Headnotes

Due Process Limits on Accomplice Liability

In a prior piece in this journal, I noted some disturbing developments in the law of accomplice liability. By definition, complicity law attaches guilt to the accomplice for the criminal acts of others.  Thus, no matter how trivial the assistance or commitment, she is as guilty as the actual criminal actor.  The notion of guilt for subsequent crimes [...]

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

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

  • Welcome

    For nearly one hundred years, the Minnesota Law Review has been a leader amongst academic legal publications. When Professor Henry J. Fletcher launched the journal in 1917, his goal was simple. It was to “contribute a little something to the systematic growth of the whole law.” Since then, the Law [...]

  • Minnesota Law Review Alum Remembered 45 Years After Death

    Minnesota Law Review alumnus Tom Cranna was honored at the Annual Banquet this Spring, 45 years after his death. Mr. Cranna was remembered for his contributions to the journal, the school, and the positive impact he had on his family and friends. The Devil’s Lake Journal published a memorial which [...]

  • 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.

Newsletter

cforms contact form by delicious:days