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.

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 ...

Saturday
Mar242018

Unseen Harms: the U.S.–Mexico Border Wall and its Lessons for Wildlife and Biodiversity Advocates

[PDF]

Annecoos Wiersema

On February 27, 2018, District Judge Gonzalo Curiel denied summary judgment to a group of plaintiffs that included the State of California and several environmental nonprofit groups. Their lawsuit challenged the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) waivers of federal and state law in order to allow work on existing and new physical border wall structures around the border between the United States and Mexico. Although recent discussions about the federal budget may make it seem that a potential physical border wall is still up for debate, in fact over one-third of the length of the border already has physical barriers of various kinds, and more are under preparation. Authorization for these sections of wall exists under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, amended in 2005, 2006, and 2008. These congressional statutes appear to authorize, without restriction, the suspension of the country’s environmental laws, allowing for construction of a border wall with significant effects on wildlife and biodiversity.

Click to read more ...

Saturday
Mar242018

Different Enough: The Case for Making Sexual Orientation a Federally Protected Class

[PDF]

Kayla Gehringer

The Bill of Rights is codified in the U.S. Constitution’s first ten amendments, and guarantees certain inalienable and fundamental rights to Americans. The Fourteenth Amendment applies the Bill of Rights to state governments and guarantees that no one will be denied “equal protection of the laws” in any state. Embedded in the Bill of Rights is the First Amendment’s explicit guarantee that “Congress shall make no law . . . which abridges the freedom of speech.” Freedom of speech, in turn, remains contentious due to the questions of what qualifies as speech. Conduct is not speech but can sometimes be quite expressive, and that expressive conduct cannot be compelled or silenced by the government.

Click to read more ...

Sunday
Mar182018

A Cause Worth Fighting For: The Battle for Local Control over Colorado’s Oil and Gas Industry

[PDF]

Natalie Spiess

On April 17, 2017, a volatile, odorless gas composed of methane and propane finally found an ignition source in the Firestone, Colorado basement that it had been seeping into for months. Within seconds, the gas “erupted [in] a sudden and violent explosion,” leveling the home and killing the homeowner and his brother-in-law. Following the fatal explosion, fire investigators quickly found the cause: a small, severed plastic pipeline stemming from a gas well located a mere 178 feet from the Firestone home. The gas valve on the well connected to the pipe had been left in the “on” position, allowing gas to leak from the sliced pipe, saturate the soil, and steadily migrate into the Firestone home. In the deadly event’s aftermath, Anadarko Petroleum Corporation—the operator that owned the fatal well—announced that it would close 3,000 wells across Colorado. But for Firestone, this action was too little, too late.

Click to read more ...

Saturday
Feb242018

2018 Symposium Note: The Myth of Hunting as a Conservation Tool in the Crosshairs, Facing Extinction

[PDF]

Zoe Verhoeven

A full house listened to panelists Annecoos Wiersema, Karen Bradshaw, Michael Harris, and Jonathan Lovvorn investigate the subject of hunting as a conservation tool. The panel, Hunting as a Conservation Tool? Looking Behind the Rhetoric and Exploring Alternative Approaches was moderated by Jay Tuchton, Adjunct Professor of Law at the University of Denver and Preserve Manager for the Southern Plains Land Trust. The panel came to a consensus that hunting as a conservation tool is a myth.

Click to read more ...

Saturday
Feb242018

2018 Symposium Note: The Role of Transparency and Free Speech in the Animal Rights Movement

[PDF]

Amanda Bliss

A unique challenge faces free speech and the transparency of industrial slaughter houses: agricultural gag laws, or ag-gag laws. These laws, enacted by state legislatures, are designed to prohibit the activity of undercover investigators who are critical of agricultural business practices and the industrialized slaughter of agricultural animals. The 2017 Denver Law Review Symposium, Uproar: The Intersection of Animals & the Law, held on Friday, February 9, 2017 at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law, examined animal’s legal rights, or lack thereof. The panel The Role of Transparency and Free Speech in the Animal Rights Movement focused on the legal hurdles presented by laws that silence whistleblowers in order to protect agricultural business. Professor Rebecca Aviel, Director of the Constitutional Rights and Remedies Program at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law, and associate professor of law, moderated the panel. The discussion was initiated by panelist Professor Alan Chen, a leading national expert in free speech doctrine and theory, and an advocate for plaintiffs in constitutional challenges to ag-gag laws around the nation. In addition, Professor Heidi Kitrosser, who teaches about government secrecy at the University of Minnesota Law School, and is currently working on a book about the law and policy of information-leaking and whistleblowing, added to the panel’s dialogue. Completing the panel was Camille Labchuck, Executive Director of Animal Justice and one of Canada’s leading animal rights lawyers, who spoke on Canada’s acqua-gag laws.

Click to read more ...

Thursday
Feb152018

Home-Rule Municipalities and Public Lands: Disposal of Public Lands as a Matter of Local Concern

[PDF]

Angela Hygh

The safety, preservation, and management of public lands, including parks, has become a matter of increasing concern since President Donald Trump decreased the size of multiple national monuments. Within Colorado, the Conservation in the West Poll revealed that 75% of voters in 2018 consider themselves to be conservationists, up from 65% in 2016. In the same poll, 53% of Colorado voters also indicated that they opposed privatizing the management of services provided at national public lands. Colorado state law protects public parks owned by Colorado municipalities with C.R.S. § 31-15-713, which requires an election to approve the sale of any such public park. However, a recent case before the Colorado Court of Appeals has raised the question of whether home-rule municipalities in Colorado may avoid the election requirement and dispose of park lands in accordance with their own ordinances. This Article will argue that the local ordinances addressing the disposition of land owned by home rule municipalities should supersede C.R.S. § 31-15-713.

Click to read more ...

Thursday
Feb082018

Tenth Circuit: The Slow Transition to Analyzing eDiscovery Violations

[PDF]

Susie Lloyd

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governing discovery have been amended since their inception to limit the scope and amount of discovery to only relevant information that is proportional to the needs of the case. Concerns of proportionality routinely arise in litigation when a plaintiff’s economic status is significantly lower than that of a potential defendant. This concern is perhaps greater now than ever before, as costs associated with the retrieval and maintenance of electronic discovery can double or triple a client’s budget. Rather than sifting through boxes of paper by hand, e-Discovery permits the process to take place in half the time, but this also leads to the introduction of more data than was ever conceivable through paper discovery. Now, emails are sent in a fraction of the time it took to type and mail a letter, and more emails are being sent per hour, which are then backed up and saved to a company’s server. Cloud computing, both public and privately hosted, provides space for companies to save information without the added cost of onsite servers, allowing for more data to be saved for longer periods of time. Yet these services are not cheap, and retrieval of data for the purposes of litigation often requires the retention of technical service companies that may be affordable only in top-dollar cases. Even with a mere twenty gigabytes of data, to retrieve, filter through the information and eliminate irrelevant information, maintain the data on a third-party hosting site, and review the data, which could potentially yield 200,000 responsive documents, the cost may be upwards of $200,000. Now, imagine the data is culled from several servers or cloud services maintained within a large company and the facts of litigation require review of several years’ worth of information; the twenty gigabytes quickly turn into twenty terabytes of information. When is review and production of potentially relevant data no longer proportional to the needs of the case?

Click to read more ...