UCLA Law Review 57:1 (October)

Volume 57, Issue 1 (October 2009)

Articles

From Privacy To Liberty: The Fourth Amendment After Lawrence	Thomas P. Crocker	1
Who Can Sue Over Government Surveillance?	Scott Michelman	71
Leverage in the Board Room: The Unsung Influence of Private Lenders in Corporate Governance	Frederick Tung	115

Essay

Karl S. Okamoto

183

Comments

Evaluating The Public Interest: Regulation Of Industrial Hemp Under The Controlled Substances Act	Christine A. Kolosov	237
Improving The Education Of California’s Juvenile Offenders: An Alternative To Consent Decrees	Stefanie Low	275
The Right to Control One’s Name	Julia Shear Kushner	313

Discourse

Getting the Framers Wrong: A Response to Professor Geoffrey Stone	Samuel Calhoun
The Perils of Religious Passion: A Response to Professor Samuel Calhoun	Geoffrey Stone

Th UCLA Law Review is also pleased to announce the launch of a our new website.

Responses (2)

Friday Round-up | SCOTUSblog - November 2, 2009 at 8:59 am

[...] Concurring Opinions links to the October issue of the UCLA Law Review, which includes a piece addressing the ongoing conflict between the protections enshrined in Lawrence v. Texas, which the Court decided in 2003, and the vulnerability inherent in interpersonal relations under the Fourth Amendment. Also drawing on past Court decisions, Suja A. Thomas of the University of Illinois assesses the new summary judgment standards implemented by Ashcroft v. Iqbal and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly. [...]
Monday Round-up: Afternoon Edition | SCOTUSblog - November 2, 2009 at 2:25 pm

[...] Concurring Opinions links to the October issue of the UCLA Law Review, which includes a piece addressing the ongoing conflict between the protections enshrined in Lawrence v. Texas, which the Court decided in 2003, and the vulnerability inherent in interpersonal relations under the Fourth Amendment. Also drawing on past Court decisions, Suja A. Thomas of the University of Illinois assesses the new summary judgment standards implemented by Ashcroft v. Iqbal and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly. [...]