May 2011 Vol. 109 No. 7 THE REVIEW
ARTICLES

Stipulating the Law

Gary Lawson

In Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, the Supreme Court decided important questions of structural constitutionalism on the assumption, shared by all of the parties, that members of the Securities and Exchange Commission are not removable at will by the president. Four Justices strongly challenged the majority's willingness to accept what amounts to a stipulation by the parties to a controlling issue of law. As a general matter, the American legal system does not allow parties to stipulate to legal conclusions, though it welcomes and encourages stipulations to matters of fact. I argue that one ought to take seriously the idea that stipulations of law should be as integral a part of the adjudicative process as stipulations of fact-or, at the minimum, that the acceptance of stipulations of law rests on defensible assumptions about the nature of adjudication as a mechanism for resolving disputes rather than as a mechanism for declaring the law or expressing public values. Objections to the wide use of legal stipulations often focus on the potential third-party effects of adjudication, primarily (though not exclusively) through precedent. Those objections generally assume a contestable theory of precedent that emanates from a law-declaring rather than a dispute-resolving theory of adjudication. It is quite possible for a theory of precedent to accompany a dispute-resolution model of adjudication without raising (undue) concerns about externalities in accepting legal stipulations. Thus, the legal system should consider extending the degree to which it enables parties to control the legal issues decided by courts.

 

  READ MORE    //  VIEW PDF

Horizontal Erie and the Presumption of Forum Law

Michael Steven Green
READ MORE    //  VIEW PDF
NOTES

The Real World Roadless Rules Challenges

Kyle J. Aarons

The legal status of America's 58.5 million acres of Inventoried Roadless Areas has been unsettled for nearly a decade. These wild areas were given strict protection in the final days of the Clinton Administration, but Clinton's Roadless Rule was suspended and later overturned by the Bush Administration with the promulgation of its State Petitions Rule. Both rules were challenged in various courts, with a mix of conflicting results. As it stands, the Forest Service is simultaneously compelled to follow the Roadless Rule by the Ninth Circuit and barred from following the Rule by the Tenth. This Note argues that both Rules are invalid, and that a new rule is needed for long-term stability. This new rule should initially require strict protection, but should allow for some local input to prevent another reversal when the Republican Party eventually retakes the White House.

  READ MORE    //  VIEW PDF

Section 2259 Restitution Claims and Child Pornography Possession

Dina McLeod
READ MORE    //  VIEW PDF
& Other Current Events

Speedy Trial as a Viable Challenge to Chronic Underfunding in Indigent-Defense Systems

Across the country, underresourced indigent-defense systems create delays in taking cases to trial...

A Blended Approach to Reducing the Costs of Shareholder Litigation

Multiforum litigation and federal securities law class actions impose heavy costs on corporations and...

The Scope of Precedent

The scope of Supreme Court precedent is capacious. Justices of the Court commonly defer to sweeping rationales...

Reinventing Copyright and Patent

Intellectual property systems all over the world are modeled on a one-size-fits-all principle. However...

Protecting Whistleblower Protections in the Dodd-Frank Act

In 2008, the United States fell into its worst economic recession in over seventy years. In response,...
MAILING LIST
Sign Up to Join Our Mailing List