Minnesota Law Review

Volume 97 Lead Piece, How Business Fares in the Supreme Court

A number of scholars, journalists, and at least one member of Congress claim that the current Supreme Court (the “Roberts Court”) is more favorable to business than previous Supreme Courts have been. Other commentators disagree, while acknowledging that the Roberts Court is “less hostile to enterprise than the Warren Court” was; one of these commentators [...]

Read More :: View PDF

Religion’s Footnote Four: Church Autonomy as Arbitration

While the Supreme Court’s decision in Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC has been hailed as an unequivocal victory for religious liberty, the Court’s holding in footnote four––that the ministerial exception is an affirmative defense and not a jurisdictional bar––undermines decades of conventional thinking about the relationship between church and state. For some time, a wide range of [...]

Read More :: View PDF

Health Law as Disability Rights Law

When asked to name the most substantial civil rights victory for people with disabilities in recent years, many would choose the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008. However, this Article contends that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) also represents a significant—albeit unconventional—advance for disability rights. Historically, health law and civil rights law have [...]

Read More :: View PDF

Mind, Body, and the Criminal Law

Because we hold individuals criminally liable for infliction of “bodily” injury, but impose no criminal sanctions for infliction of purely “mental” injury, the criminal law rests in large part on a distinction between mind and body. Yet the criminal law is virtually silent on what, exactly, constitutes “bodily injury.” This Article explores the content of [...]

Read More :: View PDF

Protecting Property Through Politics: State Legislative Checks and Judicial Takings

Read More :: View PDF

Response, Rage Against the Machine: A Reply to Professors Bierschbach and Bibas

In this response piece, Erik Luna responds to Notice-and-Comment Sentencing by Richard A. Bierschbach and Stephanos Bibas, 97 Minn. L. Rev. 1 (2012).

Read More :: View PDF

Response, It’s the Reply, Not the Comment: Observations About the Bierschbach and Bibas Proposal

In this response piece, Ronald F. Wright responds to Notice-and-Comment Sentencing by Richard A. Bierschbach and Stephanos Bibas, 97 Minn. L. Rev. 1 (2012).

Read More :: View PDF

New Solutions to the Age-Old Problem of Private-Sector Bribery

In its wake, commercial bribery leaves increased costs of business, decreased governmental standards and honesty, and a culture of corruption. To combat, and hopefully correct, the evils of corporate bribery, governments have enacted laws to prosecute those willing to pay bribes to garner unfair competitive advantages. Since 1977, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) has [...]

Read More :: View PDF

Ensuring Equal Access: Rethinking Enforcement of Medicaid’s Equal Access Provision

Challenged by explosive growth in Medicaid enrollment and devastating budget shortfalls, Medicaid provider payments have become a primary target of many state budget-cutting measures. This has left many of the sixty million Americans who rely on Medicaid without access to needed care. Traditionally, Medicaid beneficiaries and providers have relied on the courts to enforce Medicaid’s [...]

Read More :: View PDF

If It’s in the Game, Is It in the Game?: Examining League-Wide Licensing Agreements After American Needle

After the Supreme Court’s decision in American Needle, Inc. v. National Football League in 2010, the National Football League’s (NFL) ability to license league intellectual property as a collective whole has been called into question. If the caselaw that emerges from American Needle completely precludes the League from being treated as a single entity, any [...]

Read More :: View PDF

News & Events

  • 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.

  • Above the Law Post Highlights MLR‘s Jump in Journal Rankings

    A recent post on Above the Law highlights the fact that the Minnesota Law Review was ranked 11th in the most recent 2013 edition of the Washington & Lee Law Review Rankings. You can read the post here.

  • Vol. 97 Lead Piece Cited on Slate

    A recent Slate article on the Supreme Court’s decision not to hear the “Moldy Washing Machine” cases, or overturn class certification of those cases in some circuits, cites to the Volume 97 Lead Piece, How Business Fares in the Supreme Court. You can read the article here.

Newsletter

cforms contact form by delicious:days