By: Gil Seinfeld
The S&P litigation raises challenging questions of jurisdictional policy, but the law as it stands simply fails to engage them. It relies instead on a pair of mechanical rules for sorting cases between the state and federal courts that have only an attenuated relationship to considerations of sound jurisdictional policy.
By: Lee Anne Fennell
Response to: Brian Angelo Lee, Just Undercompensation: The Idiosyncratic Premium in Eminent Domain, 113 Colum. L. Rev. 593 (2013).
Fair market value compensation is not full compensation. Lee’s analysis does not undercut that basic fact, though it does helpfully push us to examine the nature and extent of the undercompensation a fair market value standard generates. Nonetheless, the constitutional standard for just compensation may well be “just enough.”
By: Glenn Harlan Reynolds
Prosecutorial discretion poses an increasing threat to justice. The threat has in fact grown more severe to the point of becoming a due process issue. Two recent events, one involving NBC anchor David Gregory and one involving Reddit founder Aaron Swartz, have brought more attention to this problem. This piece analyzes the circumstances of these two contrasting situations and the role prosecutorial discretion played in each.
By: Richard Briffault
The explosion of independent spending funded by Super PACs and other organizations in the last two election cycles raises new questions about the effectiveness of contribution limits and, perhaps, about the value of maintaining them. But if the law is to continue to limit contributions because of the dangers of corruption and the appearance of corruption they pose, and to maintain the integrity of the contribution/expenditure distinction that has been a foundational part of our campaign finance law for nearly four decades, it is essential to redefine coordination to address the emergence of single-candidate Super PACs. The proposal in this Essay is intended as a contribution to that process.
Lessons on Terrorism and “Mistaken Identity” from Oak Creek, with a Coda on the Boston Marathon Bombings
By: Dawinder S. Sidhu
The tragic events in Oak Creek, Wisconsin, thrust upon an obscure religious community, and more broadly upon our laws and society, provide us with an opportunity to assess the efficacy of the law and conceptual explanations, not only as they apply to this incident, but also to those that may occur in the future. As discussed here, Oak Creek indicates why the definition of “terrorism” should be amended to not rely on the subjective motivation underlying the random killing of innocents, and how the disability-rights context may facilitate understanding and undermine criticisms of the media that are premised on notions of offensiveness or political value judgments. Oak Creek offers at least these lessons.