Law Commons^™

Those Who Can't, Teach: What The Legal Career Of John Yoo Tells Us About Who Should Be Teaching Law, Lawrence Rosenthal

Lawrence Rosenthal

Perhaps no member of the legal academy in America is more controversial than John Yoo. For his role in producing legal opinions authorizing what is thought by many to be abusive treatment of detainees as part of the Bush Administration’s “Global War on Terror,” some have called for him to be subjected to professional discipline, others have called for his criminal prosecution. This paper raises a different question: whether John Yoo – and his like – ought to be teaching law.

John Yoo provides something of a case study in the problems in legal education today. As a scholar, Professor …

Second Amendment Plumbing After Mcdonald, Lawrence Rosenthal

Lawrence Rosenthal

These essays were written for a debate with Professor Joyce Lee Malcolm appearing in the Northwestern University Law Review concerning the standard of scrutiny to be applied to gun control laws in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago. The opening essay argues that the text of the Second Amendment, the history of gun-control regulation, and the approach taken by the Supreme Court in McDonald and District of Columbia v. Heller argue for some form of intermediate scrutiny capable of coming to grips with the fact that the populace capable of bearing arms, that …

Mcdonald V. Chicago: Which Standard Of Scrutiny Should Apply To Gun-Control Laws?, Lawrence Rosenthal

Lawrence Rosenthal

No abstract provided.

First Amendment Investigations And The Inescapable Pragmatism Of The Common Law Of Free Speech, Lawrence Rosenthal

Lawrence Rosenthal

Scholars have struggled to explain our sprawling First Amendment doctrine – once described by Justice Stevens as “an elaborate mosaic of specific judicial decisions, characteristic of the common law process of case-by-case adjudication.” The position that has gained the most traction in recent scholarship has stressed the primacy of governmental motive – this school of thought argues that the degree of scrutiny to be afforded a challenged regulation is based on an assessment of the likelihood that the regulation reflects a governmental motive to burden disfavored speech or speakers.

This article offers a challenge to the purposivist account. It begins, …

Second Thoughts On Damages For Wrongful Convictions, Lawrence Rosenthal

Lawrence Rosenthal

After the DNA-inspired wave of exonerations of recent years, there has been widespread support for expanding the damages remedies available to those who have been wrongfully accused or convicted. This article argues that the case for providing such compensation is deeply problematic under the justificatory theories usually advanced in support of either no-fault or fault-based liability. Although a regime of strict liability is sometimes thought justifiable to as a means of creating an economic incentive to scale back conduct thought highly likely to produce social losses, it is far from clear that the risk of error is so high in …

Pragmatism, Originalism, Race And The Case Against Terry V. Ohio, Lawrence Rosenthal

Lawrence Rosenthal

Perhaps no decision of the United States Supreme Court concerning the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on “unreasonable search and seizure” has come in for more criticism than Terry v. Ohio, in which the Supreme Court concluded that even absent probable cause to arrest, a brief detention and protective search of an individual comports with the Fourth Amendment “where a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude that criminal activity may be afoot and that the person with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous . . .” Terry is frequently denounced as granting the …

Confusing Cause And Effect, Lawrence Rosenthal

Lawrence Rosenthal

This brief essay commenting on Paul Butler's article, "Race Based Jury Nullification: Black Power in the Criminal Justice System," prepared for the Criminal Law Conversations project, argues that Professor Butler's proposal of race-based jury nullification to address the African-American community's perception of racial injustice in the administration of the criminal laws, particularly the drug laws, confuses cause and effect. The most important cause of African-American dissatisfaction with the criminal justice system is its inability to keep inner-city communities safe. A regime of race-based jury nullification, in turn, would aggravate rather than ameliorate this serious problem.

The New Originalism Meets The Fourteenth Amendment: Original Public Meaning And The Problem Of Incorporation, Lawrence Rosenthal

Lawrence Rosenthal

This paper, prepared for a symposium on the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment at the University of San Diego's Institute for Constitutional Originalism, examines the historical case for incorporation within the Fourteenth Amendment of the rights in first eight amendments to the Constitution in light of the recent turn in thinking about originalist methods of constitutional interpretation. In recent decades, the historical case for incorporation has made something of a comeback, resting on strong evidence that many of the key framers of the Fourteenth Amendment considered the first eight amendments to be among the privileges and immunities of …

Probability, Probable Cause, And The Law Of Unintended Consequences, Lawrence Rosenthal

Lawrence Rosenthal

This brief essay responds to Max Minzer's article "Putting Probability Back into Probable Cause." The essay supports Professor Minzer's proposal for the use of empirical evidence of the success of a given investigating officer or investigative technique in assessing the existence of probable cause to search or seize, but offers a caveat. If an officer's "hit rate" becomes central to Fourth Amendment analysis, there is a serious danger of overdeterrence which, in turn, could lead to a dangerous escalation in violent crime. The essay offers some proposals for minimizing the risk of overdeterrence in an empirically-based regime of probable cause.

The Crime Drop And Racial Profiling: Toward An Empirical Jurisprudence Of Search And Seizure, Lawrence Rosenthal

Lawrence Rosenthal

No abstract provided.

The Crime Drop And Racial Profiling: Toward An Empirical Jurisprudence Of Search And Seizure, Lawrence Rosenthal

Lawrence Rosenthal

No abstract provided.

Policing And Equal Protection, Lawrence Rosenthal

Lawrence Rosenthal

For urban policing, it is the best of times and the worst of times. The innovative and proactive policing techniques that have come into widespread use over the past decade -- sometimes referred to as the "New Policing" -- are credited by many with producing significant reductions in urban crime. The vocal and numerous critics of these tactics, however, claim that the cure has been worse than the disease, by imposing enormous and unwarranted burdens on high crime minority communities where use of these new tactics is concentrated. In this paper, I offer a defense for New Policing as faithful …

Public Order Laws After City Of Chicago V. Morales, Lawrence Rosenthal

Lawrence Rosenthal

No abstract provided.

Gang Loitering And Race, Lawrence Rosenthal

Lawrence Rosenthal

The decision of the United States Supreme Court in City of Chicago v. Morales, which invalidating Chicago's gang-loitering ordinance, provides a road map for future public order laws that can address inner-city crime. This article makes the argument for public order laws as an anti-gang initiative that stops short of an approach dependent on massive incarceration, and defends such laws against an attack on grounds of racial fairness. Relying on the work of leading urban sociologists, the article argues that gang crime powerfully attracts inner city (and disproportionately minority) youth, and that any strategy for crime reduction in the inner …

Romer V. Evans As The Transformation Of Local Government Law, Lawrence Rosenthal

Lawrence Rosenthal

Colorado's Amendment 2 prohibited the state and local governments in Colorado from enforcing "any statute, regulation, ordinance or policy whereby homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships shall constitute or otherwise be the basis of or entitle any person or class of persons to have or claim any minority status, quota preferences, protected status or claim of rimi"2 Three Colorado municipalities that had enacted ordinances protecting gays and lesbians, and individuals who had lost the protections offered by those ordinances, brought suit in state court seeking to invalidate the amendment.