Executive Privilege and Interbranch Comity After Clinton

Although both constitutional theory and practical considerations offer powerful reasons for Congress and the President to prefer negotiation rather than litigation of separation of powers disputes, the Clinton Administration litigated and lost several important cases dealing with presidential power. Some commentators have suggested that these rulings will undermine the presidency for years after Clinton leaves office. Professor Entin assesses some factors, notably the phenomenon of divided government, that might have contributed to the difficulty of reaching interbranch accommodations in recent years and suggests that the long-term implications of the adverse judicial rulings may be less severe than the pessimists fear

Law Review Symposium 2011: Baker v. Carr After 50 Years: Appraising the Reapportionment Revolution: Introduction

Introduction to Law Review Symposium 2011: Baker V. Carr after 50 Years: Appraising the Reapportionment Revolution, Cleveland, O

Scholarship about Teaching

This essay draws on that experience, focusing on approximately half a dozen particularly good articles that have appeared in the Journal during my editorial tenure. Most of these describe new ideas, offering detailed information for the curious reader who might want to emulate the author\u27s approach or simply to learn what others in the legal academy are doing. Typically, however, these papers contain little or no meaningful assessment or evaluation. Descriptive is too often a pejorative term of dismissal. But good description is often an essential first step toward understanding. Because I believe that more rigorous evaluation could add to our store of reliable knowledge about legal education, I offer some suggestions for designing quasi- experiments to assess the utility of educational innovations and discuss some non-experimental studies that have relied upon statistical analysis to evaluate new courses or programs

Note, United States v. Progressive, Inc.: The Faustian Bargain and the First Amendment

Note discussing United States v. Progressive, Inc

The Sign of The Four : Judicial Assignment and the Rule of Law

This article will examine the issues of judicial assignment. Then the article will return to the Cameron situation in an effort to put that controversy into broader perspective. Finally, the article will consider state procedures that, for practical purposes, authorize litigants to make peremptory challenges to judges in certain circumstances. Those procedures have implications for the discussion of random assignments and for the way we think about Judge Cameron\u27s charges

Insubstantial Questions and Federal Jurisdiction

This article seeks to clear up the confusion over substantial federal questions. Part I provides an overview of the Supreme Court\u27s jurisdiction, distinguishing between appeal and certiorari. Part II examines the precedential weight of the Court\u27s summary dispositions, contrasting summary disposition of appeals with denials of certiorari. Part III explains why the suggestions that the lower courts lack jurisdiction over cases presenting issues in which the Supreme Court has dismissed appeals for want of a substantial federal question are mistaken

Erik Jensen: Curmudgeon, Scholar, Coauthor, Friend

Tribute to Professor Erik M. Jense