Contradictory Rehnquist-Roberts Era Speech Law – Available Early

In the January 2013 issue, the University of Illinois Law Review will be publishing Professor David Kairys’s Essay, The Contradictory Messages of the Rehnquist-Roberts Era Speech Law: Liberty and Justice for Some.  In his Essay, Professor Kairys suggests that, beyond the familiar First Amendment rhetoric of self-expression, empowerment of the people, and triumphal American democracy, there are differences between the Court’s treatment of modes of speech available to people of ordinary means, and modes available to corporations and the wealthy. The Court’s curtailment of rights related to the former, and expansion of rights related to the latter, skews, corrupts, and undermines the democratic process.  Because of its relevance to political speech this election season, the board of editors is pleased to make the Article available early.

Click here to download David Kairys’s Essay.


Volume 2012, Issue 4

The Board of Editors is pleased to present Issue 4 of the 2012 Volume of the Illinois Law Review.

First, Professors Fisch and Roiter argue that proposals requiring a floating Net Asset Value for money market funds are misguided. Instead, they argue that the more important regulatory question is what happens if a money market fund breaks the buck.  The Article proposes two procedural reforms designed to provide flexibility and predictability in these circumstances by allowing a money market fund to convert to a floating NAV and allowing investors to redeem most of their shares without awaiting completion of a fund’s liquidation.

Next, Professors Paul J. Heald and Susannah Chapman challenge the conventional wisdom that the Twentieth Century was a disaster for crop diversity. Rather, their data suggest that patent law has not reduced crop diversity, nor is it likely to have significantly contributed to the introduction of new vegetable varieties. This Article goes significantly beyond our prior three related postings of preliminary data.

Following, Professor Hillel Y. Levin introduces and explores an approach to statutory interpretation, which posits that judges interpreting ambiguous statutes are and should be constrained by the understanding and expectations of the contemporary public as to the law’s meaning and application.

Next, Professor Jessica L. Roberts identifies an unresolvable tension between the anti-discrimination approach embraced by health-care reform advocates and the current practices of the private, for-profit health-insurance industry, which the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) seeks to preserve.

The issue also includes the David C. Baum Memorial Lecture on Civil Rights and Civil Liberties by Judge Vaughn R. Walker, who argues that there is no fixed “strike zone” for judges to use and that they must rule based on the facts and circumstances of the cases before them.

The issue concludes with notes by Kerry P. Burnet, Adam A. Field, Zachary M. Johns, and Charles Gibbs.


Marcy Zora’s Note featured on NewsHour

The Board of Editors is pleased to announce that one of our student notes has been featured on the PBS show NewsHour. Marcy Zora, whose Note is about the use of social media by jurors, was asked to comment on George Zimmerman’s defense team’s novel use of social media which may wind up affecting the outcome of the case.

Congratulations to Ms. Zora on writing such an important and timely note!