Digital Commons Network^™

The Power To “Try” “Cases Of Impeachment”: Some Reflections On The Finality, Transparency And Integrity Of Senate Adjudications Of Presidential Impeachments (Including That Of Donald J. Trump), Vikram D. Amar, Jason Mazzone

Chicago-Kent Law Review

No abstract provided.

Clarifying The Scope Of The Self-Incrimination Clause: City Of Hays V. Vogt, Samantha Ruben

Chicago-Kent Law Review

Three months after oral arguments, the Supreme Court dismissed the writ of certiorari in City of Hays v. Vogt as improvidently granted. The question in Vogt was whether the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination is violated when incriminating statements are used at a probable cause hearing, as opposed to a criminal trial. As a result of the “DIG,” the Court left a circuit split unresolved surrounding the meaning of a “criminal case” within the Fifth Amendment’s Self-Incrimination Clause.

This note argues that the Supreme Court should not have dismissed Vogt and should have decided that the Fifth Amendment right against …

President Trump's Big Beautiful Wall: Discrimination, Eminent Domain, And The Public Use Requirement, Meghan K. Tierney

Chicago-Kent Law Review

At a press conference held in Trump Tower New York City on June 16, 2015, Donald Trump announced his candidacy for President of the United States by promising to expand the border wall along the Southern United States. President Trump has insisted that his only reasons behind completely separating the United States from Mexico are to curtail illegal immigration and curb drug cartel activity, but many argue that his statements indicate a much more sinister motive based in racial discrimination. The public use requirement of the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause allows the federal government to take private land for the …

Markedly Low: An Argument To Raise The Burden Of Proof For Patent False Marking, Caroline Ayres Teichner

Chicago-Kent Law Review

The Federal Circuit's liberal treatment of the patent false-marking statute, 35 U.S.C. § 292, has created a climate in which opportunistic qui tam plaintiffs facing a low burden of proof can recover potentially enormous sums of money under the statute with no showing of competitive injury. This note argues that the Federal Circuit erred by ruling that plaintiffs must prove the key element of false-marking claims—namely, intent to deceive the public—by a mere preponderance of the evidence, and further contends that the court should have adopted the clear and convincing standard instead. Support for this elevated burden of proof can …