anne O’Connell, Katerina Ossenova, Aaron Simowitz, Shirin Sinnar, David Sklansky, David Sloss, Norman Spaulding, Al Sykes, Justin Weinstein-Tull, Steve Yeazell, Diego Zambrano, as well as participants at the American Society of International Law Research Forum, Annual Civil Procedure Workshop, Bay Area Civil Procedure Forum, Emerging Scholars Workshop, Grey Fellows Forum, Junior Faculty Federal Courts Workshop, Northern California International Law Scholars Workshop, “The Extraterritorial State” Symposium at Willamette, and workshops at UC Berkeley, Boston College, Cardozo Law, Cornell, UC Davis, Duke, Emory, the University of Florida, Fordham, Georgetown, the University of Michigan, the University of Pennsylvania, and the University of Virginia. For exceptional research assistance, I thank Alexis Abboud, Douglas Callahan, Wesley DeVoll, Jeffrey Ho, Aletha Dell Smith, Sam Sherman, and Leonardo Villalobos. Thanks also to the thoughtful editors of The University of Chicago Law Review.

Across the country, federal courts now routinely have a hand in the resolution of foreign civil disputes. They do so by compelling discovery in the United States—typically as much discovery as would be available for a lawsuit adjudicated in federal district court—and making it available for use in foreign civil proceedings governed by different procedural rules.
Print
Article
87.8
The Myth of Creditor Sabotage
Vincent S.J. Buccola
Assistant Professor, The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.

This Article was substantially written while Mah and Zhang were undergraduates, and it reflects neither the opinions of nor nonpublic information about their employers. The authors thank Ken Ayotte, Allison Buccola, Saul Levmore, Josh Macey, Adriana Robertson, Mike Simkovic, David Skeel, Matt Turk, and participants at a Wharton faculty workshop for criticism of defunct drafts.

Jameson K. Mah
Investment Analyst, Cyrus Capital Partners. BS (Economics), The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.
Tai Zhang
Analyst. BS (Economics), The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.

A basic assumption in the standard paradigm of corporate finance is that a company’s investors want the company to succeed. To be sure, investors of different classes—stockholders and bondholders, for example—bear risk and reward unequally.

Print
Article
87.7
Frankfurter, Abstention Doctrine, and the Development of Modern Federalism: A History and Three Futures
Lael Weinberger
Raoul Berger-Mark DeWolfe Howe Legal History Fellow, Harvard Law School.

For helpful conversations and thoughtful feedback that made this Article better, I am grateful to Patrick Barry, William Baude, Lisa Bernstein, Samuel Bray, Zachary Clopton, Michael Collins, Richard Epstein, Patrick Fuster, Daniel Hemel, Zac Henderson, Aziz Huq, Daniel Kelly, Adam Mortara, Michael Solimine, Manuel Valle, Laura Weinrib, Hon. Diane Wood, Ilan Wurman, and participants in workshops and conferences at the University of Chicago, Loyola University Chicago, and the American Association of Law Schools. Thanks also to the editors of The University of Chicago Law Review for their hard work and helpful input.

The Supreme Court did not use the term “federalism” in any opinions in its first 150 years. The Court had (of course) previously talked about federal-state relations, but it did so without the term “federalism”—it preferred a different vocabulary, discussing the police powers of the states and the enumerated powers of the federal government.

2
Article
87.6
The Adjudicative Model of Precedent
Charles W. Tyler
Visiting Professor of Law and Executive Director, Constitutional Law Center, Stan-ford Law School.

For excellent comments and suggestions, I thank Michael Abramowicz, Will Baude, Sam Bray, Aaron-Andrew Bruhl, Christian Burset, Jud Campbell, Ray Campbell, Nathan Chapman, Michael Dorf, David Freeman Engstrom, Nora Freeman Engstrom, Abbe Gluck, Jacob Goldin, John Harrison, David Hyman, Ben Johnson, Hajin Kim, Randy Kozel, Marin Levy, Daniel Markovits, Michael McConnell, Tracey Meares, Anne Joseph O’Connell, James Phillips, Zach Price, Jane Schacter, Geoff Sigalet, Shirin Sinnar, David Sklansky, Norm Spaulding, Mark Storslee, Diego Zambrano, and participants at the Civil Procedure Workshop and the Peking University School of Transnational Law Faculty Workshop. Ben Gibson, Emily Goldenberg, Benjamin Keener, Ariella Park, Austin Peters, and Victor Xu provided excellent research assistance. Finally, I am grateful to the federal judges who agreed to be interviewed for this project and to the indefatigable editorial team at The University of Chicago Law Review.

2
Article
87.6
Political Questions and the Ultra Vires Conundrum
Richard H. Fallon Jr
Story Professor of Law, Harvard Law School.

I am grateful to Rachel Barkow, Curt Bradley, Tara Grove, Vicki Jackson, John Manning, Daphna Renan, Mark Tushnet, and Amanda Tyler for extraordinarily helpful comments on a prior draft, to participants at Harvard Law School’s Public Law Workshop for illuminating questions and suggestions, and to Grayson Clary, Ian Eppler, Emily Massey, and Alex Slessarev for superb research assistance.

2
Article
87.5
The First Amendment’s Real Lochner Problem
Genevieve Lakier
Assistant Professor of Law and Herbert and Marjorie Fried Teaching Scholar, The University of Chicago Law School

Thanks to Monica Bell, Rabia Belt, Amy J. Cohen, Andrew Crespo, Aziz Huq, Elizabeth Kamali, Michael Kang, Andy Koppelman, Anna Lvovsky, Richard McAdams, Robert Post, John Rappaport, Daphna Renan, Geoffrey Stone, Nelson Tebbe, and participants at the University of Virginia and Northwestern University Law School Public Law Workshops, the University of Chicago and Vanderbilt Law School Work-in-Progress Workshops, and the Freedom of Expression Scholars Conference for thoughtful feedback, and to Graham Haviland and Elisabeth Mayer for excellent research assistance.Thanks to Monica Bell, Rabia Belt, Amy J. Cohen, Andrew Crespo, Aziz Huq, Elizabeth Kamali, Michael Kang, Andy Koppelman, Anna Lvovsky, Richard McAdams, Robert Post, John Rappaport, Daphna Renan, Geoffrey Stone, Nelson Tebbe, and participants at the University of Virginia and Northwestern University Law School Public Law Workshops, the University of Chicago and Vanderbilt Law School Work-in-Progress Workshops, and the Freedom of Expression Scholars Conference for thoughtful feedback, and to Graham Haviland and Elisabeth Mayer for excellent research assistance.

2
Article
87.5
A Mission Statement for Mutual Funds in Shareholder Litigation
Sean J. Griffith
T.J. Maloney Chair and Professor of Law, Fordham Law School.
Dorothy S. Lund
Assistant Professor of Law, University of Southern California, Gould School of Law.

Thanks to Alon Brav, William Birdthistle, Erik Gerding, Dan Klerman, RobertRasmussen, Michael Simkovic, Leo Strine Jr, and David Webber for thoughtful comments and input. This draft has benefited from comments received at the Boston University Law Review Symposium, the Corporate and Securities Litigation Workshop, the National Business Law Scholars Conference, the Southern California Business Law Workshop, and from workshops at Harvard Law School, the University of Minnesota Law School, the University of Southern California Gould School of Law, and Vanderbilt Law School. We are also grateful for conversations with plaintiffs’ attorneys and mutual fund representatives who wish to remain anonymous. Finally, thanks to Taylor Apodaca, Benjamin Bloodstein, Matthew Schob, Kevin Sette, and Dmytro Usyk for superlative research assistance. The viewpoints and any errors expressed herein are the authors’ alone.

Print
Article
87.4
The Case for Noncompetes
Jonathan M. Barnett
Torrey H. Webb Professor, University of Southern California, Gould School of Law.

We thank Shyam Balganesh, Norman Bishara, Michael Burstein, Richard Castanon, Bryan Choi, Victor Fleischer, Lee Fleming, Ronald Gilson, John Goldberg, Robert Gomulkiewicz, Charles Tait Graves, Michael Guttentag, Ryan Holte, Justin Hughes, David Levine, Orly Lobel, Greg Mandel, Karl Mannheim, Matt Marx, Adam Mossoff, Natasha Nayak, Ruth Okediji, David Orozco, Eric Posner, Greg Reilly, Michael Risch, Ben Sachs, David Schwartz, Joseph Singer, Henry Smith, Kathy Spier, Matt Stephenson, James Stern, Olav Sorenson, Evan Starr, David Taylor, Saurabh Vishnubhakat, Polk Wagner, and Stephen Yelderman, as well as attendees at the 2015 Works in Progress in Intellectual Property Conference, the 2017 Conference of the American Law and Economics Association, and workshops at Harvard Law School, University of Pennsylvania Law School, Loyola Law School, Los Angeles, the Center for Law and the Social Sciences at the University of Southern California School of Law, and the University of San Diego School of Law for their helpful discussions and comments on prior versions of this paper. We also thank Carolyn Ginno, Matthew Arnold, Anna Ayar, Vanand Baroni, Haley Dumas, Ryan Foley, David Javidzad, Rachel Stariha, and Millicent Whitemore for their valuable research assistance.

Ted Sichelman
Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of Law.

On February 23, 2017, two titans of Silicon Valley went to war in federal court: Google filed a lawsuit against Uber, accusing it of using intellectual property allegedly stolen by one of the lead engineers on Waymo, Google’s self-driving automotive subsidiary. Specifically, Google alleged that Anthony Levandowski had misappropriated Google’s intellectual property before departing (along with other Google engineers) to found Otto, a self-driving car startup subsequently acquired by Uber for $680 million.

Print
Article
87.4
The Spectrum of Procedural Flexibility
Ronen Avraham
Professor of Law, Tel Aviv University Faculty of Law; Lecturer, University of Texas at Austin School of Law.

We are grateful for comments from 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 School of Law, as well as the 2018 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.

William H.J. Hubbard
Professor of Law, The University of Chicago Law School.

Introduction

Volumes