Events & Announcements

Denver University Law Review Call for Proposals

The DULR is seeking proposals for the upcoming Crimmigration Symposium.  With this Call for Proposals, you are invited to submit a title and abstract of a paper to be presented at the Symposium and be considered for publication in Volume 92 of the Denver University Law Review.

Proposals must be received by June 11, 2014.  Proposals should be sent to Lindsey Dunn, Editor-in-Chief of the Denver University Law Review, at LDunn16@law.du.edu, and Lauren Parsons, Symposium Editor of the Denver University Law Review, at LParsons15@law.du.edu.

Your proposal should include the proposed title of your article and a brief 500 word abstract, and your CV.

Click here for more information!


Denver University Law Review Announces Its 2015 Sympiosium Topic: "Crimmigration"

The DULR announces that its 2015 symposium topic will address the topic of "Crimmigration."  Crimmigration is the intersection between criminal law and immigration.  The symposium will be held February 6-7, 2015.


DULR Online Proudly Presents The Return of Constitutional Federalism Issue

DULR Online's The Return of Constitutional Federalism Issue features four papers from highly regarded scholars that respond to an article authored by Logan Everett Sawyer III, titled The Return of Constitional Federalism (forthcoming in an upcoming issue of volume 91 of the Denver University Law Review). Each paper in the issue reviews Professor Sawyer's article in-depth, as well as making additional arguments for or against Professor Sawyer's conclusions.

 

Please view the full issue here.

DULR Online Proudly Presents the Proxy Plumbing Issue

DULR Online's Proxy Plumbing Issue features five student articles covering different aspects of the SEC's Concept Release on the U.S. Proxy System and a call for a version 2.0 to address certain shortcomings of the Release. The Proxy Plumbing Issue represents the continued collaboration between the Denver University Law Review, DULR Online, and Professor J. Robert Brown, Jr.

 

Please explore the full issue here, including a thoughtful introduction to the issue by Professor Brown.

Emerging Scholar Award Recipient: Goldburn P. Maynard, Jr.

The Denver University Law Review is pleased to announce that it has selected the recipient of the Emerging Scholar Award.  Click here for details!


Volume 92 Board of Editors Announced

Denver University Law Review is excited to announce the Volume 92 Board of Editors.  Please join us in congratulating them in this accomplishment and supporting them in continuing the fine tradition of the Denver University Law Review. Please click here to view the masthead.


DULR Online Presents the JOBS Act Issue

DULR Online is proud to present its JOBS Act Issue. This issue features eight student articles covering different aspects of the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act, the landmark legislation passed by Congress in 2012 "[t]o increase American job creation and economic growth by improving access to the public capital markets for emerging growth companies." The JOBS Act Issue represents a unique collaboration between the Denver University Law Review, DULR Online, and Professor J. Robert Brown, Jr. Please explore the full issue here.
Subscriptions and Submissions

For information on how to subscribe to the Denver University Law Review, please click here.

For the guidelines on how to submit an article to Denver University Law Review, please click here. If you would like to submit a shorter piece to DULR Online, please contact the Online Editor, Jonathan Coppom, at jcoppom15@law.du.edu.

Friday
Aug222014

When The War Doesn't End: Detainees in Legal Limbo

[PDF]

Dr. Sarah Lohmann

Professor Chad Austin

Over a decade after the terrorist attacks of September 11, “War on Terror” legislation still has the power to allow both American and foreign citizens to be detained anywhere in the world without charge or trial, and to be held indefinitely if they are suspected of having ties to terrorism. On April 25, the U.S. Supreme Court decided not to review Hedges v. Obama, a case that challenged the judicial precedents on which such security detentions are based. In so doing, the Supreme Court lost a historic opportunity to set the record straight on how long and under what circumstances post-9/11 detainees may be held.

The case, filed just before Christmas, asked the Supreme Court to make a final decision on whether U.S. citizens and others can be held indefinitely without charge or trial by the U.S. military. The case had been bounced around in the lower courts for two years.[1]

Click to read more ...

Monday
May122014

The Politics of Constitutional Federalism

[PDF]

Mary Ziegler

The Return of Constitutional Federalism offers new insight into how constitutional law changes in the courts.[1] This Comment expands on this analysis by examining how conventional political explanations obscure a richer story about how federalism became a centerpiece of legal conservatism outside of the juridical arena. Recovering this story moves us toward a better understanding of how politics can transform the popular understanding of constitutional rules and opinions.

Click to read more ...

Monday
May122014

Toward a Historical Understanding of Supreme Court Decision-making

[PDF]

G. Edward White

Logan Sawyer’s analysis of National League of Cities v. Usery[1] and what he calls “the return of constitutional federalism” recognizes the pitfalls of treating Supreme Court decisions from a wholly “internalist” perspective. Professor Sawyer emphasizes the doctrinal frameworks in which decisions are situated, or a wholly “externalist” one, describing decisions as reactions to the social and political contexts in which they arise.[2]

Click to read more ...

Monday
May122014

The Resilience of Federalism: A Response to Logan Sawyer’s The Return of Constitutional Federalism

[PDF]

Christopher W. Schmidt

In The Return of Constitutional Federalism,[1] Logan Sawyer provides an insightful and thought-provoking reconsideration of the factors that led to the Supreme Court decision in National League of Cities v. Usery (NLC).[2] Professor Sawyer’s critically important move in this article is to locate the 1976 decision in both its jurisprudential and political context, adopting an integrative approach that straddles what has sometimes been referred to as “internalist” and “externalist” explanations of doctrinal change. He also extracts NLC from the overwhelmingly normative analysis that has dominated legal scholarship on the decision. This seems to me exactly the right approach to this topic, and it yields much insight into the reasons why the Court, for the first time since the New Deal, struck down a federal law as beyond the reach of the commerce power. Professor Sawyer’s central argument, that the NLC majority was responding to changed assumptions about the ability of the political process to safeguard federalism principles, is fully persuasive.

Click to read more ...

Monday
May122014

NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES: JUDICIAL DECISION–MAKING AND THE NATURE OF CONSTITUTIONAL FEDERALISM

[PDF]

Edward A. Purcell, Jr.

I have profited greatly from reading Professor Sawyer’s excellent articles on the Beveridge Child Labor Bill and the Court’s classic decision in Hammer v. Dagenhart,[1] and it is no surprise that this article on National League of Cities (NLC) and the return of constitutional federalism proves equally rich and rewarding.[2] Like all good constitutional history, it deepens our understanding by showing the complicated nature of judicial decision-making and identifying the variety of factors that shape doctrinal change.[3] His success in placing NLC in its historical context is especially valuable because the case has long seemed somewhat perplexing: surprising when it was announced, troubled in its subsequent applications, embarrassed by its relatively swift overruling, and at least partially vindicated by its resurrection only a decade later in altered form and under another name. Professor Sawyer’s subject, however, is not the subsequent fate of NLC but its historical origins and the lessons it offers for studies of judicial decision-making.

Click to read more ...

Saturday
Apr192014

Proxy Cards and the Requirements of Clarity and Impartiality in Titling Proposals

[PDF]

Lincoln Puffer* 

In the 2010 Proxy Plumbing Release, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC or the Commission) indicated concern with “the ability of issuers to communicate with shareholders.”[1] The Commission cited historically low retail investor participation in the proxy voting process and sought comments on ways to improve shareholder involvement.[2] As part of the comment process, the Commission expressed an interest in determining “whether improving the presentation of information on the proxy card . . . would have an effect on voting participation.”[3]

Click to read more ...

Saturday
Apr192014

Voting of Partially Instructed Shares by Brokers

[PDF]

Christie Nicks* 

I. INTRODUCTION

Most shareholders in public companies own shares in nominee or “street name” accounts.[1] In these circumstances, banks and brokers (or a depository) hold record title and retain voting rights under state law.[2] Under the rules of the stock exchange, however, brokers must request voting instructions from beneficial owners.[3]

Click to read more ...

Saturday
Apr192014

Enhancing SEC Disclosure with Interactive Data

[PDF]

Jeremy Liles*

I.          Introduction

As part of its mission to “protect investors, maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets, and facilitate capital formation”[1] the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC or Commission) has promulgated myriad rules requiring public companies, investment firms, brokers, and other participants in the capital markets to disclose massive amounts of data.[2] Although virtually all public SEC filings have been available electronically on EDGAR since the mid-1990s,[3] only a few designated portions of selected filings have been filed in an “interactive” format that can be reliably read and manipulated by software.[4]

Click to read more ...

Saturday
Apr192014

The "Common Practice" of Bundling: Fact or Fiction?

[PDF]

Julian Ellis* 

Introduction

The federal proxy rules prohibit companies from “bundling” proposals submitted to shareholders. Adopted in 1992 by the Securities and Exchange Commission (Commission), the anti-bundling rules generated little attention or controversy for twenty-plus years. In early 2013, however, the rules re-surfaced in a major way in Greenlight Capital, L.P. v. Apple, Inc.[1] The case involved a dispute between a Wall Street darling and a prominent hedge fund manager. The court, applying the rules, enjoined Apple from moving forward with its bundled proposals. 

Click to read more ...

Saturday
Apr192014

Proxy Distribution and the Requirement of Impartiality

[PDF]

Jessica Bullard* 

I. Introduction

Most shares of U.S. publicly listed companies are held in “street name” accounts.[1] Although the beneficial owner has the right to the economic attributes of the shares, the nominee[2] appears as the registered owner on the issuer’s books and holds title to the securities.[3] This structure of indirect share ownership facilitates the efficient processing and settlement of securities transactions.[4] Nevertheless, the multiple layers of indirect ownership have necessitated the implementation of a complex regulatory scheme designed to protect the voting rights of beneficial owners.[5]

Click to read more ...