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

A Solution to Michigan's Child Shackling Problem

Detained children routinely appear before Michigan's juvenile courts shackled with handcuffs, leg irons,...

Judicial Diversity After Shelby County v. Holder

In 2014, voters in ten of the fifteen states previously covered by the Voting Rights Act ("VRA") preclearance...

Fall Submission Season

MLR’s Articles Office will open its fall submission season on Monday, August 18!  The Articles...

The Ninth Circuit's Treatment of Sexual Orientation: Defining “Rational Basis Review with Bite”

On February 10, Nevada's Democratic attorney general decided to stop defending the state's constitutional...

Inhibiting Intrastate Inequalities: A Congressional Approach to Ensuring Equal Opportunity to Finance Public Education

The United States has exhibited a strong commitment to public education throughout its history. The local...
MAILING LIST
Sign Up to Join Our Mailing List