www.archive-org-2013.com » ORG » Y » YALELAWJOURNAL

Choose link from "Titles, links and description words view":

Or switch to "Titles and links view".

    Archived pages: 935 . Archive date: 2013-02.

  • Title: The Yale Law Journal Online - Home
    Descriptive info: .. The Yale Law Journal.. About The Journal.. Masthead.. News.. Current Issue Archive.. YLJ Online.. Submissions.. Contact.. Loading.. Volume 122, Issue 4, January 2013.. Article.. 852.. Text, History, and Tradition: What the Seventh Amendment Can Teach Us About the Second.. Darrell A.. H.. Miller.. Essay.. 940.. Can the President Appoint Principal Executive Officers Without a Senate Confirmation Vote?.. Matthew C.. Stephenson.. Notes.. 980.. The Majoritarian Filibuster.. Benjamin Eidelson.. 1024.. Lawsuits as Information: Prisons, Courts, and a Troika Model of Petition Harms.. Marissa C.. M.. Doran.. Comment.. 1089.. Unveiling Inequality: Burqa Bans and Nondiscrimination Jurisprudence at the European Court of Human Rights.. Sally Pei.. Courts as Managers: American Tradition Partnership v.. Bullock and Summary Disposition at the Roberts Court.. Alex Hemmer,.. Wednesday, 23 January 2013.. Summary disposition is a procedural innovation—added only belatedly to the Supreme Court’s rules—in which the Court dispenses with a case without briefing or oral argument.. It presents a puzzle for students of appellate decisionmaking: how can a case be significant enough to merit the Court’s consideration, but not significant enough to warrant the benefits of adversarial procedure? Commentators have asserted that the Roberts Court is more likely than its predecessors to use summary disposition to resolve  ...   , Professor Michelle Wilde Anderson suggests that municipal dissolution could enable counties to serve regionalist goals.. This Essay argues that, on balance, municipal dissolution will not trigger the emergence of counties as agents of regional reform.. Modern metropolitan regions span city, county, and state borders.. As the scale of the region expands, state and local governments, including counties, will increasingly lack the territorial jurisdiction and regulatory capacity to respond to complex metropolitan problems.. The Essay concludes by considering the role that the federal government can play, and has historically played, in facilitating regional collaboration at the appropriate scale.. YLJ Online Feed.. Recent News.. Yale Law Journal Prison Law Writing Contest Winners.. Sunday, 30 December 2012.. Presenting Volume 122's Newest Editors.. Tuesday, 14 August 2012.. Recent YLJ Developments.. Wednesday, 20 June 2012.. Wednesday, 16 May 2012.. Concurso de Escritura sobre el Derecho de Prisiones.. Wednesday, 25 April 2012.. Prison Law Writing Contest.. Monday, 23 April 2012.. Sunday, 08 April 2012.. Sunday, 11 March 2012.. Presenting Volume 122 of The Yale Law Journal.. Monday, 20 February 2012.. Journal Joins Legal Workshop.. Tuesday, 07 February 2012.. Copyright 2013 The Yale Law Journal Online.. All Rights Reserved.. Terms of Use.. |.. Privacy Statement.. Member Login..

    Original link path: /
    Open archive

  • Title: The Yale Law Journal Online - About Yale Law Journal
    Descriptive info: About the.. Journal.. The Yale Law Journal.. is published eight times a year (monthly from October through June, excluding February) by The Yale Law Journal Company, Inc.. Editorial and general offices are located in the Sterling Law Building at Yale University.. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to.. , P.. O.. Box 208215, New Haven, Connecticut 06520-8215.. Single and Back Issues:.. Each issue of Volume 122 of the.. Journal.. can be purchased for $25.. 00 from The Yale Law Journal Company, Inc.. (check must accompany order).. For foreign mailings, please add $10 in postage for.. each.. issue ordered.. For Connecticut deliveries, add 6% state sales tax.. Remittance must be made by U.. S.. Dollar drafts payable at a U.. bank.. Unfortunately, we are not able to accept payments in cash or by credit card.. For back issues from Volumes 1-121, contact The William S.. Hein and Company, Inc.. , 1285 Main Street, Buffalo, New York 14209, (800) 828-7571, or.. http://www.. wshein.. com/.. Back issues can also be found in electronic format on HeinOnline (http://heinonline.. org).. Subscriptions:.. Remittance must be made by credit card or U.. Unfortunately, we are not able to accept payments in cash.. Subscription requests received after the first issue of a volume has been printed will run for eight consecutive issues unless otherwise indicated by the subscriber.. Subscription backstarting is.. not.. permitted to include prior volume years.. Overseas delivery is.. guaranteed.. Click.. here.. for additonal information  ...   Requests for copyright permissions should be directed to Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, (978) 750-8400,.. copyright.. Production:.. Citations in the.. conform to.. The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation.. (19th ed.. 2010), copyright by the.. Columbia Law Review.. , the.. Harvard Law Review.. University of Pennsylvania Law Review.. , and.. The online.. Bluebook.. can be accessed at.. legalbluebook.. The.. is printed by Joe Christensen, Inc.. , in Lincoln, Nebraska.. Periodicals postage paid at New Haven, Connecticut, and additional mailing offices.. Publication number ISSN 0044-0094.. Website Terms of Use:.. Please visit.. yalelawjournal.. org/terms.. html.. for the terms governing the use of our site.. About.. The.. Yale Law Journal.. Online.. is the online companion to.. It replaces.. The Pocket Part.. , which was the first such companion to be published by a leading law review.. YLJ Online.. will continue.. The P.. ocket Part.. 's mission of augmenting the scholarship printed in.. by providing original Essays, legal commentaries, responses to articles printed in the.. , podcast and iTunes University recordings of various pieces, and other works by both established and emerging academics and practitioners.. is published by.. Board, and the operations of.. are fully integrated with the operations of the.. follows the same scholarly standards and adheres to the same editorial requirements as the print component of the.. To contact the Executive Editor who oversees.. , Daniel Schuker, click.. here.. Admissions.. Editing Process.. Scholarship.. History.. Alumni.. Subscriptions..

    Original link path: /about-us/
    Open archive

  • Title: The Yale Law Journal Online - Masthead
    Descriptive info: October 2012 | Volume 122, Number 1.. [.. VIEW AS PDF.. ].. Editor-in-Chief.. Doug Lieb.. Executive Editors.. Managing Editors.. Kathryn Cherry.. Xiao Linda Liu.. Shaun P.. Mahaffy.. Joanna T.. Zhang.. Daniel J.. T.. Schuker.. Executive.. Editor.. Articles Editors.. Executive Development Editor.. Marissa Miller.. Christian R.. Burset.. Usha B.. Chilukuri.. Edmund R.. Hirschfeld.. Comments Editors.. Dylan O.. Keenan.. Notes Editors.. David S.. Keenan.. Glenn Bridgman.. Jonathan S.. Meltzer.. Lochlan F.. Shelfer.. Robert W.. Cobbs.. Travis Silva.. Andrew T.. Tutt.. Monika Isia Jasiewicz.. Christine Tsang.. Margaret B.. Weston.. Amanda Lee.. Christopher G.. Michel.. Danielle B.. Rosenthal.. Essays Editors.. Editor (Online).. Yale Law Journal Online.. Editors.. Jed W.. Glickstein.. Christopher Bruno Lacaria.. Allyson Bennett.. Nicholas M.. McLean.. Peter Chen.. David B.. McNamee.. Diversity Editor.. Caroline Harkins.. Alexandra L.. Roth.. Christopher M.. Lapinig.. Jonathan Siegel.. Cameron  ...   Quigley.. Julia Brower.. Patrick Hayden.. Ravi Ramanathan.. Christine M.. Buzzard.. Alex Hemmer.. Jessica Reich.. Jonathan Choi.. Zachary Herz.. Tara L.. Rhoades.. Su Da.. Lora Johns.. Tyler T.. Rosenbaum.. James T.. Dawson.. Kevin M.. Jonke.. Matthew Rubenstein.. Doran.. Steven J.. Kochevar.. Rachel Shalev.. Benjamin Eidelson.. Matthew J.. Letten.. Michael Shih.. Aditi Eleswarapu.. John T.. Lewis.. John James Snidow.. Bridget A.. Fahey.. Cynthia Liao.. Elizabeth Song.. Benjamin F.. Farkas.. Aaron Littman.. Connor S.. Sullivan.. Micah Fergenson.. David Louk.. Ryan Thoreson.. Carlton E.. Forbes.. Michelle H.. Lu.. Charles W.. Tyler.. Jon Fougner.. Richard Luedeman.. Jacob M.. Victor.. Dana Stern Gibber.. Ryan McCartney.. Ryan Watzel.. Jacob Goldin.. Alexander Metz.. Bernice Yu.. Abigail Graber.. Anjali Motgi.. Eileen Zelek.. Jonathan Greenstein.. Nicholas A.. Nasrallah.. Benjamin Zweifach.. Renagh O'Leary.. Business Administrator.. Wendy Ruane.. Immediate Past Masthead:.. Volume 121 (2011-2012)..

    Original link path: /masthead/
    Open archive

  • Title: The Yale Law Journal Online - Journal News
    Descriptive info: Usha Chilukuri,.. We are pleased to announce the winners of.. 's Prison Law Writing Contest.. We received approximately 1,500 responses from people all across the United States.. We are grateful to those who shared their experiences, personal reflections, and insight with us.. The winning essays will be published in.. in the spring of 2013.. First Place.. Elizabeth Reid (Kent, WA).. The Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) and the Importance of Litigation in Its Enforcement: Holding Guards Who Rape Accountable.. Second Place.. Ernie Drain (St.. Clairsville, OH).. The Meaning of Imprisonment.. Third Place.. Aaron Lowers (Vacaville, CA).. Solano Justice.. We would also like to recognize the following authors for their outstanding essays deserving of special recognition:.. Honorable Mention.. William Blake (Elmira, NY),.. A Sentence Worse than Death.. Andre Patterson (Joliet, IL), Untitled.. Finalists.. Emerson M.. Anderson (Grafton, OH).. David Arenberg (Kingman, AZ).. Anthony Arteaga (Corcoran, CA).. Chandra Bozelko (Niantic, CT).. Jeff Conner (Monroe, WA).. Christopher Cox (Las Animas, CO).. Justin Hightower (Malone, NY).. Patrick Larmour (Susanville, CA).. Ronald D.. Lancaster (Draper, UT).. Patrick Duray Portley-El (Burlington, CO).. Dean C.. Rodriguez (Susanville, CA).. Steve Rodriguez (Woodbourne, NY).. Larry Stephenson (Graterford, PA).. Tarshawn Thompson (Attica, NY).. Nathaniel Upshur (Lillington, NC).. Kendrick Wine (San Luis Obispo, CA).. ***.. We congratulate our winners and extend our deepest thanks to everyone who participated.. is pleased to announce the selection of its first-year.. editors.. Please join us in welcoming them to the YLJ community.. Recent Media Coverage of.. YLJ.. Content.. Legal Ethics Forum.. highlighted a pair of recent.. essays: Lawrence Fox’s.. The Gang of Thirty-Three: Taking the Wrecking Ball to Client Loyalty.. , and James W.. Jones and Anthony E.. Davis’s.. In Defense of a Reasoned Dialogue about Law Firms and Their Sophisticated Clients.. The essays debate the merits of proposed “sophisticated client” amendments to the Model Rules of Professional Conduct.. Legal Theory Blog.. recommended.. Edward K.. Cheng’s forthcoming essay,.. Reconceptualizing the Burden of Proof.. , which argues that characterizing the burden of proof as an absolute probability threshold is wrong and views it instead as a probability ratio.. A.. draft.. of the essay is available on SSRN.. also.. ordered.. readers to “know [W.. N.. ] Hohfeld” because his “typology of rights from his book.. Fundamental Legal Conceptions.. is, well, fundamental.. ” As background reading, the blog assigned two.. YLJ.. articles: Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld,.. Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning.. , 26 YALE L.. J.. 710 (1917), and Walter Wheeler Cook,.. Hohfeld’s Contribution to the Science of Law.. , 28 YALE L.. 721 (1918).. Bleacher Report.. brought.. content to a new audience in a profile of Supreme Court Justice Byron White’s career in football and law.. The article directed readers to Paul Tagliabue’s.. A Tribute to Byron White.. , written in 2003 after the death of Justice White.. An.. article.. published in the.. Michigan Law Review.. found that.. content is among the most cited in legal scholarship.. Of the hundred most-cited legal articles of all time, eighteen were published in.. Of the top hundred articles of the last twenty years, seventeen graced.. ’s pages.. Alumni News.. The third-year editors of Volume 121 graduated in May and published their final.. issue.. this month.. The Volume 122 editorial board congratulates them and wishes them great success in their future endeavors.. To share recent alumni news with us, please contact This e-mail address is being protected from spambots.. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. essay on the prevalence of "dissentals," or dissents from denial of rehearing en banc, by Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kozinski and James Burnham made a splash in April, with coverage by.. Above the Law.. ,.. How Appealing.. , the Federalist Society’s.. blog.. Laboratorium.. Volokh Conspiracy.. D.. C.. Circuit Review.. , and others.. Election Law Blog.. highlighted.. the most recent.. of.. , which includes an article, several features, and a comment discussing redistricting, the “one person, one vote” principle, and criminal disenfranchisement.. Writing for the.. New York Times Economix.. blog, Bruce Bartlett.. Michael Graetz’s 2002 article,.. 100 Million Unnecessary Returns: A Fresh Start for the U.. Tax System.. , which lays out a radical plan for income tax reform.. New Yorker..  ...   los siguientes premios: $250 para el primer lugar, $100 para el segundo lugar y $50 para el tercer lugar.. Temas.. Por favor, escriba un ensayo respondiendo a.. una.. de las siguientes preguntas:.. ¿Cómo le parece trato justo en la prisión?.. ¿Cómo trata la prisión a los presos violentos o agitadores? ¿Son las personas enviadas a regímenes de aislamiento? ¿Es el sistema disciplinario justo y ayuda a mantener el órden?.. Cuéntenos sobre una experiencia sorpresiva o relevante que usted ha tenido con otra persona en el sistema legal – podría ser con un juez, abogado, guardia o cualquier otro.. ¿Qué aprendió usted de esa experiencia?.. Los objetivos del castigo criminal incluyen la retribución (darle a la gente lo que se merecen), la disuasión (desalentar futuros crímenes) y la rehabilitación (mejorar el comportamiento).. ¿Qué fin, si hay alguno, ha tenido su tiempo en prisión? ¿Debería ser incrementado alguno de éstos objetivos?.. ¿Ha introducido usted alguna vez una queja con las autoridades de la cárcel o prisión, para reclamar sobre las condiciones de la prisión? Cuéntenos sobre ello y explique cómo funciona el proceso de quejas.. ¿Son efectivas? ¿Cómo responden las autoridades de la prisión a estas quejas? ¿Qué siente usted con respecto a la ley federal que requiere que los prisioneros introduzcan quejas antes de demandar en la corte por las condiciones de la prisión?.. Si usted ya salió de la prisión, ¿qué desafíos enfrenta al re-integrarse a la sociedad?.. ¿Cómo mantiene usted contacto y relaciones con sus familiares mientras está o estuvo dentro de la prisión? Describa las reglas de la prisión que determinan cuanto contacto puede usted tener con su familia.. ¿Cómo, estando en prisión, ha afectado las relaciones con sus familiares?.. Por favor,.. no.. discuta su inocencia o culpa, o pida asistencia legal sobre su caso.. Su trabajo escrito.. es confidencial.. Lo que usted escriba no será protegido por el privilegio abogado-cliente.. Si usted tiene abogado, debe consultarlo antes de presantar su ensayo.. Reglas.. Usted podrá presentar un ensayo escrito, si usted ha sido un preso en una prisión o cárcel en cualquier momento entre el 1ero de enero del 2010 hasta el 30 de septiembre del 2012.. Nosotros aceptamos ensayos de aproximadamente 1000-5000 palabras, o aproximadamente de 4-20 páginas.. Por favor, escriba su presentación a máquina si es posible.. Si usted tiene que escribirlo a mano, por favor asegúrese que la letra sea legible.. Por favor, siéntase libre de trabajar con otras personas, pero su ensayo deberá estar escrito en su propia voz.. Se aceptarán ensayos en el inglés o el español.. Los ensayos serán recibidos hasta.. el 1ero de Octubre del 2012.. Si es posible, por favor envíe su presentación por correo electrónico a.. This e-mail address is being protected from spambots.. Si usted no tiene acceso a correo eletrónico, envíe su trabajo por correo ordinario a: The Yale Law Journal, ATTN: Prison Law, P.. Box 208215, New Haven, CT 06520-8215.. Por favor, incluya su nombre y el nombre de la institución donde usted se encuentra o estuvo preso, y díganos la mejor forma de contactarlo en este momento.. Start.. Prev.. 1.. 2.. 3.. 4.. 5.. 6.. 7.. Next.. End.. Page 1 of 7.. Most Recent.. Forthcoming.. Articles.. Wesley J.. Campbell,.. Commandeering and Constitutional Change.. , 122 YALE L.. (forthcoming 2013).. David Schleicher,.. City Unplanning.. Essays.. Cheng,.. Josh Bendor & Miles Farmer,.. Curing the Blind Spot in Administrative Law: A Federal Common Law Framework for State Agencies Implementing Cooperative Federalism Statutes.. Amber J.. Moren,.. Debtor's Dilemma: The Economic Case for Right-Through in the Bankruptcy Code.. Comments.. Sally Pei,.. Unveiling Inequality: Burqa Bans and Nondiscrimination Jurisprudence at the European Court of Human Rights.. Andrew Tutt,.. Interpretation Step Zero: The Limits of Statutory Interpretation Methodology as "Law.. ,.. ".. 122 YALE L.. Yale Law Journal Online.. Alon Cohen,.. Implementing Aggregation in the Law: The Median Outcome Rule.. ONLINE (forthcoming 2012).. Alec Ewald,.. Escape from the “Devonian Amber”: A Reply to Voting and Vice.. Ian P.. Farrell,.. Abandoning Objective Indicia.. ONLINE (forthcoming 2013).. Debra Pogrund Stark, Jessica M.. Choplin & Mark A.. LeBoeuf,.. Ineffective in Any Form: Confirmation Biases and Other Psychological Phenomena Undermine Improved Home Loan Disclosures..

    Original link path: /journal-news/
    Open archive

  • Title: The Yale Law Journal Online - Volume 122, Issue 4, January 2013
    Descriptive info: Miller.. , Thursday, 17 January 2013.. 122 Yale L.. 852 (2013).. In District of Columbia v.. Heller and McDonald v.. City of Chicago, the Supreme Court made seemingly irreconcilable demands on lower courts: evaluate Second Amendment claims through history, avoid balancing, and retain as much regulation as possible.. To date, lower courts have been unable to devise a test that satisfies all three of these conditions.. Worse, the emerging default candidate, intermediate scrutiny, is a test that many jurists and scholars consider exceedingly manipulable.. This Article argues that courts could look to the Supreme Court’s Seventh Amendment jurisprudence, and in particular the Seventh Amendment’s “historical test,” to help them devise a test for the Second.. The historical test relies primarily on analogical reasoning from text, history, and tradition to determine the constitutionality of any given practice or regulation.. Yet the historical test is supple enough to respond to the demands of a twenty-first-century judicial system.. As such, it provides valuable insights, but also its own set of problems, for those judges and scholars struggling to implement the right to keep and bear arms.. Stephenson.. 940 (2013).. It is generally assumed that the Constitution requires the Senate to vote to confirm the President’s nominees to principal federal offices.. This Essay argues, to the contrary, that when the President nominates an individual to a principal executive branch position, the Senate’s failure to act on the nomination within a reasonable period of time can and should be construed as providing the Senate’s tacit or implied advice and consent to the appointment.. On this understanding, although the Senate can always withhold its constitutionally required consent by voting against a nominee, the Senate cannot withhold its consent indefinitely through the expedient of failing to vote on the nominee one way or the other.. Although this proposal seems radical, and certainly would upset longstanding assumptions, the Essay argues that this reading of the Appointments Clause would not contravene the constitutional text, structure, or history.. The Essay further argues that, at least under some circumstances, reading the Constitution to construe Senate inaction as implied consent to an appointment would have desirable consequences in light of deteriorating norms of Senate collegiality and of prompt action on presidential nominations.. 980 (2013).. The debate over the Senate filibuster revolves around its apparent conflict with the principle of majority rule.. Because narrow Senate majorities often represent only a minority of Americans, however, many filibusters are not at odds with majority rule at all.. By paying attention to such “majoritarian filibusters,” this Note aims to disrupt the terms of the traditional debate and open up a new space for potential compromise.. This Note reports the first empirical study of the majoritarian or countermajoritarian character of recent filibusters.. These data reveal that, in half of the Congresses over the past two decades, successful filibustering minorities usually represented more people than the majorities they defeated.. The choice whether to preserve the filibuster therefore cannot be reduced to a simple choice between majority rule and minority rights.. After exploring the distribution of majoritarian and countermajoritarian filibusters along other dimensions of interest, this Note proposes that the majority-rule principle might be better served by simply reducing the sixty-vote cloture threshold—thereby shifting the balance toward majoritarian as opposed to countermajoritarian filibusters—than by abolishing the filibuster altogether.. 1024 (2013).. This Note is about the practice of conditioning  ...   Volume 119, Issue 2, November 2009, 140-383.. Volume 119, Issue 3, December 2009, 384-647.. Volume 119, Issue 4, January 2010, 648-847.. Volume 119, Issue 5, March 2010, 848-1121.. Volume 119, Issue 6, April 2010, 1122-1361.. Volume 119, Issue 7, May 2010, 1362-1749.. Volume 119, Issue 8, June 2010, 1750-2160.. Volume 118, Issue 1, October 2008, 2-185.. Volume 118, Issue 2, November 2008, 186-391.. Volume 118, Issue 3, December 2008, 392-599.. Volume 118, Issue 4, January 2009, 600-805.. Volume 118, Issue 5, March 2009, 806-1021.. Volume 118, Issue 6, April 2009, 1022-1255.. Volume 118, Issue 7, May 2009, 1256-1583.. Volume 118, Issue 8, June 2009, 1584-1954.. Volume 117, Issue 1, October 2007, 2-173.. Volume 117, Issue 2, November 2007, 174-339.. Volume 117, Issue 3, December 2007, 340-549.. Volume 117, Issue 4, January 2008, 550-733.. Volume 117, Issue 5, March 2008, 734-991.. Volume 117, Issue 6, April 2008, 992-1235.. Volume 117, Issue 7, May 2008, 1236-1567.. Volume 117, Issue 8, June 2008, 1568-1957.. Volume 116, Issue 1, October 2006, 2–225.. Volume 116, Issue 2, November 2006, 226–501.. Volume 116, Issue 3, December 2006, 502–675.. Volume 116, Issue 4, January 2007, 676–881.. Volume 116, Issue 5, March 2007, 882–1169.. Volume 116, Issue 6, April 2007, 1170–1399.. Volume 116, Issue 7, May 2007, 1400–1635.. Volume 116, Issue 8, June 2007, 1636-1892.. Volume 115, Issue 1, October 2005, 1–255.. Volume 115, Issue 2, November 2005, 256–499.. Volume 115, Issue 3, December 2005, 501–734.. Volume 115, Issue 4, January 2006, 737–920.. Volume 115, Issue 5, March 2006, 922–1185.. Volume 115, Issue 6, April 2006, 1186–1489.. Volume 115, Issue 7, May 2006, 1490–1841.. Volume 115, Issue 8, June 2006, 1843–2210.. Volume 115, Issue 9, September 2006, 2212–2651.. Volume 114, Issue 1, October 2004, 1–202.. Volume 114, Issue 2, November 2004, 203–450.. Volume 114, Issue 3, December 2004, 451–695.. Volume 114, Issue 4, January 2005, 697–928.. Volume 114, Issue 5, March 2005, 929–1192.. Volume 114, Issue 6, April 2005, 1193–1520.. Volume 114, Issue 7, May 2005, 1521–1834.. Volume 114, Issue 8, June 2005, 1835–2016.. Volume 113, Issue 1, October 2003, 27–268.. Volume 113, Issue 2, November 2003, 269–540.. Volume 113, Issue 3, December 2003, 541–784.. Volume 113, Issue 4, January 2004, 785–954.. Volume 113, Issue 5, March 2004, 955–1150.. Volume 113, Issue 6, April 2004, 1151–1340.. Volume 113, Issue 7, May 2004, 1341–1662.. Volume 113, Issue 8, June 2004, 1663–2014.. Volume 112, Issue 1, October 2002, 1–152.. Volume 112, Issue 2, November 2002, 153–368.. Volume 112, Issue 3, December 2002, 369–680.. Volume 112, Issue 4, January 2003, 681–968.. Volume 112, Issue 5, February 2003, 969–1302.. Volume 112, Issue 6, March 2003, 1307–1640.. Volume 112, Issue 7, April 2003, 1641–1942.. Volume 112, Issue 8, June 2003, 1943–2598.. Volume 111, Issue 1, October 2001, 1–230.. Volume 111, Issue 2, November 2001, 231–442.. Volume 111, Issue 3, December 2001, 443–768.. Volume 111, Issue 4, January 2002, 769–1038.. Volume 111, Issue 5, March 2002, 1039–1258.. Volume 111, Issue 6, April 2002, 1259–1498.. Volume 111, Issue 7, May 2002, 1499–1869.. Volume 111, Issue 8, June 2002, 1870–2366.. Volume 110, Issue 1, October 2000, 1–172.. Volume 110, Issue 2, November 2000, 173–387.. Volume 110, Issue 3, December 2000, 387–548.. Volume 110, Issue 4, January 2001, 549–732.. Volume 110, Issue 5, March 2001, 733–892.. Volume 110, Issue 6, April 2001, 947–1097.. Volume 110, Issue 7, May 2001, 1097–1302.. Volume 110, Issue 8, June 2001, 1303–1546..

    Original link path: /current-issue/
    Open archive

  • Title: The Yale Law Journal Online - Volume 122
    Descriptive info: Volume 122.. 16.. , Wednesday, 23 January 2013.. Ashira Pelman Ostrow.. , Thursday, 03 January 2013.. A Defense of Immigration-Enforcement Discretion: The Legal and Policy Flaws in Kris Kobach’s Latest Crusade.. David A.. Martin.. , Thursday, 20 December 2012.. This Essay disputes the legal claims set forth in a recent lawsuit that seeks to invalidate a policy of the Department of Homeland Security.. The policy gives protection against deportation to unauthorized immigrants who came to the country as children, and the Department defends it as an exercise of prosecutorial discretion.. The plaintiffs claim that no such discretion exists, because the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended in 1996, requires that virtually all aliens who entered without inspection be detained and placed in removal proceedings whenever encountered by immigration agents.. Closely examining the statutory language and drawing on the author’s own extensive involvement as General Counsel of the Immigration and Naturalization Service in the 1996 consideration of legislative amendments and administrative implementation, this Essay makes the case that the plaintiffs’ argument misunderstands both Congress’s intent and consistent agency practice before and after those amendments.. Liquid Assets: Groundwater in Texas.. Gerald Torres.. , Tuesday, 04 December 2012.. Introduction.. As I was walking around the tonier precincts of Austin, Texas, in the summer of 2012, I noticed that some things seemed out of place.. The hot, humid weather was normal, and the recent rainstorms belied the existence of one of the most severe droughts on record.. People were beginning to talk about the droughts of the 1950s that had produced a rash of reservoir construction.. But no one was talking about dams this time.. Instead, there was a new source of water for those who could afford it, sitting right beneath their feet.. In addition to the yard crews attending to the shrubs and St.. Augustine grass, there were gangs of roughnecks in work clothes setting up drilling rigs on those manicured urban lawns.. The drought, no doubt, has created a market for privately controlled water.. Postcard fliers are slipped under front doors announcing deals: “$6/foot—No Water—No Pay.. ” The Supreme Court of Texas did its part, too.. In the long-awaited case of.. Edwards Aquifer Authority v.. Day.. , the court decided that “land ownership includes an interest in groundwater in place.. ”.. Those who can are making the most of that holding by tapping the generally heavily regulated Edwards Aquifer and claiming the water as their own.. Lawrence Meets Libel: Squaring Constitutional Norms with Sexual-Orientation Defamation.. Anthony Michael Kreis.. , Monday, 12 November 2012.. Yonaty v.. Mincolla.. may have been the most anachronistic judicial ruling of 2011.. Yonaty.. , a New York trial court held that false imputations of homosexuality still constituted per se defamation.. under New York law.. The ruling came only a few days before the.. New York Times.. reported that the New York State Senate was one vote shy of enacting marriage equality.. The legislation, which enjoyed wide popular support,.. was signed into law by Governor Andrew Cuomo on June 24, 2011.. Despite the New York State Legislature’s efforts to advance full civil equality for LGBT New Yorkers and the public’s backing of LGBT rights in New York, it was nevertheless deemed defamatory as of 2011 to label a heterosexual person gay.. New York’s peculiar treatment of homosexuality in defamation law was not unique.. Losers’ Rules.. Nancy Gertner.. , Tuesday, 16 October 2012.. Each year, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts holds an extraordinary panel.. All active judges are present to answer questions from the bar.. A lawyer’s question one year was particularly provocative: “Why are the federal courts so hostile to discrimination claims?” One judge after another insisted that there was no hostility.. All they were doing when they dismissed employment discrimination cases was following the law—nothing more, nothing less.. I disagreed.. Federal courts, I believed,.. were.. hostile to discrimination cases.. Although the judges may have thought.. they.. were entirely unbiased, the outcomes of those cases told a different story.. The law judges felt “compelled” to apply had become increasingly problematic.. Changes in substantive discrimination law since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.. were tantamount to a virtual repeal.. This was so not because of.. Congress.. ; it was because of.. judges.. How (Not) To Bring an Affirmative-Action Challenge.. Adam D.. Chandler.. , Monday, 01 October 2012.. A little-known fact about the biggest Supreme Court case of the Term is that it is botched beyond repair.. This Essay describes a series of grave defects in.. Fisher v.. University of Texas at Austin.. the potentially momentous affirmative-action case, that should prevent the Supreme Court from reaching the merits.. In 2008, the University of Texas at Austin (UT) denied Abigail Fisher admission to its undergraduate class of 2012.. She promptly brought suit, alleging that the university’s use of race as a factor in undergraduate admissions violates the Equal Protection Clause, 42 U.. §§ 1981 and 1983, and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.. She asked the district court to command the university to admit her.. She also sought an injunction preventing the university from using race in future admissions decisions and a declaration that doing so would violate federal law.. Finally, she requested a refund of her application fees, as well as attorney’s fees and  ...   of a favorable plea deal.. Less noted, but also worthy of attention, are.. Lafler.. ’s implications for federal habeas law.. Four Justices protested that the.. Lafler.. decision violated the federal habeas statute.. At the least, the decision expanded habeas review in unexpected ways.. Frye and Lafler: Bearers of Mixed Messages.. Jed S.. Rakoff.. , Monday, 18 June 2012.. In two five-to-four decisions rendered on March 21, 2012—.. —the Supreme Court extended the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel to the plea-bargaining process.. Viewed in a broader perspective,.. are but the latest reactions to the ever-more-punitive criminal penalties imposed by state and federal legislatures over the past half century.. Medicaid Preemption Claims in Douglas Avert the Astra Abyss.. Rochelle Bobroff.. , Monday, 30 April 2012.. The Supreme Court’s five-to-four opinion in.. Douglas v.. Independent Living Center of Southern California, Inc.. is a significant court-access victory for the private enforcement of the federal Medicaid statute,.. which lacks a private right of action.. A year earlier, in.. Astra USA, Inc.. Santa Clara County.. , the Court unanimously dismissed a suit seeking to enforce another statute that similarly lacked a private cause of action.. Although both the.. Douglas.. majority.. and dissent.. cited.. Astra.. , they proffered sharply contrasting interpretations of that opinion.. While the dissent would have relied on.. to dismiss Medicaid preemption claims entirely, the majority’s analysis of.. Astra.. keeps the courthouse doors open for future litigants to bring such claims.. Douglas and the Fate of Ex Parte Young.. Stephen I.. Vladeck.. Dissents are frequently an unreliable guide for assessing the implications of majority opinions.. As Judge Friendly once put it, “Often their predictions partake of Cassandra’s gloom more than of her accuracy.. Sometimes, however, the rationale of a dissent may help to explain a majority’s decision.. not.. to decide a particular issue, as embodied in the Supreme Court’s February 22, 2012, holding in.. Writing for a five-to-four majority, Justice Breyer avoided the question on which the Justices had granted certiorari, i.. e.. , whether the Supremacy Clause provides Medicaid beneficiaries and providers with a cause of action to enjoin California state officials from enforcing a state law allegedly in violation of—and therefore preempted by—the federal Medicaid statute.. Because intervening administrative action had changed the posture of the case, the majority concluded that the matter should be returned to the Ninth Circuit, which could consider the effect of such developments—if any—as a matter of first impression.. Preemption as a Judicial End-Run Around the Administrative Process?.. Catherine M.. Sharkey.. Federal agencies play a dominant role in administering federal statutory schemes.. At the front lines, they are tasked with interpreting statutes, enacting regulations to implement federal programs, and enforcing federal directives.. During the course of adjudication or rulemaking, federal agencies are sometimes called upon to determine whether state law conflicts with federal law.. That conflict inquiry is at the heart of preemption disputes before state and federal courts.. Private parties wield preemption—typically as a defense—to stave off the effects of a state law allegedly trumped by federal law under the Supremacy Clause.. Courts are then called upon to decide the extent to which state law is inconsistent with federal law.. Judicial review of agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and preemption challenges thus provide parallel proceedings to resolve disputes over whether state and federal law are simpatico or at war.. provides an opportunity to reflect upon the relationship between these parallel tracks for adjudicating federal-state conflicts.. Who is, and who should be, the ultimate arbiter of the existence of federal-state conflicts and how to resolve them—agencies or courts? In this Essay, I use.. to explore two questions: first, whether courts can act as “prompters,” pushing federal agencies to discharge their duty to weigh in on potential conflicts between federal and state law; and second, whether a synergistic relationship can exist between courts and agencies in making such conflict determinations.. Bullock and Summary Disposition at the Roberts Court.. Wednesday, 23 January 2013.. Emerging Counties? Prospects for Regional Governance in the Wake of Municipal Dissolution.. Thursday, 03 January 2013.. A Defense of Immigration-Enforcement Discretion: The Legal and Policy Flaws in Kris Kobach’s Latest Crusade.. Thursday, 20 December 2012.. Liquid Assets: Groundwater in Texas.. Tuesday, 04 December 2012.. Lawrence Meets Libel: Squaring Constitutional Norms with Sexual-Orientation Defamation.. Monday, 12 November 2012.. Losers’ Rules.. Tuesday, 16 October 2012.. How (Not) To Bring an Affirmative-Action Challenge.. Monday, 01 October 2012.. West Coast Hotel’s Place in American Constitutional History.. Monday, 24 September 2012.. Service Delivery, Resource Allocation, and Access to Justice: Greiner and Pattanayak and the Research Imperative.. Jeffrey Selbin, Jeanne Charn, Anthony Alfieri & Stephen Wizner.. Monday, 30 July 2012.. Frye and Lafler: No Big Deal.. Thursday, 21 June 2012.. Most Read.. Bad News for Mail Robbers: The Obvious Constitutionality of Health Care Reform.. The CSI Effect: Fact or Fiction.. Citizens United and Its Critics.. Why Blogs Are Bad for Legal Scholarship.. Citing the Transcript of Oral Argument: Which Justices Do It and Why.. An Overview of the E-Discovery Rules Amendments.. How “Swingers” Might Save Hollywood from a Federal Pornography Statute.. Conditional Taxation and the Constitutionality of Health Care Reform.. Conservation Easement Tax Credits in Environmental Federalism.. The Supreme Court (of Baseball).. Yale Law Journal Online Archive.. Volume 121.. Volume 120.. Volume 119.. Volume 118.. Volume 117.. Volume 116.. Volume 115..

    Original link path: /the-yale-law-journal-pocket-part/volume-122/
    Open archive

  • Title: The Yale Law Journal Online - Submissions
    Descriptive info: accepts submissions exclusively through its.. online submission system.. Do not send manuscripts for either.. 's print edition or.. to individual editors or via email.. Yale Law Journal.. As of 10/19/2012,.. will no longer accept Article, Essay, or Book Review submissions for consideration in Volume 122.. Please check back with us in mid-February of 2013 for details regarding submissions to Volume 123.. For Volume 122 submission guidelines,.. click here.. To view drop dates and memoranda for Yale Law School.. student submissions.. We recommend that prospective and accepted authors take note of our Editing Process.. Please.. for further information on how the.. prepares its pieces for publication.. Click here.. for.. 's Style Sheet.. Please log in to our.. submission system.. to submit work to.. As of 11/07/2012,.. will no longer accept submissions for consideration in Volume 122.. The Yale Law Journal Online.. continues the mission of our original companion,.. , of publishing original scholarship on recent  ...   pieces are subjected to a similar, albeit expedited,.. editing process.. as those appearing in print.. We strongly encourage submissions of between 1500 and 6000 words.. If a submission goes beyond this upper limit, each word over 6000 must be integral to the submission's central argument in order for us to consider accepting it.. For a more detailed guide to submissions, please read our.. submission guidelines.. uses a blind submission process.. In order to ensure an impartial review of your submission, please identify yourself in your cover letter, but do not identify yourself in your electronic submission.. While.. operates largely on a rolling basis, continually accepting essays from February through the late Fall, the Volume will usually close by November.. During that February-November period, we hope to respond within two weeks and to publish within a few months of acceptance.. To submit work to.. The Yale Law Journal Online.. , please log in to our..

    Original link path: /submissions/
    Open archive

  • Title: The Yale Law Journal Online - Contact Us
    Descriptive info: Contact.. Mailing address:.. The Yale Law Journal Co.. P.. Box 208215.. New Haven, CT 06520-8215.. Overnight shipping address:.. 127 Wall Street.. New Haven, CT 06511.. Email address:.. ylj@yalelawjournal.. org.. Phone number:.. 203-432-1666..

    Original link path: /contact-us/
    Open archive

  • Title: The Yale Law Journal Online - Subscriptions
    Descriptive info: -> Subscriptions.. Change Address.. Request Missing Issue.. Subscribe.. :.. is a scholarly publication that publishes eight issues each academic year, running from October through June, with no issue published during the month of February.. A domestic subscription for Volume 122 is $55.. 00 payable in advance.. Foreign subscriptions, which include additional charges for postage, are priced by mailing zone according to the chart below.. To subscribe and pay by credit card, click below:.. Domestic.. $55.. 00.. Zone 1(Canada);.. Zone 3 (Western Europe).. $87.. Zone 2 (Mexico).. $79.. Zone 4 (Australia, Japan, New Zealand);.. Zone 6 (Latin America);.. Zone 7 (Asia).. $103.. Zone 5 (Europe, excluding Western Europe).. $111.. Zone 8 (Africa,  ...   will be renewed automatically unless the subscriber provides timely notice of cancellation.. : Domestic claims for nonreceipt of issues should be made within 90 days of the month of publication, overseas claims within 180 days; thereafter, the regular back issue rate will be charged for replacement.. Renew Subscription.. : Please have your credit card available to renew your subscription.. If you prefer to be invoiced, select the "bill me" option.. : Address changes must be made at least three months before publication date.. Please provide an old mailing label or the entire old address; the new address must include the zip code.. Please mail all requests to:.. New Haven, CT 06520-8215..

    Original link path: /subscriptions/
    Open archive

  • Title: The Yale Law Journal Online - Text, History, and Tradition: What the Seventh Amendment Can Teach Us About the Second
    Descriptive info: Text, History, and Tradition: What the Seventh Amendment Can Teach Us About the Second.. View as PDF.. ]..

    Original link path: /the-yale-law-journal/article/text,-history,-and-tradition:-what-the-seventh-amendment-can-teach-us-about-the-second/
    Open archive

  • Title: The Yale Law Journal Online - Can the President Appoint Principal Executive Officers Without a Senate Confirmation Vote?
    Descriptive info: Can the President Appoint Principal Executive Officers Without a Senate Confirmation Vote?..

    Original link path: /the-yale-law-journal/essay/can-the-president-appoint-principal-executive-officers-without-a-senate-confirmation-vote?/
    Open archive


    Archived pages: 935