Article

Print
Article
85.6
A New Market-Based Approach to Securities Law
Kevin S. Haeberle
Associate Professor of Law, William & Mary Law School
M. Todd Henderson
Michael J. Marks Professor of Law and Mark Claster Mamolen Research Scholar, University of Chicago Law School

Many scholars have proposed market-based solutions to the well-known shortcomings of modern securities law.

Print
Article
85.5
War Manifestos
Oona A. Hathaway
Gerard C. and Bernice Latrobe Smith Professor of International Law, Yale Law School

We thank Drew Adan, Alison Burke, Ann-Marie Cooper, Clément Dupuy, Jason Eiseman, Sarah Kraus, Evelyn Ma, John Nann, Michael VanderHeijden, and especially Ryan Harrington, who hunted down, translated, and analyzed manuscripts, manifestos, archival materials, and rare books from libraries and collections all around the world, and Theresa Cullen for her leadership of the Yale Law School Library, without which this project would not have been possible. We are grateful to Stuart Shirrell for his assistance with the data analysis. We are indebted to our research assistants, who brought to the project outstanding legal research skills, analytical expertise, and extraordinary language skills, including Classical Chinese, Latin, French, German, Portuguese, Dutch, Italian, and Ottoman Turkish: Nico Banac, Jacob Bennett, Perot Bissell, Johannes Buchheim, Varun Char, Idriss Fofana, Jade Ford, Ole Hinz, Michelle Huang, Sameer Jaywant, Aubrey Jones, Tobias Kuehne, Ling-wei Kung, Steve Lance, Ji Ma, Gregor Novak, Pedro Ramirez, Britta Redwood, Bonnie Robinson, Elisa Ronzheimer, James Rumsey-Merlan, Daniel Schwennicke, Ingmar Samyn, Mary Ella Simmons, David Stanton, Evan Welber, and Thorsten Wilhelm. We also thank participants in the Vanderbilt Law School works-in-progress workshop and Yale Law School faculty workshop for their immensely helpful feedback.

William S. Holste
Associate, Shearman & Sterling LLP
Scott J. Shapiro
Charles F. Southmayd Professor of Law and Philosophy at Yale Law School
Jacqueline Van De Velde
JD, Yale Law School, 2017
Lisa Wang Lachowicz
Associate, Debevoise & Plimpton LLP

The UN Charter provides that states are prohibited from the “threat or use of force” against other sovereign states.

Print
Article
85.5
State Bureaucratic Undermining
Justin Weinstein-Tull
Associate Professor, Arizona State University College of Law

I am grateful to the readers who made this paper what it is, the teachers who gave more support than I deserve, and the friends who inexplicably saw brightness throughout.

Turbulence rocks the federal government, and it is now faddish to romanticize states as sites of resistance.

Print
Article
85.4
Cost-Benefits Analysis and the Judicial Role
Jonathan S. Masur
John P. Wilson Professor of Law and David and Celia Hilliard Research Scholar, The University of Chicago Law School

Thanks to David Driesen, Jerry Ellig, Jake Gersen, Daniel Hemel, Jennifer Nou, Cathy Sharkey, David Strauss, Cass Sunstein, Kip Viscusi, and participants at workshops at The University of Chicago Law School and Syracuse Law School for helpful comments, to the Russell Baker Scholars Fund, the David and Celia Hilliard Fund, and the Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz Program in Behavioral Law, Finance and Economics for research support, and to Mei Ying Barnes, Hanan Cidor, Kathrine Gutierrez, Christina McClintock, Isabella Nascimento, Holly Newell, and Michael Wheat for excellent research assistance.

Eric A. Posner
Kirkland & Ellis Distinguished Service Professor and Arthur and Esther Kane Research Chair, The University of Chicago Law School

CBA is a decision procedure whose normative basis is what Professor Matthew Adler and one of us has called weak welfarism. Welfarism is the principle that the well-being of people is morally important.

Cost-Benefit Analysis
Print
Article
85.4
Citizens of the State
Maeve Glass
Associate Professor of Law, Columbia Law School

For helpful comments on earlier drafts, many thanks to Tomiko Brown-Nagin, Jessica Bulman-Pozen, Christine Desan, Einer Elhauge, Elizabeth F. Emens, Marie-Amélie George, Noah Glass, Jeffrey Gordon, Annette Gordon-Reed, Jamal Greene, Ariela J. Gross, Hendrik Hartog, Bert I. Huang, Freya Irani, Olatunde C. Johnson, Jeremy Kessler, Ryan Liss, Kenneth W. Mack, Jane Manners, Henry P. Monaghan, Shaun Ossei-Owusu, Christina Duffy Ponsa-Kraus, Vlad Perju, David Pozen, Alex Raskolnikov, Martha A. Sandweiss, Carol Sanger, Matthew A. Shapiro, Emily Stolzenberg, Sarah L. Swan, Sean Wilentz, and Rebecca E. Zietlow, as well as the editors of The University of Chicago Law Review and participants in the Columbia Law School Associates and Fellows Workshop, the Harvard Legal History Workshop, and the American Society for Legal History.

In the midst of a New England winter long ago, young people of Boston filed into a drafty meeting hall up the road from the harbor. They had assembled on that January morning in 1839 for the seventh annual meeting of the New England Anti-Slavery Society.

Constitutional Law
1
Article
Severing Unconstitutional Amendments
James Durling
Yale Law School, JD Candidate, 2018
E. Garrett West
Yale Law School, JD Candidate, 2018

Thanks to John Brinkerhoff, Abbe Gluck, Ted Lee, Daryl Levinson, Scott Levy, and Mike Showalter for helpful comments and conversations. Thanks also to the careful editors at the University of Chicago Law Review. All errors are our own.

Constitutional Law
Print
Article
85.3
Rethinking Family-Court Prosecutors: Elected and Agency Prosecutors and Prosecutorial Discretion in Juvenile Delinquency and Child Protection Cases
Josh Gupta-Kagan
Assistant Professor of Law, University of South Carolina School of Law

The author would like to thank Albertina Antognini, Annette Appell, Elizabeth Chambliss, Martin Guggenheim, Avni Gupta-Kagan, Clare Huntington, Cortney Lollar, Adrian Smith, Robin Walker-Sterling, and participants in a faculty workshop at the University of Kentucky College of Law and Duke Law School’s 2015 conference on civil rights, “The Present and Future of Civil Rights Movements: Race and Reform in 21st Century America,” for thoughtful comments on earlier drafts. The author would like to thank Joni Gerrity for excellent research assistance.

The law and the academy have long recognized criminal prosecutors’ immense power, especially the power to determine which cases to prosecute and which not to. Less attention has been focused on related issues in juvenile delinquency and child protection cases litigated in state family courts.
Children and Families Criminal Law
Print
Article
85.3
Defining Flight Risk
Lauryn P. Gouldin
Associate Professor, Syracuse University College of Law; JD, New York University School of Law; AB, Princeton University

I thank the Criminal Justice Section of the Association of American Law Schools for honoring this work as the First Runner-Up in the 2017 Junior Scholars Paper Competition. For their thoughtful comments and feedback, I am grateful to Laura Appleman, Shima Baradaran Baughman, Todd Berger, Keith Bybee, Michael Cahill, Nicolas Commandeur, Jessica Eaglin, Nicole Smith Futrell, Cynthia Godsoe, Russell Gold, Nina Kohn, Corinna Lain, Kate Levine, Sandy Mayson, Janet Moore, Lauren Ouziel, Ellen Podgor, Anna Roberts, Laurent Sacharoff, Tim Schnacke, Jocelyn Simonson, Cora True-Frost, and Sam Wiseman. Thank you also to the participants in the NYC Markelloquium at Brooklyn Law School; the participants in the 2016 AALS Hot Topics program, “Responding to the Money Bail Crisis”; the participants in CrimFest 2016 at Cardozo Law School; and the participants in the Junior Scholars Criminal Justice Roundtable at Brooklyn Law School and St. John’s University School of Law. With much appreciation also to Hillary Anderson, S. Alex Berlucchi, Jordan Charnetsky, Irem Karacal, David Katz, Amy Rhinehardt, and Erin Shea for outstanding research assistance. I am also indebted to Kyle Jorstad, Pat Ward, Carly Gibbs, John McAdams, Eian Katz, and the other editors of The University of Chicago Law Review for their insightful suggestions.

The number of low-risk defendants who spend time in pretrial detention in this country is staggering: “Every year, more than 11 million people move through America’s 3,100 local jails, many on low-level, non-violent misdemeanors.”

Criminal Defense
Print
Article
85.3
Courts, Congress, and the Conduct of Foreign Relations
Kristen E. Eichensehr
Assistant Professor, UCLA School of Law

For their generous engagement with this project, I am grateful to Aslı Bâli, Will Baude, Curt Bradley, Sam Bray, Josh Chafetz, Zach Clopton, Stephen Gardbaum, Carole Goldberg, Robert Goldstein, Jon Michaels, Kal Raustiala, Richard Re, Ryan Scoville, Shirin Sinnar, Stephen Vladeck, the editors of The University of Chicago Law Review, and participants in the Junior Faculty Federal Courts Workshop, Southern California International Law Scholars Workshop, and UCLA School of Law Summer Works-in-Progress Workshop. Andrew Brown, Nicholas Garver, Danielle Hesse, and Joshua Ostrer provided excellent research assistance.

In the US constitutional system, the executive branch generally conducts foreign relations. But in recent years, the nonexecutive branches—the judiciary and Congress—have challenged the exclusivity of the president’s authority to conduct foreign relations by opening direct channels of communication with foreign governments’ executive branches.

Courts International Law
Print
Article
85.2
Courts’ Limited Ability to Protect Constitutional Rights
Adam S. Chilton
Assistant Professor of Law and Walter Ma nder Research Scholar, The University of Chicago Law School
Mila Versteeg
Professor of Law, University of Virgin ia School of Law
In October 2015, Poland’s newly elected conservative government moved swiftly to neutralize the country’s Constitutional Tribunal.
Constitutional Law Courts

Volumes