Minnesota Law Review

Reformulating the Miranda Warnings in Light of Contemporary Law and Understandings

Since Miranda v. Arizona was decided in 1966, scholars have devoted much attention to both the theoretical underpinnings and the real world impact of that decision. Little attention, however, has been paid to the substance or content of the warnings. The Supreme Court has often stated that the Miranda warnings requirement is a prophylactic rule [...]

Read More :: View PDF

The Police Power Revisited: Phantom Incorporation and the Roots of the Takings “Muddle”

Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. exposed a deep flaw in regulatory takings doctrine. Lingle rejected the Agins holding that if a regulation does not “substantially advance a legitimate state interest,” it is a compensable taking. That formulation, Lingle said, was based on substantive due process precedents and is better suited to a due process, rather [...]

Read More :: View PDF

Why the Defense of Marriage Act Is Not (Yet?) Unconstitutional: Lawrence, Full Faith and Credit, and the Many Societal Actors That Determine What the Constitution Requires

When Hawaii seemed poised to be the first state in the Union to permit same-sex marriage in the 1990s, Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). DOMA provides that states need not recognize same-sex marriages (or judgments in connection with such marriages) performed in sister states. Though many scholars have argued that DOMA exceeded [...]

Read More :: View PDF

The Problem of Authority: Revisiting the Service Conception

Why ought we subject our will to authority? How is a person with authority justified in demanding that we subject our will? What does it mean to be a legitimate authority? This is the problem of authority that Professor Raz addressed many years ago under the title of the service conception of authority. The service [...]

Read More :: View PDF

Review Essay, A Psychology of Emotional Legal Decision Making: Revulsion and Saving Face in Legal Theory and Practice

Read More :: View PDF

Note, Pharmacist Refusals: Dispensing (With) Religious Accomodation Under Title VII

Pharmacists with greater frequency are refusing to fill certain prescriptions on religious grounds. These employees contend that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act requires pharmacies to accommodate refusing pharmacists by allowing other pharmacists to fill objectionable prescriptions. Some employers embrace this view and accommodate refusing pharmacists by sending customers to other pharmacies to have [...]

Read More :: View PDF

Note, Fruit of the Poison Tree: A First Amendment Analysis of the History and Character of Intelligent Design Education

Since the famous Scopes Trial in 1925, religious groups have struggled to introduce into public school science education a theory of human origin predicated on a supernatural creator. The latest theory to challenge evolution is Intelligent Design. Although this theory makes no explicit reference to religion or God, it propounds an unidentified supernatural agent who [...]

Read More :: View PDF

De Novo

  • Case Comment: Bhogaita v. Altamonte

    EVERY DOG CAN HAVE HIS DAY IN COURT: THE USE OF ANIMALS AS DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS Kyle R. Kroll, Volume 100, Online Managing Editor In Bhogaita v. Altamonte, the Eleventh Circuit recently decided whether to allow a dog in the courtroom as a demonstrative exhibit.[1] Although the case presented many serious [...]

  • Revisiting Water Bankruptcy

    REVISITING WATER BANKRUPTCY IN CALIFORNIA’S FOURTH YEAR OF DROUGHT Olivia Moe, Volume 100, Managing Editor This spring, as “extreme” to “exceptional” drought stretched across most of California—indicating that a four-year streak of drought was not about to resolve itself[1]—Governor Jerry Brown issued an unprecedented order to reduce potable urban water [...]

  • Defying Auer Deference

    DEFYING AUER DEFERENCE: SKIDMORE AS A SOLUTION TO CONSERVATIVE CONCERNS IN PEREZ v. MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSOCIATION Nicholas R. Bednar, Volume 100, Lead Articles Editor* On March 9, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down its decision in Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association.[1] The Court overturned the D.C. [...]