Beyond Exclusion: A Review of Peter J. Spiro’s “Beyond Citizenship”
Introduction: America the Exclusive? Few people would have predicted the precipitous decline in power and prestige that the twenty-first century has dealt the United States. Humbled by the surprise attacks on 9/11, humiliated by its poor performance in both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, and now hobbled by a staggering financial crisis, the United States [...]
Reply: Clawback to the Future
In Clawbacks: Prospective Contract Measures in an Era of Excessive Executive Compensation and Ponzi Schemes (the “Article”), we undertook the task of proposing a doctrine of clawbacks that would not only furnish a framework for analyzing the term more systematically, but would also describe the ways the doctrine would relate to established rules of contract [...]
In the Shadow of the Omnipresent Claw: In Response to Professors Cherry & Wong
As the American economy continues to totter against an ever-growing populist momentum, it seems likely that clawback mechanisms of various sorts will be put to increasing use in the coming months and years.[1] Very generally, a clawback attempts to regain previously conferred monies or benefits following a certain triggering event, usually involving some change in [...]
Right Question, Wrong Answer: A Response to Professor Epstein and the “Permititis” Challenge
In this Response to Professor Epstein’s Against Permititis: Why Voluntary Organizations Should Regulate the Use of Cancer Drugs, Professor Hall argues that while he agrees with Professor Epstein’s assessment of the problems with the FDA drug approval process, he disagrees with his proposed solution. Professor Hall argues that Professor Epstein’s solution—to reduce the FDA to an [...]
Exploring the Connections Between Adoption and IVF: Twibling Analyses
This essay responds to Trading-Off Reproductive Technology and Adoption: Does Subsidizing IVF Decrease Adoption Rates and Should It Matter?, in which I. Glenn Cohen and Daniel L. Chen analyze what they describe as an arm-chair principle called “the substitution theory”–the claim that facilitating treatment for infertility, including subsidizing in vitro fertilization (IVF), decreases adoptions. Cohen [...]
Innovating Between and Within Technological Paradigms: A Response to Samuelson
In this Response, Professor Lee builds on Professor Samuelson’s Are Patents on Interfaces Impeding Interoperability? to emphasize that the social costs and benefits of interface patents are highly context-specific. Invoking the concept of “technological paradigms,” Professor Lee argues that strong interface patents can promote significant technological advances in contested industries, but that ex post policy interventions [...]
The National Surveillance State: A Response to Balkin
In this Response, Professor Kerr concurs with Professor Balkin in The Constitution and the National Surveillance State that the development of new technology presents problems for the law. But for Kerr, those problems do not demand a shift to a new kind of governance, but rather adaptation of the law to the new technology.
In Defense of Intellectual Property Anxiety: A Response to Professor Fagundes
In this Response to Professor Fagundes’s Property Rhetoric and the Public Domain, Professor Perzanowski expresses skepticism about two assumptions underlying the argument for embracing property rhetoric to promote the public domain. This argument assumes, first, public recognition of social discourse theory as an account of property and, second, rhetorical advantages of social discourse theory that are comparable to those of more familiar notions of [...]
Toward a Theory of Extraterritoriality
In this Response to Jeffrey Meyer’s Dual Illegality and Geoambiguous Law: A New Rule for Extraterritorial Application of U.S. Law, Professor Gibney commends Professor Meyer’s efforts to theorize a comprehensive framework for understanding the extraterritorial scope and limits of United States law. Professor Meyer’s proposal would give a territorial reading to U.S. law unless (1) [...]
Speaking of Silence: A Reply to Making Defendants Speak
In this Response, Professors Judges and Cribari concentrate on explaining why they do not share Professor Sampsell-Jones’s underlying antipathy to the Fifth Amendment right to silence at trial. That antipathy, also frequently expressed by other commentators, is reflected in the article’s proposed rejection of Griffin v. California’s prohibition regarding adverse inferences from the defendant’s assertion [...]
News & Events
-
Minnesota Law Review Ranked Among Ten Most Cited Law Journals in America
The Minnesota Law Review is proud to report that it is the tenth most-cited law journal in the United States, according Washington & Lee’s recently-released 2011 law journal rankings. For more information on the announcement and the rankings, visit this link.
-
2012 Symposium Announcement
The Minnesota Law Review is pleased to announce that the 2012 Law Review Symposium will focus on direct democracy and the Minnesota Marriage amendment and will be held at the University of Minnesota Law School on October 26, 2012.
-
2011 Symposium Webstreaming
Live webstreaming for the 2011 Minnesota Law Review Symposium, Citizens United: Democracy Realized—or Defeated?, will be available at: http://www.ustream.tv/channel/minnesota-law-review-symposium-citizens-united-democracy-realized–or-defeated. Be sure to check it out!
-
Article Submission Policy Announcement
On April 19, 2011, the Minnesota Law Review and several peer journals released a joint letter committing to give every author at least seven days to decide whether to accept any offer of publication. Eliminating “exploding offers” will improve the quality of our deliberations and the scholarship that we publish, [...]
-
Congratulations!
Class of 2011 Excellence in Public Service Award recipient: Steve Schmidt (vol. 95 Note & Comment Editor); and Class of 2011 Most Outstanding Contribution Award recipient: Chelsea Brennan (vol. 95 Lead Managing Editor). Congratulations Steve and Chelsea!
Recent Issues
- Volume 96 – No. 3
- Volume 96 – No. 2
- Volume 96 – No. 1
- Volume 95 – No. 6
- Volume 95 – No. 5
- Volume 95 – No. 4
- Volume 95 – No. 3
- Volume 95 – No. 2
- Volume 95 – No. 1
- Volume 94 – No. 6
- Volume 94 – No. 5
- Volume 94 – No. 4
- Volume 94 – No. 3
- Volume 94 – No. 2
- Volume 94 – No. 1
- Volume 93 – No. 6
- Volume 93 – No. 5
- Volume 93 – No. 4
- Volume 93 – No. 3
- Volume 93 – No. 2
- Volume 93 – No. 1
- Volume 92 – No. 6
- Volume 92 – No. 5
- Volume 92 – No. 4
- Volume 92 – No. 3
- Volume 92 – No. 2
- Volume 92 – No. 1
- Volume 91 – No. 6
- Volume 91 – No. 5
- Volume 91 – No. 4
- Volume 91 – No. 3
- Volume 91 – No. 2
- Volume 91 – No. 1
- Volume 90 – No. 6
- Volume 90 – No. 5
- Volume 90 – No. 4
- Volume 90 – No. 3
- Volume 90 – No. 2
- Volume 90 – No. 1
