Headnotes

In Defense of Future Children: A Response to Cohen’s Beyond Best Interests

This essay responds to I. Glenn Cohen’s articles, Regulating Reproduction and Beyond Best Interests, by asserting that Cohen’s work fails to attain his goal of fundamentally shifting the terrain upon which discussions about exercising control over reproduction takes place. The response offers four interrelated observations about why Cohen’s work is ultimately unconvincing. First, his work [...]

Read More :: View PDF

Authentic Reproductive Regulation

In this response to I. Glenn Cohen’s article, Regulating Reproduction, Professor Crawford notes the ways in which Professor Cohen’s questioning of “best interests” logic challenges legal scholars to reexamine received wisdom. She then evaluates Professor Cohen’s critique of “best interests” in the context of income taxation of surrogates. Professor Crawford concludes that Professor Cohen’s “unmasking” [...]

Read More :: View PDF

Crawford v. Washington: What Would Justice Thomas Do?

In Crawford v. Washington, the Supreme Court overruled the Ohio v. Roberts “reliability” test for the admission of hearsay statements as against a Confrontation Clause objection in criminal cases. The Court did so in part on the basis that the Roberts test was inherently unpredictable. The Court replaced the Roberts test with a case-by-case analysis [...]

Read More :: View PDF

A Response to Professor I. Glenn Cohen’s Regulating Reproduction: The Problem with Best Interests

In this response to Professor I. Glenn Cohen’s article, Regulating Reproduction: The Problem with Best Interests, Professor Alvaré argues that rules restricting reproductive freedom serve an important societal purpose and need not be abandoned simply because they cannot be supported by a “best interests of the resulting child” (“BIRC”) rationale. Professor Alvaré acknowledges that such [...]

Read More :: View PDF

A Response to Appleton and Pollak

This article responds to Exploring the Connections Between Adoption and IVF: Twibling Analyses, by Professors Susan Frelich Appleton and Robert A. Pollak. Professors Cohen and Chen begin by emphasizing several valuable contributions made in Professors Appleton and Pollak’s article. Then, in an effort to crystallize a number of important points, Professors Cohen and Chen note [...]

Read More :: View PDF

News & Events

  • Follow MLR on Twitter!

    The Minnesota Law Review is proud to announce that we are now on Twitter. Follow us @MinnesotaLawRev for information and updates concerning the petition period and deadlines, the opening and closing of article submissions, our 2014 Symposium: Offenders in the Community, and all other news concerning our authors and publications. [...]

  • Vol. 97 Lead Piece Cited in Al Jazeera Opinion Piece

    A recent Al Jazeera opinion piece that criticizes the Supreme Court’s Daimler decision cites to Volume 97′s lead piece, How Business Fares in the Supreme Court. You can read the Al Jazeera piece here.

  • Masthead for Volume 99 Board

    The masthead for the Board of Volume 99 of the Minnesota Law Review is now available. You can view the masthead here.

  • Above the Law Post Highlights MLR‘s Jump in Journal Rankings

    A recent post on Above the Law highlights the fact that the Minnesota Law Review was ranked 11th in the most recent 2013 edition of the Washington & Lee Law Review Rankings. You can read the post here.

  • Vol. 97 Lead Piece Cited on Slate

    A recent Slate article on the Supreme Court’s decision not to hear the “Moldy Washing Machine” cases, or overturn class certification of those cases in some circuits, cites to the Volume 97 Lead Piece, How Business Fares in the Supreme Court. You can read the article here.

Newsletter

cforms contact form by delicious:days