DLR Online Special Features

Please visit here for a list of special feature editions of the DLR Online.


Events & Announcements

Apr. 4, 2018 - The Denver Law Review is currently accepting submissions for its Recent Developments in the Tenth Circuit issue. For details on the issue and submission instructions, please review this document. We look forward to reviewing all submissions!


Mar. 5, 2018 - The Denver Law Review will soon be accepting submissions for the 2018 Emerging Scholar Award. For details on the award including eligibility, award information, and submission instructions, please review this document. We look forward to reviewing all submissions!


2018 Symposium – Uproar: The Intersection of Animals and the Law

Feb. 9, 2018 - Uproar: The Intersection of Animals and the Law The Denver Law Review  presents its Volume 95 Symposium, Uproar: The Intersection of Animals and the Law. Uproar will explore the relationship between animals and the law.

This event is open to the public. To register for this event, please click here.


Volume 95 Staff Announced

The Denver Law Review is excited to announce the Volume 95 Staff. Please join us in congratulating them in this accomplishment and supporting them in continuing the fine tradition of the Denver Law Review. Please click here to view the masthead.

Please click here to view the photo masthead.


Subscriptions and Submissions

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

For the guidelines on how to submit an article to the Denver Law Review, please click here.

Saturday
Jun302018

A Small but Significant Reform that Could Have Put the Cap Back on Misdemeanor Sentencing for Colorado’s Noncitizens

[PDF]

Mark Taylor Feero[*]

A power struggle between the states and the federal government has reached a heightened tension in the past year with the United States even filing a lawsuit against the State of California. This heightened tension has been brought on by the conflict between the current administration’s intensified efforts at deporting removable noncitizens and local law enforcement agencies that have instituted various policies to limit their cooperation with federal immigration enforcement agents, more commonly known as “sanctuary cities” or “sanctuary states.” The debate over the permissibility of these policies has largely focused on the intersection between the supremacy of federal immigration law to preempt state laws that “create an obstacle to the full purposes and objectives of Congress” and the federal government’s inability to commandeer state officers to carry out federal commands. Importantly, the states maintain a key power free from potential federal interference, which comes in the form of the power to establish state criminal laws and appropriate sentencing outside of the immigration context. Federal immigration authorities frequently depend on the elements of these state criminal laws and their sentences to determine whether a specific conviction qualifies as a deportable offense.

Click to read more ...

Thursday
Jun072018

Accommodations for All - The Importance of Meaningful Access to Courts for Pro Se Litigants with Mental Disabilities

[PDF]

Chelsea Marx[*]

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires all public entities, including courts, to provide reasonable accommodations to individuals with disabilities to ensure equal access to programs and to prevent discrimination. Unfortunately, there has been little attention paid to reasonable accommodations for mental disabilities under the ADA because “after the ADA passed . . . the statute as applied to physical disabilities received the most attention.” However, the percentage of complaints filed under the ADA alleging discrimination based on mental disabilities is steadily increasing. Currently, the National Alliance on Mental Illness estimates that “approximately 1 in 25 adults in the U.S.–-9.8 million, or 4.0%–experiences a serious mental illness in a given year that substantially interferes with or limits one or more major life activities.” Thus, these individuals qualify for protection under the ADA. Due to the increasing prevalence of mental disabilities in America, it is imperative for the Colorado court system to consider how to accommodate these individuals like other public entities have, especially when individuals with mental disabilities are representing themselves pro se in civil proceedings.

Click to read more ...

Saturday
May122018

Bears Ears: National Monument or National Controversy?

[PDF]

Laura Martinez

In 2016, a national monument designation set in motion a series of events leading to compelling legal and policy questions. It is undeniable that parts of the United States, particularly in the western states, are unparalleled in their desolate beauty, but many Americans often struggle with how much governmental actors should interfere to maintain these lands. In the twilight of his presidency, President Barrack Obama designated 1.35 million acres of land in Utah as Bears Ears National Monument. The Monument was designed to be run jointly by both the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Unlike national parks, which are set apart by Congress for the use of the people of the United States because of scenery or natural peculiarity, national monuments are reserved by the government because “they contain objects of historic, prehistoric or scientific interest.” In his signing statement, President Obama referred to extensive archeological and tribal interests as reasons to designate the monument. Bears Ears National Monument contains approximately 100,000 Native American archaeological and ancestral sites, and members of the Hopi, Navajo, Ute, and Zuni tribes petitioned the federal government to act to protect this area.

Click to read more ...

Thursday
Apr262018

Arguments for a Balance: Martinez v. Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission

[PDF]

Joseph Kmetz

Colorado is a state of diverse industries including finance, real estate, agriculture, tourism, and natural resources. Alongside vital industries such as tourism, oil and natural gas development contributes to Colorado’s economy to a substantial degree. In a study in 2014, researchers at the University of Colorado’s Leeds School of Business estimated that oil and gas contributed $31.7 billion to the Colorado economy and supported 102,700 jobs. Growth in both population and in oil and gas development along the Colorado Front Range has ripened the ground for conflict. One source of conflict is that many surface owners do not own the minerals underlying their land; mineral owners have an implied easement over the surface owners’ land to explore, produce, and develop the mineral estate. Although many oil and gas companies in Colorado compensate surface owners for drilling on their land, it is not a statutory requirement. Other conflicts arise from the temporary noise, light, and odor associated with oil and natural gas development. The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) regulates oil and gas operations “to the extent necessary to protect public health, safety, and welfare . . . taking into consideration cost-effectiveness and technical feasibility.” In Martinez v. Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, the Colorado Supreme Court will consider whether the state interest in oil and gas development should be balanced with the “protection of public health, safety, and welfare,” or whether these must be protected as a prerequisite to oil and gas development in the state. This Article will suggest a standard that balances oil and gas development with these important public values is workable, preserves the integrity of the judicial system, and respects the role of natural resource development in Colorado’s economy.

Click to read more ...

Monday
Apr232018

Denver's Green Roof Initiative: Is it Susceptible to Developer Challenge?

[PDF]

Kate Madden

Denver citizens passed the Green Roof Initiative on November 7, 2017, as part of a growing worldwide trend toward greater environmental consciousness in city planning. The Initiative compels builders to install plant material or a combination of plant materials and solar energy collection on a portion of the building’s roof. Buildings over 25,000 square feet of floor area must have a minimum of 20% of their roofs covered in green material. This ratio increases in proportion with the size of the project, with a peak of 60% required for buildings over 200,000 square feet. The Initiative reaches all new construction and remodels or additions undertaken after January 1, 2018.

Click to read more ...

Saturday
Apr142018

Constitutional Rights of Denver as a Sanctuary City

[PDF]

Sean S. Cuff

On February 15, 2018, the president of Denver’s police union spoke before Congress regarding the city’s recent immigration ordinance. Testifying in front of the House Border and Immigration Subcommittee, Nick Rodgers told lawmakers he thought the city’s ordinance was unsafe and made it difficult to arrest immigrant drug dealers. These comments came in response to a recent Denver city ordinance that banned police and city officials from asking about or sharing anyone’s immigration status. In fact, the same day Denver passed its immigration ordinance, it joined thirty-five other cities and counties across the country in filing a legal brief to support Chicago’s lawsuit challenging new federal grant restrictions on “sanctuary cities.”

Click to read more ...

Thursday
Apr122018

Facebook, Fake News, and the First Amendment

[PDF]

Ashley Smith-Roberts

As social media gains heightened influence over our lives, it becomes increasingly important that the news we receive online be accurate, trustworthy, and dependable. However, episodes such as “Pizzagate” and claims of Russian interference in the US presidential election have resulted in more Americans than ever questioning the accuracy of the daily news updates that they receive on their social media devices. Recent concerns over data privacy and national security have highlighted that “fake news” has begun to infiltrate our society in ways previously inconceivable.

Click to read more ...

Wednesday
Apr042018

Keep Calm and Follow State Law: Marijuana Attorneys React to Sessions Memo

[PDF]

Jill Beathard

When Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced on January 4, 2018, that the Justice Department was rescinding previously issued guidance about the enforcement of the nation’s marijuana laws, he made clear that he was parting ways from the previous Administration’s approach to enforcement in states where use of the substance has been legalized. What he did not do was make clear how he wants his Department to handle it now.

Click to read more ...

Saturday
Mar312018

Harassment on the Hill: A Critical Look at the Colorado Legislature's Sexual Harassment Policy and its Effects

[PDF]

Heather Olin

In October 2017, the New York Times published an exposé describing, in painstaking detail, allegations of sexual assault and harassment against top Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein. The scope of Weinstein’s abuse is sensational, and one may begin to question how anyone could get away with such behavior over multiple decades without repercussions. Sadly, over the next few months, near-daily accusations surfaced alleging abuse and harassment by many other similarly situated men. What thread did those accused have in common? Power. Those who have it are able to exploit, abuse, threaten, and intimidate those who do not. One with power likely also has money, fame, cultural influence, political capital, and the ability to make problems go away through any combination thereof.

Click to read more ...

Sunday
Mar252018

A Constitution that Starves, Beats, and Lashes (or the Plenary Power Doctrine): Jennings v. Rodriguez and a Peek into Immigration Dissent History 

[PDF]

Allison Crennen-Dunlap

On February 27, 2018, the Supreme Court handed down Jennings v. Rodriguez, a 5–3 decision met with panic, followed by reassurance, and ultimately a steadfast determination that a constitutional battle over liberty itself rages on. That Jennings could elicit such a passionate response is unsurprising, given the subject it takes up. Jennings is a class-action lawsuit challenging federal laws that seemingly permit indefinite civil detention without a bail hearing while noncitizens fight to stay in the United States. Although some of the media response implied that Jennings was the last word upholding indefinite detention, the decision itself concluded only that the laws under review unambiguously allow for prolonged detention without a required bond hearing. Jennings did not address whether the Constitution permits such laws. Justice Alito, writing for the majority, concluded that the Ninth Circuit relied improperly on the canon of constitutional avoidance to read a required periodic bond hearing into certain immigration laws. The Ninth Circuit now has a chance to decide whether the Constitution tolerates such laws, unless, as the Court implied it should, it finds it lacks jurisdiction.

Click to read more ...