Category: Law Rev Contents


University of Toronto Law Journal – Volume 62, Number 3 Summer 2012

University of Toronto Law Journal – Volume 62, Number 3 Summer 2012

On Non-domination
Ian Shapiro

Response to Ian Shapiro, ‘On Non-domination’
David Dyzenhaus    

Contracts to the Detriment of a Third Party: Developing a Model Inspired by Jewish Law
Benjamin Porat

Culture and Competitive Resource Regulation: A Liberal Economic Alternative to Sui Generis Aboriginal Rights
Michael Ilg

Future(s) of American Legal History
Angela Fernandez

Book Reviews
Richard H Thaler and Cass R Sunstein, Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth and Happiness; Daniel Kahneman, Thinking,Fast and Slow; Lior Jacob Strahilevitz, Information and Exclusion
Reviewed by Megan Lloyd Richardson

A P SIMESTER and ANDREAS VON HIRSCH, Crimes, Harms, and Wrongs: On the Principles of Criminalisation
Reviewed by Hamish Stewart


Full text of the University of Toronto Law Journal is available online at UTLJ Online, Project Muse, JSTOR, HeinOnline, Westlaw, Westlaw-CARSWELL, LexisNexis and Quicklaw.


The University of Chicago Law Review Volume 79, Issue 2



Which Science? Whose Science? How Scientific Disciplines Can Shape Environmental Law
Eric Biber

Suing Courts
Frederic Bloom & Christopher Serkin

After Class: Aggregate Litigation in the Wake of AT&T Mobility v Concepcion
Myriam Gilles & Gary Friedman

States of Bankruptcy
David A. Skeel Jr




The Antitrust State Action Doctrine and State Licensing Boards
Ingram Weber


Book Reviews


Binding the Executive (by Law or by Politics)
Aziz Z. Huq
A Review of “The Executive Unbound: After the Madisonian Republic,” by Eric A. Posner and Adrian Vermeule

Combating Contamination in Confession Cases
Laura H. Nirider, Joshua A. Tepfer, & Steven A. Drizin
A Review of “Convicting the Innocent: Where Criminal Prosecutions Go Wrong,” by Brandon L. Garrett


What Could Law Students Do With 2 Million More Hours a Year?

If you polled a large and representative sample of law faculty and administrators, you’d observe the following rough consensus about the “flagship” law reviews and secondary journals at the typical law school.

  1. Student editors do a mediocre job of picking good articles, of training each other in writing, and in producing notes and comments which matter to the world;
  2. This isn’t the students’ fault: law faculty play almost no role in journal operations at most schools;
  3. Law journal membership is useful primarily as a resume & signaling credential;
  4. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the worth of the credential is in decline; and consequently,
  5. Most members of most journals are demoralized by the experience.

Though this rough consensus prevails, the total number of law journals in the world continues to increase.  Why?  Inertia obviously matters, as do faculty politics, and fear of innovation.  But there’s something deeper going on.  I think most faculty and administrators look at journals and think that if they provide any benefit at all, they are probably worth keeping, given the costs of change and the relatively low net cost of production. But that’s a mistake.

I’m just spitballing here, but assume that roughly 20% of the 100,000 second and third year law students in this country are members of a law journal.  (This would be a conservative estimate at Temple and at most schools, given the proliferation of secondary journals.)  Further assume that those 20,000 students each spend an average of 10 hours a month for 9 months on journal work.  That would mean that students are spending almost 2 million hours a year on producing student run law journal content.  If we billed them out as cheap, $150/hour associates, that’d be around $300,000,000 of time thrown at the world-shaking problems of bluebooking and case note production.

Assume we killed all our journals tomorrow and simply published all legal scholarship on SSRN.  (There’s be enormous problems with this solution, but follow me for the sake of argument.)  What could our students do with those two million hours?  Assuming the ABA weren’t an innovation sucking force, might they actually work and reduce the cost of attending school?  Or perform pro bono service?  Obviously, students work on journals because they think they’ll get something out of the experience – or because they fear that not working on journals would be career deadening.  But it’s our fault that students are forced to that choice.  We could provide non-journal extra-curricular experiences, or better journals, that would make use of the gift of time that students are offering us.

If you could kill each and every journal at your school tomorrow, what would you replace them with?


Vanderbilt Law Review En Banc Fisher v. University of Texas Roundtable

Vanderbilt Law Review En Banc is pleased to present the first round of our current Roundtable, which looks at Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin. Fisher will be argued in the October 2012 Supreme Court Term and the Court will consider whether the University of Texas’s use of race in its undergraduate admissions process is lawful under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Professors Vikram Amar, James Blumstein, Tomiko Brown-Nagin, Girardeau Spann, and Gerald Torres consider the issues and offer their views on how the Court might—or should—approach this case in their “First Take” articles. In approximately eight weeks, these same scholars will offer responses to each other’s essays. We look forward to a spirited debate on these interesting and often contentious issues.

Roundtable: First Takes

Is Honesty the Best (Judicial) Policy in Affirmative Action Cases? Fisher v. University of Texas Gives the Court (Yet) Another Chance to Say Yes
Vikram David Amar · 65 Vand. L. Rev. En Banc 77 (2012)

Grutter and Fisher: A Reassessment and a Preview
James F. Blumstein · 65 Vand. L. Rev. En Banc 57 (2012)

The Diversity Paradox: Judicial Review in an Age of Demographic and Educational Change
Tomiko Brown-Nagin · 65 Vand. L. Rev. En Banc 113 (2012)

Fisher v. Grutter
Girardeau A. Spann · 65 Vand. L. Rev. En Banc 45 (2012)

Fisher v. University of Texas: Living in the Dwindling Shadow of LBJ’s America
Gerald Torres · 65 Vand. L. Rev. En Banc 97 (2012)


Hastings Law Journal, Issue 63.5 (June 2012)

Hastings Law Journal, Issue 63.5 (June 2012) The Justice Ginsburg Issue

Principles and Persons: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Raconteuse
Kenneth L. Karst

Justice Ginsburg and Religious Liberty
John D. Inazu

“The Experience and Good Thinking Foreign Sources May Convey”: Justice Ginsburg and the Use of Foreign Law
Jeremy Waldron

Jumpstarting the Stalled Gender Revolution: Justice Ginsburg and Reconstructive Feminism
Joan C. Williams

The Law of Gender Stereotyping and the Work-Family Conflicts of Men
Stephanie Bornstein

A Tale of Three Families: Historical Households, Earned Belonging, and Natural Connections
Allison Anna Tait


Repercussions of China’s High-Tech Rise: Protection and Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights in China
Emily Gische

Escaping Forced Gang Recruitment: Establishing Eligibility for Asylum After Matter of S-E-G-
Alexandra Grayner

Hastings Law Journal Voir Dire

The Hastings Law Journal’s online companion, Voir Dire, is now accepting submissions.

Recent Essays:
Sustainable Capitalism: Revelations from the Japanese Model
Joel Slawotsky

Right-Sizing Bar Association Governance
Daniel R. Suhr


Stanford Law Review, 64.6 (2012)

Stanford Law Review

Volume 64 • Issue 6 • June 2012


Maryland Law Review, Issue 71:4 (July 2012)

Volume 71 | Issue 4 | July 2012 

Symposium: Constitutional Redemption and Constitutional Faith

Natalie A. Waryck, Constitutional Redemption and Constitutional Faith: Introduction

Sanford Levinson, How I Lost My Constitutional Faith

Jamal Greene, Fourteenth Amendment Originalism

Aziz Rana, Freedom Struggles and the Limits of Constitutional Continuity

Gerald Torres and Lani Guinier, The Constitutional Imaginary: Just Stories About We the People

Mark A. Graber, Redeeming and Living with Evil

H.W. Perry, Jr., Constitutional Faith, Constitutional Redemption, and Political Science: Can Faith and Political Science Coexist?

Andrew Koppelman, Respect and Contempt in Constitutional Law, or, Is Jack Balkin Heartbreaking?

Jack M. Balkin, The Distribution of Political Faith

A Second Amendment Quartet: Heller and McDonald in the Lower Courts

Stephen Kiehl, A Second Amendment Quartet: Heller and McDonald in the Lower Courts: Introduction

Richard C. Boldt, Decisional Minimalism and the Judicial Evaluation of Gun Regulation

Dennis A. Henigan, The Woollard Decision and the Lessons of the Trayvon Martin Tragedy

John R. Lott, Jr., What a Balancing Test Will Show for Right-to-Carry Laws

David S. Cohen, McDonald‘s Paradoxical Legacy: State Restrictions of Non-Citizens’ Gun Rights


Michael Bakhama, Building Picket Fences: Maryland’s Funeral Picketing Law After Snyder v. Phelps


David McAloon, Davis v. United States: Good Faith, Retroactivity, and the Loss of Principle

Brandon K. Moore, Yi Ni v. Holder: Forced Abortions’ Impact on a Husband’s Right to Reproduce


Washington Law Review, Issue 87:2 (June 2012)

Volume 87  | June 2012 | Issue 2

June 2012 Symposium: The First Amendment in the Modern Age


The Guardians of Knowledge in the Modern State: Post’s Republic and the First Amendment


Ronald K.L. Collins & David M. Skover


The First Amendment, the Courts, and “Picking Winners”


Judge Thomas L. Ambro & Paul J. Safier

Public Discourse, Expert Knowledge, and the Press


Joseph Blocher

The First Amendment’s Epistemological Problem


Paul Horwitz

A View from the First Amendment Trenches: Washington State’s New Protections for Public Discourse and Democracy


Bruce E.H. Johnson & Sarah K. Duran

Democratic Competence, Constitutional Disorder, and the Freedom of the Press


Stephen I. Vladeck


Understanding the First Amendment


Robert C. Post


Robert C. Post, Selected Bibliography of First Amendment Scholarship


Washington Law Review


Defining “Breach of The Peace” in Self-Help Repossessions


Ryan McRobert

Addressing the Costs and Comity Concerns of International E-Discovery


John T. Yip


Harvard Law Review, 125: 8 (2012)


Harvard Law Review

Volume 125 · June 2012 · Number 8


In Memoriam: Bernard Wolfman
Howard Abrams, William D. Andrews, N. Jerold Cohen, Michael A. Fitts, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Martha Minow, Daniel N. Shaviro

Spatial Diversity
Nicholas O. Stephanopoulos

The Undead Constitution
Michael C. Dorf

Developments in the Law — Presidential Authority

Ninth Circuit Holds that Traffic Citation Is Not an “Intervening Arrest” Under Section 4A1.2(A)(2) of the Guidelines. — United States v. Leal-Felix, 665 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc).

Federal Circuit Applies New Factors in Deciding Patentability of a Computer Program. — Ultramercial, LLC v. Hulu, LLC, 657 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2011), reh’g and reh’g en banc denied, No. 2010-1544, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 25055 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 18, 2011).

Ninth Circuit Upholds First Trial Conviction Under § 1831 of the Economic Espionage Act of 1996. — United States v. Chung, 659 F.3d 815 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, No. 11-1141, 2012 WL 929750 (U.S. Apr. 16, 2012).

Eleventh Circuit Rejects Challenge to Georgia’s “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt” Standard for Defendants’ Mental Retardation Claims. — Hill v. Humphrey, 662 F.3d 1335 (11th Cir. 2011) (en banc).

D.C. Circuit Holds that Government Intelligence Reports Are Entitled to a Presumption of Regularity. — Latif v. Obama, 666 F.3d 746 (D.C. Cir. 2011).

Ninth Circuit Holds that Compensation for Blood Stem Cell Transplant Procedure Does Not Violate the National Organ Transplant Act. — Flynn v. Holder, No. 10-55643, 2012 WL 1001300 (9th Cir. Mar. 27, 2012).

Recent Publications


Stanford Law Review, 64.5 (2012)

Stanford Law Review

Volume 64 • Issue 5 • May 2012

The City and the Private Right of Action
Paul A. Diller
64 Stan. L. Rev. 1109

Securities Class Actions Against Foreign Issuers
Merritt B. Fox
64 Stan. L. Rev. 1173

How Much Should Judges Be Paid?
An Empirical Study on the Effect of Judicial Pay on the State Bench

James M. Anderson & Eric Helland
64 Stan. L. Rev. 1277

How Congress Could Reduce Job Discrimination by Promoting Anonymous Hiring
David Hausman
64 Stan. L. Rev. 1343