Prof. Kim Forde-Mazrui of the University of Virginia responds to Sonja Starr’s print Article, The Magnet School Wars and the Future of Colorblindness. Forde-Mazrui argues that even if courts adopt the “ends-colorblindness” framework described by Starr, “alternative action” policies meant to promote diversity may still be constitutionally permissible.
The mugshot taken of Donald Trump in connection with his Georgia criminal prosecution has become one of the defining political images of the time. In this Essay, Cathay Y. N. Smith discusses who owns the copyright to this iconic photo.
In this response piece to the Abortion Pills piece in the Stanford Law Review, Prof. Susan Morse and Leah Butterfield of the University of Texas explain why most administrative challenges to abortion pill regulations are untimely.
In recent months, California and Washington have enacted statutes forbidding private corporations in their states from cooperating with other states’ efforts to enforce abortion bans. In this Essay, Haley Amster argues that such “blocking laws” do not violate the Full Faith and Credit Clause, and are constitutionally permissible.
The statute governing obstruction of an official proceeding—one of the charges brought against January 6 defendants and then-President Trump—faces a moment of reckoning. This Essay by Stanford J.D. candidate Jennifer L. Portis identifies a novel interpretation: § 1512(c)(2) reaches only direct obstruction, not those individuals who obstruct the official proceeding through another person's conduct.
In this Essay, Aliya Sternstein of Georgetown University Law Center argues that an international body must set a standard, five-year window, after an emergency vaccine is administered and when the recipient can seek compensation for an injury. Sternstein further argues that emergency vaccine developers should receive immunity against liabilities except for willful misconduct.
In this Essay, Prof. John J. Martin of the University of Virginia School of Law argues for a Congressional Incapacity Amendment to the Constitution, modeled on the Twenty-Fifth Amendment's provisions for Presidential incapacity.
In this Essay, Prof. Jacob D. Charles of Pepperdine University Caruso School of Law considers the use of history and tradition in firearm regulation following the Supreme Court's Bruen decision. He argues that courts should use an "Abstraction Approach" in considering historical analogues to modern regulations.
In this Essay, Judge Timothy B. Dyk of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit considers appellate courts' use of information from outside the factual record, i.e. "non-adjudicative facts," when making decisions. Although this practice is commonplace and often harmless, the Essay notes the greater potential for incorrect conclusions when relying on facts outside the record. It urges judges to use non-adjudicative facts with caution, and carefully verify them to avoid serious error.
Class actions are plagued by poor communication between class counsel and the masses of unnamed class members. In this Essay, Professors Alissa del Riego and Joseph Avery propose that these barriers be overcome by using the new technical capabilities of artificial intelligence, and by adding an express duty to communicate to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
