RECENT HEADNOTES ARTICLES

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

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

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

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

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

© 2011-2016 Minnesota Law Review. All Rights Reserved.