Digital Commons Network^™

Front Matter

Lewis & Clark Law Review

Front Matter contains Table of Contents, Masthead, and faculty for Lewis & Clark Law Review Volume 24, Issue 1.

The Constitutional Convention And Constitutional Change: A Revisionist History, Matthew Steilen

Lewis & Clark Law Review

How do we change the Federal Constitution? Article V tells us that we can amend the Constitution by calling a national convention to propose changes and then ratifying those proposals in state conventions. Conventions play this role because they represent the people in their sovereign capacity, as we learn when we read McCulloch v. Maryland.

What is not often discussed is that Article V itself contains another mechanism for constitutional change. In fact, Article V permits both conventions and legislatures to be used for amendment, and, as it happens, all but one of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have …

Getting A Lawyer While Black: A Field Experiment, Brian Libgober

Lewis & Clark Law Review

In this Article, I present new evidence that African-Americans face unique impediments in obtaining access to counsel. Using a randomized audit design, I show that those with black-sounding names receive only half the callbacks of those with white-sounding names in response to requests for legal representation. I design a larger, follow-up experiment to evaluate variations on the theory of “statistical discrimination”—that lawyers are merely responding to economically relevant signals correlated with race. I find no evidence supporting the expectations of the statistical discrimination theory but some evidence that racial preferences matter. I conclude by presenting a more nuanced theory of …

The Procedural Foundations Of Intellectual Property Information Regulation, Ira Steven Nathenson

Lewis & Clark Law Review

In the academy, legal scholarship on intellectual property, or “IP,” abounds, most of it focusing on the substance of IP. Far less, however, is written about the procedural aspects of IP. This Article focuses on the often-ignored proce- dural foundations of IP and suggests—at a minimum—that procedure so thoroughly pervades IP that IP’s true foundations might be in procedure rather than substance. Considering “IP as procedure” may further allow us to recog- nize that IP procedures may need to be reconceptualized within a broader field of information regulation procedures.

I. II.

Producing Justice In Poor People’S Courts: Four Models Of State Legal Actors, Tonya L. Brito

Lewis & Clark Law Review

This Article examines how judges and government attorneys produce justice in poor people’s courts, which are characterized by a substantial volume of cases, socioeconomically disadvantaged litigants, and an absence or asymmetry of representation. The Article’s findings are drawn from an extensive qualitative empirical study of one type of poor people’s court, specifically family court proceedings where the state is pursuing child support from low- and no-income noncustodial fathers. Focusing on the judges and government lawyers who handle these cases, and drawing from their own accounts as well as on ethnographic in-court observations, I identify four distinct models of state legal …

Federalizing Contract Law, Stephen A. Plass

Lewis & Clark Law Review

Contract law is generally understood as state common law, supplemented by the Second Restatement of Contracts and Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code. It is regarded as an expression of personal liberty, anchored in the bargain and consideration model of the 19th century or classical period. However, for some time now, non-bargained or adhesion contracts have been the norm, and increasingly, the adjudication of legal rights and contractual remedies is controlled by privately determined arbitration rules. The widespread adoption of arbitral adjudication by businesses has been enthusiastically endorsed by the Supreme Court as consonant with the Federal Arbitration Act …

The International Criminal Court: Interconnection Between International Bodies In Venezuela, Humberto Briceño León

Lewis & Clark Law Review

In this Article, I focus on the current International Criminal Court case regarding Venezuela’s alleged violations of fundamental human rights and other criminal violations of international law. I begin by outlining the situation in Venezuela and the history that led to this state of affairs. I then review the non-judicial and quasi-judicial activities done in the Venezuelan situation by several international bodies and their interrelation. Next, I address the ICC activities on the Venezuelan case, particularly its latest standards on timely justice and international cooperation. Following that, I give an overview of the institutional international framework focusing on how the …

Rule 43(A): Remote Witness Testimony And A Judiciary Resistant To Change, Christopher Fobes

Lewis & Clark Law Review

Technology has improved our lives in countless ways. In 1996, it made its way into our federal courtrooms and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure when the Congress codified Rule 43(a). Rule 43(a) permits a witness to testify remotely via telephone or video transmission upon a showing of good cause. Despite this large step into the modern era, some courts are pressed to exclude a witness’s remote testimony because of Rule 43(a)’s burdensome good-cause standard and the risks implicated by such testimony. The judiciary has struggled to find cohesion in determining when remote witness testimony is permissible. This Note critiques …

Reevaluating The Adjudication Of Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude, Colleen Muñoz

Lewis & Clark Law Review

Criminalizing immigration status has tainted the lives of permanent residents in the United States for years. A minor misdemeanor conviction imposes the threat of extreme penalties for noncitizens and their continued residence in the United States. Specifically, a conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude can prevent a noncitizen from seeking admission, threaten deportation proceedings, and jeopardize his or her ability to naturalize as a United States citizen. Crimes involving moral turpitude remain undefined in the Immigration and Nationality Act, causing courts to adjudicate the crimes arbitrarily.

In the absence of statutory or administrative direction, jurisdictions across the United States …

Front Matter

Lewis & Clark Law Review

Front Matter contains Table of Contents, Masthead, and faculty for Lewis & Clark Law Review Volume 24, Issue 2.

Preface, Jennie Lee Anderson

Lewis & Clark Law Review

On November 1–2, 2019, the Pound Civil Justice Institute and Lewis & Clark Law School together presented a unique academic symposium, addressing “Class Actions, Mass Torts, and MDLS: The Next 50 Years.” This symposium brought together distinguished legal academics, judges, and practitioners to consider the present status of class actions, mass torts, and multidistrict litigation in the United States, as well as possible future developments.

Foreword, Robert Klonoff

Lewis & Clark Law Review

This Symposium is entitled, “Class Actions, Mass Torts, and MDLs: The Next 50 Years.” It consists of a collection of articles by leading scholars and practitioners. All of the articles were presented at a live conference—co-sponsored by the Pound Civil Justice Institute—held at Lewis & Clark Law School on November 1 and 2, 2019.

Texas Mdl, D. Theodore Rave, Zachary D. Clopton

Lewis & Clark Law Review

Federal multidistrict litigation (MDL) gets all the attention. This mechanism for consolidating cases filed around the country in a single federal district court for pretrial proceedings has become the dominant mode of resolving mass torts in U.S. courts. But not all mass adjudications find their way into federal court. Texas, like about half of the states, has developed an MDL mechanism to coordinate proceedings within its own courts. In this Essay, we examine the history, doctrine, and data of Texas MDL. Although Texas modeled its approach on the federal MDL statute, the Texas MDL system differs in important ways from …

What Do Mdl Leaders Do? Evidence From Leadership Appointment Orders, David L. Noll

Lewis & Clark Law Review

In federal multidistrict litigation (MDL), district courts regularly appoint attorneys to manage the litigation of cases that are transferred to a single district court for coordinated pretrial proceedings. Orders appointing MDL leaders serve as a constitution or charter for a particular MDL, reallocating functions that otherwise would be performed by individually retained plaintiffs’ attorneys to court-appointed leaders. As such, they perform a crucial role in the “MDL model” of aggregate litigation and settlement. Yet in spite of their importance, knowledge of these orders is mostly folk wisdom.

This Article presents preliminary findings from a study of leadership appointment orders in …

Layers Of Lawyers: Parsing The Complexities Of Claimant Representation In Mass Tort Mdls, Lynn A. Baker, Stephen J. Herman

Lewis & Clark Law Review

The individual plaintiff in an MDL is subject to the efforts and decisions of numerous different attorneys, including many whom the plaintiff did not choose but who stand to share in any fees resulting from the plaintiff’s case. Which lawyers effectively represent the MDL plaintiff, at what point(s) in time, for what purpose(s), and with what obligations and potential liability to that plaintiff? What obligations and potential liability do the MDL leadership attorneys have to their own individually retained clients and other litigants in the MDL, and how should these attorneys handle any perceived conflicts in their obligations to the …

Procedural Self-Inflicted Wounds?, Joshua P. Davis, Brian J. Devine

Lewis & Clark Law Review

A proposal has recently come before the Federal Civil Rules Advisory Commit- tee to expand the ability of parties in multidistrict litigation to seek immediate interlocutory appellate review. This Essay suggests that the proposal is unwise as a matter of policy. It would make MDL litigation more expensive and less efficient. Counterintuitively, it may even harm the very large corporations who are championing the change. This Essay explains why that might occur—why large corporate defendants may pursue legal innovations that harm them—a possibility with implications well beyond interlocutory appellate review.

Multidistrict Litigation And Common Law Procedure, Alexandra D. Lahav

Lewis & Clark Law Review

On the 50th anniversary of the Multidistrict Litigation Act, the Act has gotten more attention than ever. One area that has led to significant controversy is the use of judicial discretion to craft procedures to manage MDLs. It is generally agreed that judges exercise discretion to create innovative procedures to resolve large-scale aggregate litigation transferred to their courts and that judges learn from approaches in previous MDLs that they think were successful in crafting these procedures. The controversy is that some think that this procedural approach is both exceptional and lawless. This Essay argues against this view, showing how the …

What Is A Fair Price For Objector Blackmail? Class Action Objectors And The 2018 Amendments To Rule 23, Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Adam N. Steinman

Lewis & Clark Law Review

As part of a symposium addressing what the next 50 years might hold for class actions, mass torts, and MDLs, this Article examines a recent amendment to Rule 23 that offers a new solution to the persistent problem of strategic objections. Most significantly, Rule 23 now requires the district judge to approve any payments made to class members in exchange for withdrawing or forgoing challenges to a class action settlement. Although the new provision is still in its infancy, it has already been deployed to thwart improper objector behavior and to bring for-pay objection practice out of the shadows. The …

In Defense Of The Cy-Pres-Only Class Action, Robert G. Bone

Lewis & Clark Law Review

Cy pres is frequently used to dispose of class action settlement funds, yet it is one of the most controversial aspects of class action practice. Perhaps the most contested use of cy pres is what I call the “cy-pres-only class action”: a settlement class action in which the judge certifies a class and approves a settlement that expressly provides for a third-party charity to receive all the settlement funds. In these cases, the judge exercises her judicial power to enable a lawsuit that compensates a third party who does not have legal rights at stake and does so without providing …

The Importance Of Cy Pres In Modern Class Action Jurisprudence And Myths Concerning Its Use, Gerson H. Smoger

Lewis & Clark Law Review

When class actions resolve, it is common for some or even all funds paid to the class to remain undistributed. All U.S. circuits, 40 states, and the Class Action Fairness Act have permitted undistributed funds to be distributed as cy pres. Recently, a few commentators have voiced constitutional objections to cy pres, based upon standing pursuant to Article III, the Rules Enabling Act, and the First Amendment. However, these analyses generally ignore the congressional mandate found within Rule 23 and the power of the courts to supervise cy pres distribution. Finally, the following recommendations are made: such awards should not …

Collective Preclusion And Inaccessible Arbitration: Data, Non-Disclosure, And Public Knowledge, Judith Resnik, Stephanie Garlock, Annie J. Wang

Lewis & Clark Law Review

When courts enforce mandates to arbitrate, jurists describe themselves as respecting the individuals’ autonomy to enter into contracts that route claimants to a process that is more user-friendly than adjudication. But those rationales are disjunctive with the practices of providers of goods and services and of employers. These companies neither offer individuals choices about dispute resolution mechanisms nor welcome the exchange of information about experiences with arbitration. Instead, companies impose obligations to arbitrate and set the terms. In addition to the increasingly commonplace bans on joint and collective actions in any forum, many providers and employers also seek to mandate …

Deregulation And Private Enforcement, Brian T. Fitzpatrick

Lewis & Clark Law Review

Many conservatives oppose much of the administrative state. But many also oppose much of our private enforcement regime. This raises the questions of whether conservatives believe the marketplace should be policed at all, and if so, who exactly should do that policing? In this Essay, based on my new book, The Conservative Case for Class Actions, I take a deep dive into conservative principles to try to answer these questions. I conclude that almost all conservatives believe the marketplace needs at least some legal constraints, and I argue that ex post, private enforcement is superior to the alternatives. Not only …

Symposium Interview On Aggregate Litigation, Arthur R. Miller, Robert Klonoff

Lewis & Clark Law Review

Professor Arthur R. Miller joined Professor Robert Klonoff for a Q&A session at Lewis & Clark Law School.

Multidistrict Litigation And Personal Jurisdiction, Zachary T. Nelson

Lewis & Clark Law Review

Under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, a court cannot lawfully adjudicate a party’s rights or obligations unless, among other things, that court possesses sufficient personal jurisdiction over the party. The means by which a court may obtain such jurisdiction have grown increasingly narrow in recent years. Parallel to that trend has been the meteoric rise of multidistrict litigation (MDL), in which the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transfers and consolidates numerous civil cases in a single federal court that, in many instances, lacks personal jurisdiction over one or more parties. Although MDL is statutorily limited to “pretrial proceedings,” 97% …

Front Matter

Lewis & Clark Law Review

Front Matter contains Table of Contents, Masthead, and faculty for Lewis & Clark Law Review Volume 24, Issue 3.

Dehumanization “Because Of Sex”: The Multiaxial Approach To The Rights Of Sexual Minorities, Shirley Lin

Lewis & Clark Law Review

Although Title VII prohibits discrimination against any employee “because of such individual’s . . . sex,” legal commentators have not yet accurately appraised Title VII’s trait and causation requirements embodied in that phrase. Since 2015, most courts assessing the sex discrimination claims of LGBT employees began to intentionally analyze “sex” as a trait using social-construction evidence, and evaluated separately whether the discriminatory motive caused the workplace harm. Responding to what this Article terms a “doctrinal correction” to causation within this groundswell of decisions, the Supreme Court recently issued an “expansive” and “sweeping” reformulation of but-for causation in Bostock v. Clayton …

Separation Of Functions For Ai: Restraining Speech Regulation By Online Platforms, Niva Elkin-Koren, Maayan Perel

Lewis & Clark Law Review

The Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution restricts government regulation of private speech. However, it generally does not apply to private management of speech. New forms of speech regulation by online platforms disrupt this constitutional framework. Platforms, such as Google, Facebook, and Twitter, are responsible for mediating much of the public discourse and governing access to speech and speakers around the world. These private businesses match users and content in whatever way best benefits their commercial interests. At the same time, however, they exercise regulatory power when they filter, block, and remove content at the …

Manipulating Risk: Immigration Detention Through Automation, Kate Evans, Robert Koulish

Lewis & Clark Law Review

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security arrests as many as 500,000 migrants per year and detains more than 350,000 of them through Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Since 2012, ICE has relied on an automated Risk Classification Assessment (RCA) system to recommend whom to detain and whom to release. The authors are the first to obtain access to its algorithm and this Article is the first to make that system’s methodology public. While purportedly basing these recommendations on indicia of flight risk and risk to public safety, the RCA in fact relies on an algorithm driven by political preferences. By …

Crowdfunding’S Culture Of Noncompliance: An Empirical Analysis, Mercer Bullard

Lewis & Clark Law Review

The JOBS Act of 2012 launched a number of experiments in the regulation of securities offerings. The exemption it created that allows online equity crowdfunding offerings to retail investors garnered the most attention, in part due to widespread concerns regarding the potential for fraud and abuse. More than three years after the first crowdfunding offering, no empirical analysis of compliance has been conducted that would debunk or confirm critics’ concerns. This Article plugs that gap by analyzing a sample of 362 crowdfunding offerings and evaluating compliance with some of crowdfunding regulation’s simplest, most fundamental regulatory requirements. During the first 13 …

The 2019 Higgins Distinguished Visitor Lecture: The Subversive Side Of Textualism And Original Intent, Donald B. Ayer

Lewis & Clark Law Review

The Lorene Sails Higgins Charitable Trust provides the Lewis & Clark community access to leading legal scholars from around the world. Each year, the campus is graced with a visitor renowned in their field whose stay is funded by a grant from the trust. This lecture, given by the former Deputy Attorney General and Principal Deputy Solicitor General Donald B. Ayer during the course of his visit, discussed the changes in American legal thinking during his career.