Headnotes

Substantial Government Interference with Prosecution Witnesses: The Ninth Circuit’s Decision in United States v. Juan

On January 7, 2013, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued its decision in United States v. Juan.  As a matter of first impression, the Ninth Circuit held that the constitutional proscription on substantial governmental interference with defense witnesses also applies to prosecution witnesses.  By extending the “substantial [...]

Read More :: View PDF

No Explanation Required? A Reply to Jeffrey Bellin’s eHearsay

You see why I tell you I ain’t want to be no damn juror. Some dude just come by my house and tell me he going pay me money to say not guilty. Now I don’t know what to do, because if I tell the judge they’re going to know it’s me. I know, right. [...]

Read More :: View PDF

Government Endorsement: A Reply to Nelson Tebbe’s Government Nonendorsement

In this response to Nelson Tebbe’s Government Nonendorsement, Abner Greene continues to develop his “thick perfectionist” view of government speech, arguing that the state may use its speech powers to advance various views of the good, from left, center, and right, even on controversial issues. Greene supports Tebbe’s view that there are some limits on [...]

Read More :: View PDF

Sonia Sotomayor: Role Model of Empathy and Purposeful Ambition

In writing her memoir, My Beloved World, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor expressly acknowledges that she is a public role model and embraces this responsibility by making herself accessible to a broad audience. As a public figure, she sees an opportunity to connect with others through an account of her life journey, with details [...]

Read More :: View PDF

Regulating Pollen

The most common allergen is pollen, and pollen causes the most common allergy, known as “hay fever.” While pollen allergies might appear to be the unavoidable cost of living with flowering plants, the suffering engendered by pollen allergies is largely our own creation. Plants will always flower, but people have built a world that increases [...]

Read More :: View PDF

A Global Collection: Reviewing The Global Limits of Competition Law

The Global Limits of Competition Law is the first installment in Daniel Sokol’s and Ioannis Lianos’s ambitious new series from Stanford University Press, Global Competition Law and Economics. The project is ambitious because it takes on a potentially unbounded topic, and one that is constantly changing. It is also ambitious because Sokol and Lianos enter [...]

Read More :: View PDF

When Too Little Is Too Much: Why the Supreme Court Should Either Explain Its Opinions or Keep Them to Itself

In 1972, the Supreme Court released what appears on its face to be one of the simplest opinions in its history. That decision, Baker v. Nelson, read, in its entirety: “The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.” That’s it. Eleven straightforward words. But, as is often the case in the law, [...]

Read More :: View PDF

Burying Best Interests of the Resulting Child: A Response to Professors Crawford, Alvaré, and Mutcherson

In this Article, Professor Cohen responds to Articles by Professors Crawford, Alvaré, and Mutcherson, who wrestle with the arguments he raises in Regulating Reproduction: The Problem with Best Interests and Beyond Best Interests.

Read More :: View PDF

More than Winners and Losers: The Importance of Moving Climate and Environmental Policy Debate Toward a More Transparent Process

Professor J.B. Ruhl’s article, The Political Economy of Climate Change Winners, seeks to break down this wall of silence. In his article, Professor Ruhl sets out a case for the existence of “climate change winners,” the importance of recognizing this phenomenon for purposes of crafting climate change policy, and policy proposals that he believes will [...]

Read More :: View PDF

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

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