The Yale Law Journal Online is pleased to announce the publication of Citizens Not United: The Lack of Stockholder Voluntariness in Corporate Political Speech by Elizabeth Pollman, a Stanford Law Fellow and former practitioner at Latham & Watkins LLP.  Pollman’s piece covers the potential for sweeping changes to corporate political speech law in light of the Supreme Court proceedings in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

The Yale Law Journal is pleased to present its new online platform, The Yale Law Journal Online (http://www.yalelawjournal.org/). YLJ Online will continue the Journal’s mission of providing accessible and substantive scholarship through the online medium. It offers original essays on timely and novel legal developments and responses to articles in the print Journal, as well as adapted lectures and recordings/podcasts of featured pieces.

When the Journal launched The Pocket Part in 2005, it was the first law review to establish an original online companion; as the Journal nears its 120th anniversary, YLJ Online represents the next step in that endeavor. The launch of YLJ Online’s original content section features an essay by Hiro N. Aragaki, addressing the Hall Street v. Mattel litigation and [...]]]>

The Yale Law Journal is pleased to present its new online platform, The Yale Law Journal Online (http://www.yalelawjournal.org/). YLJ Online will continue the Journal’s mission of providing accessible and substantive scholarship through the online medium. It offers original essays on timely and novel legal developments and responses to articles in the print Journal, as well as adapted lectures and recordings/podcasts of featured pieces.

When the Journal launched The Pocket Part in 2005, it was the first law review to establish an original online companion; as the Journal nears its 120th anniversary, YLJ Online represents the next step in that endeavor. The launch of YLJ Online’s original content section features an essay by Hiro N. Aragaki, addressing the Hall Street v. Mattel litigation and manifest disregard, as well as responses by selected scholars to Michael Stokes Paulsen’s The Constitutional Power To Interpret International Law (118 Yale L.J. 1762 (2009)).

In the coming weeks, YLJ Online will present a variety of essays and features on marriage, property, and corporate law, as well as a selection of pieces from the Hon. J. Harvie Wilkinson III and other participants in its inaugural Washington, D.C. conference on the Supreme Court’s certiorari process. Among the many features that YLJ Online offers are Essays (4,000-6,000 words), Commentaries (under 2,000 words), Responses, adapted lectures and solicited pieces. More information can be found on the Submissions page (http://www.yalelawjournal.org/submissions.html). All YLJ Online publications are available and fully searchable through LexisNexis and Westlaw. The Journal also provides all YLJ Online pieces in PDF/reprint format, and podcasts on its website/iTunes for selected pieces. For questions regarding YLJ Online, please contact the Journal’s Managing Online Editor, Jeff K. Lee, here.

Now available on YLJ Online:

Essay

Hiro N. Aragaki, The Mess of Manifest Disregard, 119 Yale L.J. Online 1 (2009). [HTML] [PDF]

Responses

Julian Ku, The Prospects for the Peaceful Co-Existence of Constitutional and International Law, 119 Yale L.J. Online 15 (2009). [HTML] [PDF]

Peter J. Spiro, Wishing International Law Away, 119 Yale L.J. Online 23 (2009). [HTML] [PDF]

Margaret E. McGuinness, Old W(h)ine, Old Bottles: A Response to Professor Paulsen, 119 Yale L.J. Online 31 (2009). [HTML] [PDF]

Robert Ahdieh, The Fog of Certainty, 119 Yale L.J. Online 41 (2009). [HTML] [PDF]

The Yale Law School Supreme Court Advocacy Clinic and The Yale Law Journal Online, the forthcoming online platform of The Yale Law Journal, will host a half-day conference, “Important Questions of Federal Law”: Assessing the Supreme Court’s Case Selection Process, on September 18, 2009, at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. The conference will consider the nature and causes of changes in the Supreme Court’s docket in recent years, as well as suggestions for reform of the certiorari process. The conference is made possible by the generous support of the Oscar M. Ruebhausen Fund. Practicing attorneys, judges, academics, and students are invited to attend. There is no charge for the conference, but space is limited, so all attendees must pre-register here. [...]]]>

The Yale Law School Supreme Court Advocacy Clinic and The Yale Law Journal Online, the forthcoming online platform of The Yale Law Journal, will host a half-day conference, “Important Questions of Federal Law”: Assessing the Supreme Court’s Case Selection Process, on September 18, 2009, at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. The conference will consider the nature and causes of changes in the Supreme Court’s docket in recent years, as well as suggestions for reform of the certiorari process. The conference is made possible by the generous support of the Oscar M. Ruebhausen Fund. Practicing attorneys, judges, academics, and students are invited to attend. There is no charge for the conference, but space is limited, so all attendees must pre-register here. Breakfast and refreshments will be provided. If you are unable to attend, podcasts of conference sessions and downloadable papers from the panelists will be made available by Yale Law School’s main website. Select papers will also be published by The Yale Law Journal Online. Information on the conference can also be downloaded by clicking here.  For more information on The Yale Law Journal Online and the conference, please contact YLJ Online Editor Kathleen Claussen here.

http://www.concurringopinions.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/yljonline.jpg

The Yale Law Journal Online* is pleased to present the Note published by Sonia Sotomayor in Volume 88 (1979).  Judge Sotomayor, who has been nominated by President Obama to the Supreme Court of the United States, was a member of the Yale Law School Class of 1979 and an editor of The Yale Law Journal.   If confirmed by the U.S Senate, she would be the Court’s first Hispanic justice and its third woman.  Judge Sotomayor would also join two other Yale Law School graduates currently on the Court—Justice Clarence Thomas ’74 and former Journal editor Justice Samuel Alito ’75.

Judge Sotomayor’s piece, Statehood and the Equal Footing Doctrine: The Case for Puerto Rican Seabed Rights, analyzed issues regarding Puerto Rico’s ability to maintain rights to its seabed if it pursued statehood.   The Note can [...]]]>

The Yale Law Journal Online* is pleased to present the Note published by Sonia Sotomayor in Volume 88 (1979).  Judge Sotomayor, who has been nominated by President Obama to the Supreme Court of the United States, was a member of the Yale Law School Class of 1979 and an editor of The Yale Law Journal.   If confirmed by the U.S Senate, she would be the Court’s first Hispanic justice and its third woman.  Judge Sotomayor would also join two other Yale Law School graduates currently on the Court—Justice Clarence Thomas ’74 and former Journal editor Justice Samuel Alito ’75.

Judge Sotomayor’s piece, Statehood and the Equal Footing Doctrine: The Case for Puerto Rican Seabed Rights, analyzed issues regarding Puerto Rico’s ability to maintain rights to its seabed if it pursued statehood.   The Note can be accessed here.

*Effective Fall 2009, The Pocket Part will be integrated into The Yale Law Journal Online, the new online companion and platform of the Journal.  Further details will be forthcoming.

Volume 119 of The Pocket Part is pleased to announce the publication of The Example of America by Owen Fiss, Sterling Professor of Law at the Yale Law School.  The Example of America is an adapted Essay from the 13th Annual John W. Hager Distinguished Lecture at the University of Tulsa College of Law, where Professor Fiss tackled legal issues involved in the war on terror. ]]>

Volume 119 of The Pocket Part is pleased to announce the publication of The Example of America by Owen Fiss, Sterling Professor of Law at the Yale Law School.  The Example of America is an adapted Essay from the 13th Annual John W. Hager Distinguished Lecture at the University of Tulsa College of Law, where Professor Fiss tackled legal issues involved in the war on terror. ]]> http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/05/the-yale-law-journal-pocket-part-the-example-of-america.html/feed 0 http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/04/the_yale_law_jo_28.html http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/04/the_yale_law_jo_28.html#comments Mon, 13 Apr 2009 17:16:45 +0000 Yale Law Journal http://www.solove.org/archives/2009/04/the-yale-law-journal-pocket-part-the-mismatch-between-probable-cause-and-partial-matching.html

Volume 118 of The Pocket Part is pleased to announce our final publication, The Mismatch Between Probable Cause and Partial Matching by Natalie Ram. Ram’s piece discusses a new rule requiring federal officials to collect and retain DNA not only from persons convicted of a federal offense, but also from those merely arrested on suspicion of being involved in a federal offense. Among its flaws, this rule exacerbates the tension between the shared nature of genetic information and the standards justifying DNA collection and retention. By linking DNA collection to probable cause, the new regulation threatens to destabilize our understandings about what constitutes probable cause and to put millions of never-arrested individuals under perpetual genetic suspicion.

The Pocket Part is proud to announce the publication of Roberts Court Jurisprudence and Legislative Enactment Costs by William Rinner. The piece highlights a crucial but overlooked function of the judiciary in crafting doctrines that discourage constitutionally problematic statutes. Rinner argues that rather than drawing explicit boundaries of permissible and impermissible statutory schemes, courts can and do produce constitutional doctrine that leaves these boundaries blurry, thus raising the risk of reversal for time- and resource-strapped legislators.

The Pocket Part is please to announce the publication of a short essay by Bruce A. Ackerman written in tribute to his long time friend and colleague Mirijan Damaška.

The Yale Law Journal Pocket Part is pleased to announce the publication of our symposium on legal ethics. This week presents the final Pocket Part symposium issue of the academic year.

In the latest edition of The Pocket Part Harper Jean Tobin and Rochelle Bobroff, attorneys at the Federal Rights Project of the National Senior Citizens Law Center, respond to a recent note in The Yale Law Journal, in which Jon Donenberg argued that (1) program changes in Medicaid ushered in by the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA) sub silentio rendered Medicaid’s basic availability provision unenforceable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and (2) state fair hearing procedures constitute the best alternative for enforcement of beneficiary rights. Tobin and Bobroff argue that Donenberg misreads both the DRA and § 1983 jurisprudence, overstates the usefulness of fair hearings, and overlooks the better alternative of preemption claims to enforce the Medicaid Act.

The Yale Law Journal Pocket Part is pleased to announce the publication of a symposium on legal issues surrounding the rise of virtual worlds. This week presents the second of the two part virtual worlds symposium issue with pieces by Leandra Ledermann and Zachery Jones.

The Yale Law Journal Pocket Part is pleased to announce the publication of a symposium on legal issues surrounding the rise of virtual worlds. This week presents the first of the two part virtual worlds symposium issue with pieces by Joseph Blocher, James Grimmelmann, and Joshua Fairfield.

Recent examples have brought the vexing problem of cyber-harassment to the public’s attention. Under § 230 of Title 47 of the U.S. Code, websites are not liable as publishers for the content on their sites so long as they are not involved in the creation of the objectionable content. Accordingly, much of the relevant scholarship has focused on repealing § 230 or imposing liability upon posters.

The immunity that website sponsors—the entities that own the domain name and control the activity on a website—have as publishers should not mean that they have no obligation whatsoever for the activity on their website. Website sponsors have a proprietary interest in their websites. Accordingly, as Nancy Kim argues in the latest edition of The Pocket Part, they should be [...]]]>

Recent examples have brought the vexing problem of cyber-harassment to the public’s attention. Under § 230 of Title 47 of the U.S. Code, websites are not liable as publishers for the content on their sites so long as they are not involved in the creation of the objectionable content. Accordingly, much of the relevant scholarship has focused on repealing § 230 or imposing liability upon posters.

The immunity that website sponsors—the entities that own the domain name and control the activity on a website—have as publishers should not mean that they have no obligation whatsoever for the activity on their website. Website sponsors have a proprietary interest in their websites. Accordingly, as Nancy Kim argues in the latest edition of The Pocket Part, they should be subject to the same standard of conduct as other proprietors.

The Yale Law Journal Pocket Part is pleased to announce the publication of a symposium on legal issues surrounding the growth and use of sovereign wealth funds as an international investment tool. This week presents the second of the two part sovereign wealth funds symposium issue with pieces by Paul Rose and Arina Popova.

The Yale Law Journal Pocket Part is pleased to announce the publication of a symposium on legal issues surrounding the growth and use of sovereign wealth funds as an international investment tool. This week presents the first of the two part sovereign wealth funds symposium issue with pieces by Mark E. Plotkin, Victor Fleischer, and Mihir A. Desai & Dhammika Dharmapala.

In a 2003 essay in The Yale Law Journal entitled Minorities, Shareholder and Otherwise, Anupam Chander compared corporate law’s special protections for minority shareholders with the increasingly colorblind position of constitutional law, arguing that the former has much to teach the later. In this edition of The Yale Law Journal Pocket Part we revisit this controversial essay with reactions from three constitutional and corporate law scholars and, finally, a response from Anupam Chander addressing these perspectives on his work.

In Kennedy v. Louisiana, the Supreme Court struck down a Louisiana law that authorized the death penalty for the crime of child rape. The Court held, first, that “there is a social consensus against capital punishment for the crime of child rape;” and, second, that in the Court’s own “independent judgment” the penalty is disproportionate. Kennedy came under intense public scrutiny because a purported omission in the majority opinion was said to undermine the decision on its own terms. The State of Louisiana claimed that a recent change in military law invalidated the Court’s finding of a national consensus. It attempted to capitalize upon fresh media coverage and widespread confusion about the facts by filing a petition for rehearing with the Supreme Court. On October [...]]]>

In Kennedy v. Louisiana, the Supreme Court struck down a Louisiana law that authorized the death penalty for the crime of child rape. The Court held, first, that “there is a social consensus against capital punishment for the crime of child rape;” and, second, that in the Court’s own “independent judgment” the penalty is disproportionate. Kennedy came under intense public scrutiny because a purported omission in the majority opinion was said to undermine the decision on its own terms. The State of Louisiana claimed that a recent change in military law invalidated the Court’s finding of a national consensus. It attempted to capitalize upon fresh media coverage and widespread confusion about the facts by filing a petition for rehearing with the Supreme Court. On October 1, 2008, the Court denied the request for a rehearing. A piece by Bidish Sarma is the current issue of The Yale Law Journal Pocket Part briefly explores: (I) the basis of the Court’s decision to reject the request for rehearing; and (II) the Kennedy decision’s implications for the Eighth Amendment’s future.

The Yale Law Journal Pocket Part is seeking commentaries and essays on the ethical issues presented by the duty of confidentiality in the attorney-client relationship. In particular, we seek submissions discussing the potential conflict between a lawyer’s duty to guard a client’s communications and his or her obligation to disclose those communications to prevent harm to third parties. Submissions may address, but need not be limited to, the implications for client confidentiality and protection in the corporate setting, the public interest context—including strategic litigation and direct legal services—and government service.

Scholarly and practitioner submissions that advance a novel perspective or proposal related to the ethical aspects of this topic are encouraged in any area of law or policy. Pieces submitted should be timely, and should also [...]]]>

The Yale Law Journal Pocket Part is seeking commentaries and essays on the ethical issues presented by the duty of confidentiality in the attorney-client relationship. In particular, we seek submissions discussing the potential conflict between a lawyer’s duty to guard a client’s communications and his or her obligation to disclose those communications to prevent harm to third parties. Submissions may address, but need not be limited to, the implications for client confidentiality and protection in the corporate setting, the public interest context—including strategic litigation and direct legal services—and government service.

Scholarly and practitioner submissions that advance a novel perspective or proposal related to the ethical aspects of this topic are encouraged in any area of law or policy. Pieces submitted should be timely, and should also address any relevant literature and developments in the field.

Submissions should be around 1500 words including footnotes. We encourage authors to write in a style accessible to policy-makers and practitioners. For a detailed style guide and instructions for submitting your piece, please visit our website, www.thepocketpart.org, and follow the link for “Submissions.”

The deadline for submissions is November 20, 2008

Authors Mitchell M. Gans, Bridget J. Crawford, and Jonathan G. Blattmachr previously “suggested in [The Pocket Part] that post-death publicity rights could be excluded from the decedent’s estate for tax purposes if state legislation precluded the decedent from exercising post-death control.” In the latest issue of The Pocket Part they respond to Professor Joshua Tate’s rebuttal of their original piece. The authors argue that Tate’s contention “that under current law, estate tax inclusion would be required regardless of the decedent’s ability to exercise control. . . .[meaning] the estate tax would apply even if the legislation vested those rights in the decedent’s oldest daughter and even if the decedent had no right to alter this outcome” represents an unsupportable view of the [...]]]>

Authors Mitchell M. Gans, Bridget J. Crawford, and Jonathan G. Blattmachr previously “suggested in [The Pocket Part] that post-death publicity rights could be excluded from the decedent’s estate for tax purposes if state legislation precluded the decedent from exercising post-death control.” In the latest issue of The Pocket Part they respond to Professor Joshua Tate’s rebuttal of their original piece. The authors argue that Tate’s contention “that under current law, estate tax inclusion would be required regardless of the decedent’s ability to exercise control. . . .[meaning] the estate tax would apply even if the legislation vested those rights in the decedent’s oldest daughter and even if the decedent had no right to alter this outcome” represents an unsupportable view of the law. Gans, Crawford, and Blattmachr argue that “Tate’s analysis misconstrues fundamental estate tax principles and misunderstands the precedents on which he relies.”