By Kevin R. Johnson & Bernard Trujillo. Full text here.

By Fionnuala Ní Aoláin. Full text here.

By Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar. Full text here.

By William C. Banks. Full text here.

By Heidi Kitrosser. Full text here.

By Mark Tushnet. Full text here.

By Adrian Vermeule. Full text here.

By Bradley C. Karkkainen. Full text here. Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. exposed a deep flaw in regulatory takings doctrine. Lingle rejected the Agins holding that if a regulation does not “substantially advance a legitimate state interest,” it is a compensable taking. That formulation, Lingle said, was based on substantive due process precedents and is better…

By Mark A. Godsey. Full text here. Since Miranda v. Arizona was decided in 1966, scholars have devoted much attention to both the theoretical underpinnings and the real world impact of that decision. Little attention, however, has been paid to the substance or content of the warnings. The Supreme Court has often stated that the Miranda…

By Jonathan Klick & Gregory Mitchell. Full text here. Behavioral law and economics scholars who advance paternalistic policy proposals typically employ static models of decision-making behavior, despite the dynamic effects of paternalistic policies. This Article considers how paternalistic policies fare under a dynamic account of decision making that incorporates learning and motivation effects. This approach brings…