Judges and juries are frequently called upon to evaluate a party’s actions in retrospect—with the benefit of hindsight. Traditionally, courts and scholars have been understandably wary about how hindsight bias influences verdicts, focusing on how to keep outcome information away from jurors and how to minimize its influence on adjudication. But outcome information can be probative evidence: Bad outcomes can be indicative of bad decisionmaking....
Issue Archives
Recent attention to police brutality has brought to the fore how law enforcement, when they become the subject of criminal investigations, receive special procedural protections not available to any other criminal suspect. Prosecutors’ special treatment of police suspects, particularly their perceived use of grand juries to exculpate accused officers, has received the lion’s share of scholarly and media attention. But police suspects also benefit...
Introduction In March of 2012, in Martinez v. Ryan, the Supreme Court announced a new type of cause under the cause-and-prejudice exception to procedural default in federal habeas cases. This new type of cause allowed federal courts to review a subset of claims that had been procedurally defaulted in state habeas proceedings due to the […]
People often do not vote, and those who do sometimes unwittingly vote against their interests. That is because voters have little incentive to cast intelligent votes in any given election, even though they clearly have a stake in the intelligent outcome of every election. A simple solution would be to permit voters to delegate their votes—that is, let someone else vote on their behalf in some fashion. Possible delegated voting solutions range...
Response to: William Baude, Is Originalism Our Law?, 115 Colum. L. Rev. 2349 (2015).
Response to: Jessica Bulman-Pozen & David E. Pozen, Uncivil Obedience, 115 Colum. L. Rev. 809 (2015)
Response to: Jon D. Michaels, An Enduring, Evolving Separation of Powers, 115 Colum. L. Rev. 515 (2015).
In Reed v. Town of Gilbert the Supreme Court rearticulated the standard for when regulation of speech is content based. This determination has already had a large impact on cases involving panhandling regulations and is likely to result in the invalidation of the majority of this nation’s panhandling laws.
This Note will begin with a discussion of First Amendment doctrine and how panhandling is protected speech. This Note will...
This Article examines constitutional theory and doctrine as applied to emerging government regulation of video image capture across a spectrum of regulatory regimes. It proposes a framework that promotes free speech to the fullest extent without presenting unnecessary intrusions into legitimate property or privacy interests. The Article first argues that video recording is a form of expression or at the very least, is conduct that serves as a...
The Supreme Court’s 2014 decision in Hobby Lobby v. Burwell sent shockwaves through the legal community. While many praised its broad interpretation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) as a milestone in protecting religious liberty, others expressed concern that it would essentially turn RFRA and similar legislation on the state level into a “license to discriminate” against LGBT individuals in areas such as...