A Legal Stimulus

A Legal Stimulus

We need a legal stimulus. Not just a stimulus that is legal, but one that provides legal aid. That is why any further congressional stimulus should allocate additional funds specifically for legal services to individuals who, as a result of COVID-19, face eviction, foreclosure, loan defaults, debt collection, bankruptcy, domestic violence, or denied insurance claims or coverage. The need is dire. These looming crises from the pandemic will hit, but mostly after the initial health scare has dampened, the executive orders are lifted,…

Read More Read More

Deterring Viral Pandemics of COVID-19 Misinformation

Deterring Viral Pandemics of COVID-19 Misinformation

As the coronavirus spreads across the United States, so does an info-demic of dangerous misinformation threatening public health. UN Secretary-General António Guterres characterized this misinfo-demic as a “secondary disease” that needlessly threatens public health, observing that “[h]armful health advice and snake-oil solutions are proliferating.” A U.S. Attorney similarly warned Americans to be “extremely wary of outlandish medical claims and false promises of immense profits.” “[O]ver 4,000 coronavirus-related domains—that is, they contain words like “corona” or “covid” —have been registered since…

Read More Read More

The Necessity of Firearm Stores During the COVID-19 Pandemic

The Necessity of Firearm Stores During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Comments 0 Comment

Gun owners and would-be gun purchasers are arguing that state measures to prevent the spread of the novel coronavirus infringe on their Second Amendment rights. To the extent the premise is correct—the Second Amendment guarantees access to a firearm store—it’s not clear that their conclusion follows. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, forty-five states have issued statewide stay at home orders. These orders are based upon guidance from the Center for Disease Control and other public health agencies that have…

Read More Read More

Stay-at-Home, Videoconferencing, and a Baptism of Fire for the California Consumer Privacy Act

Stay-at-Home, Videoconferencing, and a Baptism of Fire for the California Consumer Privacy Act

The novel coronavirus COVID-19 has rapidly become one of the worst public health crises in U.S. history. Yet this is not only a critical moment for health, but also for privacy. With social isolation orders in forty-two states, as well as Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico, and Guam, collaborative technological services—such as such as video conferencing, file sharing, mobile apps, and video games—have taken an even more preeminent role in our social and work lives. The increasing importance of these technologies…

Read More Read More

Prisons in the time of COVID-19

Prisons in the time of COVID-19

The current COVID-19 public health crisis has rendered the nation’s jails and prisons ticking time bombs. In the confined spaces of the carceral system the infection flourishes. At Rikers Island in New York City the rate of infection among the incarcerated population is an estimated seven times that of the free population. The Cook County Jail in Chicago boasts the highest infection rate in the country. Inmates post desperate pleas for help on their cell windows: “Help we matter2.” In…

Read More Read More

The Torture Machine: An Excerpt

The Torture Machine: An Excerpt

On December 10, 2019, an Illinois Appellate Court, in a notable Chicago Police torture case, affirmed Cook County Judge William H. Hooks’s decision granting Jackie Wilson a new trial, finding that his 1982 confession was a result of torture by Lieutenant Jon Burge and his detectives. People v. Jackie Wilson, 2019 IL App (1st) 181486. Flint Taylor is Wilson’s attorney and a Northwestern School of Law graduate. Below is an excerpt from his new book, The Torture Machine (Haymarket Books,…

Read More Read More

Update on Confirmation Process

Update on Confirmation Process

The following piece is a part of NULR of Note’s “Bring Back The ‘90s” initiative, aimed at exploring the evolution of legal thinking over the past three decades. For more, click here. Writing in 1990, not long after the conclusion of Robert Bork’s Supreme Court confirmation hearings, I noted the growing—although not uncontested—consensus that senators should attempt to shape constitutional meaning by aggressively inquiring about the nominee’s beliefs about interpretive methods, legal philosophy, doctrines, and even specific cases. I lamented…

Read More Read More

Two Conceptions of Rights: Twenty-Five Years Later

Two Conceptions of Rights: Twenty-Five Years Later

The following piece is a part of NULR of Note’s “Bring Back The ‘90s” initiative, aimed at exploring the evolution of legal thinking over the past three decades. For more, click here. It is both gratifying and disheartening to be asked to comment on my now twenty-five-year-old Article, From Cannibalism to Caesareans: Two Conceptions of Fundamental Rights. It is gratifying to think that the thesis of that Article remains worth discussing a quarter of a century later, but disheartening to…

Read More Read More

Neuroscience and the Active Jury

Neuroscience and the Active Jury

The following piece is a part of NULR of Note’s “Bring Back The ‘90s” initiative, aimed at exploring the evolution of legal thinking over the past three decades. For more, click here. In 1990, the Northwestern University Law Review published The Competency and Responsibility of Jurors in Deciding Cases, 85 Nw. U. L. Rev. 190 (1990). The Article conceptualized the jury “as a democratic representative of the community through its verdicts” and argued that because of this democratic role, it should…

Read More Read More

Accountability (or Lack Thereof) of Corporate Officers and Directors

Accountability (or Lack Thereof) of Corporate Officers and Directors

The following piece is a part of NULR of Note’s “Bring Back The ‘90s” initiative, aimed at exploring the evolution of legal thinking over the past three decades. For more, click here. In assessing the liability of corporate actors, courts have fairly consistently resolved contests of doctrine in favor of corporate law principles as opposed to tort law principles.  Corporate law traditionally protects officers and directors from personal liability for tortious acts committed in their corporate roles unless they actively…

Read More Read More