There is a gap in mootness doctrine that allows defendants to strategically “moot” their way out of class litigation. Before a class is certified, a defendant can resolve the named plaintiff’s individual claim and then argue there is nothing left to litigate. This tactic, often referred to as “picking off” or “buying off” the plaintiff, can kill a class action before it begins, leaving systemic misconduct unchallenged and the broader[...]
The principle that federal courts exist to provide remedies rather than to vindicate abstract interests is firmly rooted in American jurisprudence and continues to animate doctrines of federal court jurisdiction. But remedies are elusive. Even executing on a money judgment, which is simple enough in principle, has been complicated by technologies that allow judgment debtors to conceal their assets quickly and effectively.
This Note argues[...]
The over $250 billion video game industry, the largest entertainment industry in the world, has rapidly developed unregulated monetary systems. Gaming companies issue what this Article terms “gaming money”—points earned in play, gift cards, and platform-stored balances—and increasingly enable conversion of these instruments into bank deposits at scale. Although they adopt many of the features of “money,” they evade existing regulatory[...]
Doctrines of preemption exist to determine the correct balance between state and federal power. But despite the delicate nature of this task, courts have sometimes overlooked the plain language of the preemption provisions at play in the field of nuclear safety. Instead, brooding federal interests have loomed large. The idiosyncrasies of the field of nuclear safety may merit a cautious approach to applying state tort law, but the Eighth Circuit’s[...]
Since the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the landscape of abortion access in the United States has been plagued by uncertainty and growing inequality across geographic, racial, and socioeconomic lines. As many states have passed new laws drastically restricting abortion access, reproductive rights litigators have increasingly turned to state courts and constitutions as vehicles[...]
The Columbia Law Review’s Karl Llewellyn Lecture series celebrates pioneers in the law who have innovated and challenged legal theory. The third annual Lecture was delivered by Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP Senior Counsel and distinguished First Amendment litigator Floyd Abrams on February 12, 2026. A transcript of Mr. Abrams’s Lecture is published in this Issue.
The full text of this Lecture[...]