VOLUME 88, ISSUE 3  |  February 2010

 

Articles

Prof. Evan J. Criddle

88 Texas L. Rev. 441 (2010)

Over the last several decades, some scholars have argued that rulemaking by unelected agency officials imperils popular sovereignty.  The conventional wisdom is that federal law should resolve this problem by allowing the President to serve as a proxy for the “will of the people” in administrative rulemaking.  However, Professor Criddle suggests that a better solution for promoting popular representation in agency rulemaking is to extend private fiduciary duties to administrative agencies.


Prof. John M. Golden

88 Texas L. Rev. 505 (2010)

In this Article, Professor Golden examines the debate about what the value of patent remedies generally is or should be.  This public debate has become relatively heated in light of recent Supreme Court jurisprudence that may decrease the availability of injunctions forbidding continued infringement.  Professor Golden concludes that policy making in this area should take guidance from specific principles of adaptation and implementation.


 

Book Reviews

Prof. Scott Baker

88 Texas L. Rev. 593 (2010)

Professor Baker reviews The Patent Crisis and How the Courts Can Solve It, by Dan Burke and Mark Lemley.


 

Notes

Karen E. Francis

88 Texas L. Rev. 611 (2010)

In this Note, Francis examines the payday-loan industry and the existing and proposed regulations that control it. Looking through the lens of behavioral law and economics, she illustrates how some borrowers systematically underestimate their future borrowing, leading to unexpected rollover loans and imposing substantial and unnecessary costs on these borrowers. The Note also demonstrates how lenders are able to exploit these borrowers’ underestimation biases to aggravate the costs incurred in the "debt trap."


Ryan Hackney

88 Texas L. Rev. 639 (2010)

In this Note, Hackney discusses the legal issues surrounding state/local preemption.  He examines this broad area of law by looking at what steps a city may take to ensure that its citizens breath clean air if the city determines that the state is not doing enough to regulate air pollution.


An Online Companion to Texas Law Review
 
Sarah E. Agudo

Wed, 2009-10-14

In this piece, Sarah Agudo responds to Professor Wildenthal's criticism of a prior Texas Law Review article authored by her and Professor Steven G. Calabresi discussing, among more than 100 other individual rights, grand jury rights.  Agudo responds to several of Professor Wildenthal's critiques of her methodology, while noting that some of his suggestions provide useful areas in which to expand the research on the state constitutional history of grand juries in future publications.

Guha Krishnamurthi, Jon Reidy, Michael J. Stephan, and Shane Pennington

Tue, 2009-10-13

In this Response Note to Jeremy Waldron's The Core of the Case Against Judicial Review, the Authors defend judicial majoritarianism, which is the use of majority decisionmaking among judicial officers who possess the power of judicial review. In defending judicial majoritrianism, the Authors contend that Professor Waldron's arguments against majoritarian decisionmaking merely reassert traditional arguments against judicial review rather than adding any new ideas to the debate.

Prof. Mae C. Quinn

Tue, 2009-10-13

In this response piece, Professor Mae C. Quinn examines Brian Tamanaha's efforts to recast the "who" and "what" of the Legal Realism movement in his recent article.  Professor Quinn applauds Professor Tamanaha's attempt to rescue from obscurity some of Legal Realism's forgotten pioneers.  But as Professor Tamanaha, like others examining the Realist movement, neglected to discuss the contribution of women to the movement, Professor Quinn seeks to recover this history.  Specifically, she examines the story of Judge Anna Moscowitz Kross, whose legal career embodied the tenants of Realism that Professor Tamanaha acknowledged as most significant.

Joshua A. Douglas

Sun, 2009-10-11

In this Essay, Douglas tells us that "[t]he most surprising action from the Supreme Court’s latest term may be what it did not do:  strike down Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act . . . as unconstitutional." Douglas explores the Court's recent decision in Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Holder (NAMUDNO), in which the Justices managed to avoid invalidating Congress's reauthorization of the "preclearance" provision of the Voting Rights Act (which requires preapproval for changes to voting procedures in covered jurisdictions). This Essay explores the reasons behind the Court's 8–1 opinion, which resolved the issue on narrow statutory grounds, and what the comments in dicta by various Justices may mean for future election law cases.