Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 5 of 5

Full-Text Articles in Law

Inside Regulatory Interpretation: A Research Note, Christopher J. Walker Nov 2015

Inside Regulatory Interpretation: A Research Note, Christopher J. Walker

Michigan Law Review First Impressions

We now live in a regulatory world, where the bulk of federal lawmaking takes place at the bureaucratic level. Gone are the days when statutes and common law predominated. Instead, federal agencies—through rulemaking, adjudication, and other regulatory action—have arguably become the primary lawmakers, with Congress delegating to its bureaucratic agents vast swaths of lawmaking power, the President attempting to exercise some control over this massive regulatory apparatus, and courts struggling to constrain agency lawmaking within statutory and constitutional bounds. This story is not new. Over two decades ago, for instance, Professor Lawson lamented the rise of the administrative state and …


Stubborn Things: An Empirical Approach To Facts, Opinions, And The First Amendment, Daniel E. Herz-Roiphe Jan 2015

Stubborn Things: An Empirical Approach To Facts, Opinions, And The First Amendment, Daniel E. Herz-Roiphe

Michigan Law Review First Impressions

This essay offers an empirical approach to the problem, rooted in an argument that the underlying rationale for the fact/opinion distinction in compelled speech doctrine tells us something about how this distinction should be policed. Commercial speech enjoys protection by virtue of its value to listeners, it is from the listener's vantage point, then, that courts should assess whether a compelled disclosure is fact or opinion. And if we are interested in learning how disclosures will affect listeners, we might try asking them, just as courts adjudicating trademark suits frequently use consumer surveys to determine how customers understand the meaning …


Erratum, Fred R. Shapiro, Michelle Pearse Jun 2012

Erratum, Fred R. Shapiro, Michelle Pearse

Michigan Law Review First Impressions

Fred R. Shapiro and Michelle Pearse's essay The Most-Cited Law Review Articles of All Time, 110 MICH. L. REV. 1483 (2012), omitted an article: Owen M. Fiss, Groups and the Equal Protection Clause, 5 PHIL. & PUB. AFF. 107 (1976). Professor Fiss's article should have been listed in 72nd place (with 729 citations) in Table I, Most-Cited Law Review Articles of All Time. Professor Fiss's article fell into the category of articles published in nonlegal journals with over 50 percent of the citations to them occurring in legal journals. See Shapiro & Pearse, supra, at 1487-88. This category by its …


Beating The Bluebook Blues: A Response To Judge Posner, Stephen M. Darrow, Jonathan J. Darrow Apr 2011

Beating The Bluebook Blues: A Response To Judge Posner, Stephen M. Darrow, Jonathan J. Darrow

Michigan Law Review First Impressions

Judge Richard A. Posner's recent critique (The Bluebook Blues) of the maddening hypertrophy of The Bluebook is surely a refreshing voice of sanity for the multitudes of law students and legal professionals who have had occasion to consult it. Even at Harvard Law School, the home of its founding institutional sponsor, The Bluebook's labyrinthine rules annually aggravate a fresh crop of otherwise remarkably stoic future lawyers. But while many of Posner's observations regarding The Bluebook are astute, we posit that both form and uniformity are important for citations, and we suggest citation-formatting software as a means of maximizing the utility …


Granting Certiorari To Video Recording But Not To Televising, Scott C. Wilcox Jan 2007

Granting Certiorari To Video Recording But Not To Televising, Scott C. Wilcox

Michigan Law Review First Impressions

Cameras are an understandable yet inapt target for Supreme Court Justices apprehensive about televising the high Court’s proceedings. Notwithstanding Justice Souter’s declaration to a congressional subcommittee in 1996 that cameras will have to roll over his dead body to enter the Court, the Justices’ public statements suggest that their objections are to televising—not to cameras. In fact, welcoming cameras to video record Court proceedings for archival purposes will serve the Justices’ interests well. Video recording can forestall legislation recently introduced in both houses of Congress that would require the Court to televise its proceedings. The Court’s desired result—the legislation disappearing …