ANNOUNCEMENTS
Issue 97:2 Now Available
Issue 2 of Volume 97 is now available online and in print. The issue contains four Articles and four student-written Notes.
Issue 97:1 Now Available
Issue 1 of Volume 97 is now available online and in print. The issue contains five Articles and four student-written Notes.
Volume 97 Student Writers
The Iowa Law Review is proud to announce the student writers for volume 97. Congratulations!
IOWA LAW REVIEW BULLETIN
Why Crime Severity Analysis is Not Reasonable
by Christopher Slobogin
Responding to Bellin, Crime-Severity Distinctions and the Fourth Amendment: Reassessing Reasonableness in a Changing World
View Response View Article
IP Foreclosure and Antitrust Foreclosure
by Steven Semeraro
Responding to Bohannan, IP Misuse as Foreclosure
View Response View Article
The Way Forward: Racial Integration After Ricci, a Response to Michelle Adams
by Elise C. Boddie
Responding to Adams, Is Integration a Discriminatory Purpose?
View Response View Article
The Fifth Amendment, Cell Phones and Search Incident: A Response to Password Protected?
by Susan W. Brenner
Responding to Gershowitz, Password Protected? Can a Password Save Your Cell Phone from a Search Incident to Arrest?
View Response View Article
Unconscionability and Consent in Corporate Law (A Comment on Cunningham)
by Kent Greenfield
Responding to Cunningham, A New Legal Theory To Test Executive Pay: Contractual Unconscionability
Professor Greenfield situates Professor Cunningham’s article in the ongoing debate over whether corporate law is best analogized to contract law or property law, arguing that even though Professor Cunningham’s article proposes a contract-law remedy, it is best understood as supporting the corporation-as-property metaphor.
View Response View Article
The Dark Side of Litigation as a Social Movement Strategy
by Catherine Albiston
Responding to NeJaime, Winning Through Losing
View Response View Article
IP Misuse and Innovation Harm
by Thomas F. Cotter
Responding to Bohannan, IP Misuse as Foreclosure
Professor Cotter’s response argues that Professor Bohannan’s misuse proposal goes too far and that courts should not apply the misuse doctrine “to combat harms to competition and innovation in a manner that would depart from standard antitrust law” because doing so could have a stifling effect on future innovation.
View Response View Article
The Timely Demise of the Fourth Amendment Third Party Doctrine
by Stephen E. Henderson
Responding to Tokson, Automation and the Fourth Amendment
Professor Henderson’s response includes a four-factor test courts should apply in determining whether a person retains a reasonable expectation of privacy in information given to a third party.
View Response View Article
Things Are Bad Enough Already
by David McGowan
Responding to Litman, Real Copyright Reform
Professor McGowan’s response argues (1) that there is less wrong with copyright law than Professor Litman argues, (2) that, while some of Professor Litman’s recommendations for copyright reform are valid, we should not preference “mandatory rules over defaults,” (3) and ends with a proposal for more grounded copyright scholarship, while still acknowledging the importance and appeal of scholarship that will be difficult or impossible to implement.
View Response
Copyright Harm and Reform
by Christina Bohannan
Responding to Litman, Real Copyright Reform
Professor Bohannan challenges one of Professor Litman’s cornerstone proposals for reform—that copyrights should be defined as rights against "commercial exploitation."
View Response
National Security and the Shadows of “Common Sense”
by Alexander A. Reinert
Responding to Margulies, Judging Myopia in Hindsight: Bivens Actions, National Security Decisions, and the Rule of Law
Procuring “Justice”?: Citizens United, Caperton v. Massey, and Partisan Judicial Elections
by andré douglas pond cummings
Responding to LeRoy, Do Partisan Elections of Judges Produce Unequal Justice When Courts Review Employment Arbitrations?
Professor cummings discusses Professor LeRoy’s research from the context of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Citizens United and Caperton, arguing that—without intervention—we can now see that Citizens United will create situations where money will play an even bigger role in judicial decision-making.
View Response