{"id":4005,"date":"2026-03-15T23:57:14","date_gmt":"2026-03-16T03:57:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jlpp\/?page_id=4005"},"modified":"2026-03-22T16:58:55","modified_gmt":"2026-03-22T20:58:55","slug":"volume-17","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jlpp\/volume-17\/","title":{"rendered":"Volume 17"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Issue 3<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Symposium on Presumptions and Burdens of Proof<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
Annual Institute for Humane Studies Law and Philosophy Issue<\/td><\/tr>
613<\/td>Foreword: The Power of Presumptions<\/a><\/td>Randy E. Barnett<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
How Presumptions Should Be Allocated<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
627<\/td>Burdens of Proof, Uncertainty and Ambiguity in Modern Legal Discourse<\/a><\/td>Ronald J. Allen<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
647<\/td>Civility and the Burden of Proof<\/a><\/td>Dale A. Nance<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
Presumptions and Transcendentalism<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
691<\/td>You Prove It! Why Should I?<\/a><\/td>Lawrence B. Solum<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
715<\/td>Defrocking the Courts: Resolving \u201cCases or Controversies,\u201d Not Announcing Transcendental Truths<\/a><\/td>Mark D. Rosen<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
735<\/td>The Enlightenment of Dialectics: Strategies Involved in Burdens of Proof<\/a><\/td>Gregory M. Klass & Gustavo Faigenbaum<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
Presumptive Reasoning Applied to Legal Doctrine<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
759<\/td>Presumptions and Burdens of Proof as Tools for Legal Stability and Change<\/a><\/td>Tamar Frankel<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
779<\/td>Default Presumptions in Legislation: Implementing Children\u2019s Services<\/a><\/td>Richard H. Gaskins<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
Article<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
801<\/td>The Persistence of Local Legal Culture: Twenty Years of Evidence From the Federal Bankruptcy Courts<\/a><\/td>Teresa A. Sullivan, Elizabeth Warren & Jay Lawrence Westbrook<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
Note<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
867<\/td>Unleashing RICO<\/a><\/td>Matthew C. Blickensderfer<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
Recent Developments<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
895<\/td>Refining the Revlon Doctrine\u2019s Applicability to Changes of Control: Paramount Communications, Inc. v. QVC Network, Inc.<\/em>, 637 A.3d 34 (Del. 1993)<\/a><\/td><\/td><\/tr>
907<\/td>Gestational Surrogacy and the Meaning of \u201cMother\u201d: Johnson v. Calvert<\/em>, 852 P.2d 776 (Cal. 1993)<\/a><\/td><\/td><\/tr>
918<\/td>The Graham Doctrine as a Weapon Against Substantive Due Process: Albright v. Oliver<\/em>, 114 S. C.t 807 (1994)<\/a><\/td><\/td><\/tr>
929<\/td>The Lack of a Judicial Policy Addressing Maternal Drug Abuse Cases: Commonwealth v. Welch<\/em>, 864 S.W.2d 280 (Ky. 1993)<\/a><\/td><\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Issue 2<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Articles<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
293<\/td>Antitrust Immunity: State Action and Federalism, Petitioning and the First Amendment<\/a><\/td>David McGowan & Mark A. Lemley<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
401<\/td>\u201cPlain Meaning\u201d: Justice Scalia\u2019s Jurisprudence of Strict Statutory Construction<\/a><\/td>Bradley C. Karkkainen<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
479<\/td>Qualified Immunity or Absolute Immunity? The Moral Hazards of Extending Qualified Immunity to Lower-Level Public Officials<\/a><\/td>Evan J. Mandery<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
521<\/td>One Person, One Vote Revisited: Choosing A Population Basis to Form Political Districts<\/a><\/td>Scot A. Reader<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
Comment<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
567<\/td>After Gillette<\/em>: An Analysis of Premium Product Markets Under the 1992 Merger Guidelines<\/em><\/a><\/td>David J. Dadoun & Diana L. Dietrich<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
Annual I.H.S.-Eberhard Student Writing Competition Winner<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
591<\/td>A Contractual Approach to Data Privacy<\/a><\/td>Steven A. Bibas<\/em><\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Issue 1<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Symposium: Judicial Decision-Making: The Role of Text, Precedent, and the Rule of Law<\/a><\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
Introductory Remarks<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
1<\/td>Judicial Decisionmaking and the Growth of the Law<\/a><\/td>Robert C. Clark<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
Panel I: The Enterprise of Judging<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
5<\/td>The Diversity of the Federalist Society<\/a><\/td>Morris S. Arnold<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
7<\/td>Judicial Restraint: An Argument From Institutional Design<\/a><\/td>Lillian R. BeVier<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
13<\/td>The Enterprise of Judging<\/a><\/td>Russell K. Osgood<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
Panel II: Stare Decisis<\/em> and Constitutional Meaning<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
23<\/td>The Constitutional Case Against Precedent<\/a><\/td>Gary Lawson<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
35<\/td>Reply to Lawson<\/a><\/td>Charles Fried<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
39<\/td>On Lawson on Precedent<\/a><\/td>Akhil Reed Amar<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
45<\/td>Precedent and the Necessary Externality of Constitutional Norms<\/a><\/td>Frederick Schauer<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
Panel III: Text and History in Statutory Construction<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
57<\/td>Introduction<\/a><\/td>Paul R. Michel<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
61<\/td>Text, History, and Structure in Statutory Interpretation<\/a><\/td>Frank H. Easterbrook<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
71<\/td>Dictionaries, Plain Meaning, and Context in Statutory Interpretation<\/a><\/td>A. Raymond Randolph<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
Panel IV: Non-Legal Theory in Judicial Decisionmaking<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
79<\/td>\u201cLegal\u201d Versus \u201cNon-Legal\u201d Theory<\/a><\/td>Stephen F. Williams<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
87<\/td>Non-Legal Theory in Judicial Decisionmaking<\/a><\/td>Richard H. Fallon, Jr.<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
101<\/td>Moral Philosophy and the Glen Ridge Rape Case<\/a><\/td>Linda R. Hirshman<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
107<\/td>The Persuasive Influence of Economic Analysis on Legal Decisionmaking<\/a><\/td>Jonathan R. Macey<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
Roundtable: The Supreme Court as a Political Institution<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
119<\/td>Do Judges Have a Policy-Making Role in the American System of Government?<\/a><\/td>Lino A. Graglia<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
131<\/td>The Judiciary: Conservatism\u2019s Last Branch<\/a><\/td>William Kristol<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
137<\/td>A Modest Proposal for a Political Court<\/a><\/td>Thomas W. Merrill<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
149<\/td>The Supreme Court as a Partially Political Institution<\/a><\/td>Stephen Reinhardt<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
155<\/td>Judges as Liars<\/a><\/td>Martin Shapiro<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
Articles<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
157<\/td>Expediting Impeachment: Removing Article III Federal Judges After Criminal Conviction<\/a><\/td>Michael J. Broyde<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
223<\/td>The Federal Government and the Problem of Chinese Rights in the Era of the Fourteenth Amendment<\/a><\/td>Earl M. Maltz<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
Recent Developments: The Supreme Court of the United States, 1992 Term<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
253<\/td>Penalty Enhancement for Bias-Based Crimes: Wisconsin v. Mitchell<\/em>, 113 S. Ct. 2194 (1993)<\/a><\/td><\/td><\/tr>
262<\/td>Animal Sacrifice and Equal Protection Free Exercise: Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah<\/em>, 113 S. Ct. 2217 (1993)<\/a><\/td><\/td><\/tr>
273<\/td>Federal Preemption of State Health and Safety Regulations: CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Easterwood<\/em>, 113 S. Ct. 1732 (1993)<\/a><\/td><\/td><\/tr>
283<\/td>Equal Protection and Race Conscious Reapportionment: Shaw v. Reno<\/em>, 113 S. Ct. 2816 (1993)<\/a><\/td><\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Issue 3 Symposium on Presumptions and Burdens of Proof Annual Institute for Humane Studies Law and Philosophy Issue 613 Foreword: The Power of Presumptions Randy E. Barnett How Presumptions Should Be Allocated 627 Burdens of Proof, Uncertainty and Ambiguity in Modern Legal Discourse Ronald J. Allen 647 Civility and the Burden of Proof Dale A. Nance Presumptions and Transcendentalism 691 You Prove It! Why Should I? Lawrence B. Solum 715 Defrocking the Courts: Resolving \u201cCases […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":209,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-4005","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/PeZSiL-12B","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jlpp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/4005","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jlpp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jlpp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jlpp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/209"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jlpp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4005"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jlpp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/4005\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jlpp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4005"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}