Current Print Edition

Judicial Institutionalism

Rachel Bayefsky

Associate Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law.

The idea of institutionalism figures prominently in today’s debates about the role of federal courts in American democracy. For example, Chief Justice Roberts is often described as an institutionalist who seeks to preserve the Supreme Court’s power or reputation. But what exactly is institutionalism, and should judges be institutionalists? Although institutionalism is invoked in public…

Earning Trade Secrets

Joseph P. Fishman & Deepa Varadarajan

Professor of Law, Vanderbilt Law School, Associate Professor of Law, Georgia State University College of Law.

Every intellectual property right, like every property right generally, has a moment of birth. Whether and when that moment occurs depend on doctrines of original acquisition. In most IP regimes, these doctrines are so fundamental that they’ve been reduced to a single verb. One can get a patent only by inventing, or a copyright only…

Reproductive Justice at Work: Employment Law after Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization

Laura T. Kessler

S.J. Quinney Endowed Chair and Professor of Law, University of Utah, S.J. Quinney College of Law.

In June 2022, in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, landmark decisions which held that the U.S. Constitution protected a right to abortion prior to fetal viability. Overnight, about 64 million American women of childbearing age potentially lost the right to decide what…

Natural‑Person Shareholder Voting

Michael Simkovic

USC Gould School of Law.

“One-share, one-vote” corporate governance often leads to inefficient negative externalities, even when shareholders care about direct harm to themselves and even if corporations respond to shareholder preferences. Because equity ownership is concentrated, while many externalities are more diffuse, corporate voting underweights externalities. But allocating votes according to the principle of “one person, one vote” creates…

On Bankruptcy Appeals: Equitable Mootness as Gatekeeper to Plan Confirmation Review

Zachary R. Hunt

J.D., Cornell Law School, 2024. M.S. in Finance, University of South Florida, 2021. Senior Articles Editor, Cornell Law Review Vol. 109.

In bankruptcy appeals, the judge-made prudential doctrine of “equitable mootness” allows appellate courts to dismiss an appeal as moot when granting the requested relief would undermine the finality of a substantially consummated plan of reorganization. As applied, however, the doctrine of equitable mootness is neither mootness nor equitable. On the former, equitable mootness is not…

Payment as Punishment: Establishing College Athletes as Employees to Safeguard Athlete Welfare in the “Super Conference” Era

Haley Lukas

J.D., Cornell Law School, 2025; M.B.A., Cornell SC Johnson College of Business, 2025; B.S. (Business Administration) UC Berkeley, 2017. Prior to law school, Lukas captained the NCAA Division I UC Berkeley (California) women’s soccer team and played professional soccer in multiple top divisions across Europe.

This Note argues the increased profitability and shift toward “super conferences” in Division I college athletics does not comport with the NCAA’s “revered tradition of amateurism” and justifies college athletes’ classification as employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Rather than making more traditional compensation arguments rooted in fairness or market value, employment status…

Current Online Edition

Treating the Administrative as Law: Responding to the “Judicial Aggrandizement” Critique

Chad Squitieri

Assistant Professor of Law, Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law.

Modern separation-of-powers jurisprudence—including key decisions decided during the Supreme Court’s 2023-24 term—has been critiqued on the grounds that it constitutes “judicial aggrandizement,” i.e., that it impermissibly empowers federal courts to decide separation-of-powers questions better left to Congress and the President. This “judicial aggrandizement” critique goes too far to the extent it suggests that federal courts…