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) [...]

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 [...]

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 [...]

In this Response, Professors Bingham and Good take a second look at Professor Michael LeRoy’s statistics from his article, Do Courts Create Moral Hazard? When Judges Nullify Employer Liability in Arbitrations, and draw somewhat different conclusions. They then suggest a different policy prescription to address the problem: banning mandatory predispute arbitration clauses in the employment context altogether.

In this Reply, Professor Sampsell-Jones responds to Speaking of Silence: A Reply to Making Defendants Speak by Professors Cribari and Judges. He argues that their theory of the Self-Incrimination Clause, which relies on intuition to determine which practices are necessary to “test the prosecution” in criminal cases, is lacking in both textual support and practical [...]

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 [...]

Anticompetitive Effect by Judge Cudahy and Mr. Devlin focuses on a critical issue in antitrust jurisprudence: whether anticompetitive effect should be evaluated under an “aggregate welfare approach to competition” or under a “consumer welfare” approach. What hangs in the balance is the future efficacy of both public and private enforcement. This Comment traces the history [...]

In this Response, Professor Klass further explores and amplifies the federalism issues that Professor Sara Bronin introduced in her article The Quiet Revolution Revived: Sustainable Design, Land Use, and the States. Professor Klass ultimately advocates applying the “cooperative federalism” approach used in other areas of environmental law to the problems of local regulation of green building.

Before his appointment to the Minnesota State Supreme Court, Justice David Stras was the faculty advisor to the Minnesota Law Review . In recognition of his appointment, this Tribute features essays from Dean David Wippman, Professor Robert Stein, Professor Tim Johnson, and Professor Ryan Scott.

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” [...]