Northwestern University Law Review

In "A Feedback Loop of Exclusion: The Treatment of Bilingualism in the Courtroom," Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law graduate Simone Stover argues that states should prevent the exclusion of bilingual jurors from courtrooms. Using a multi-directional framework, Stover identifies the ways in which jurors and witnesses are discredited via bilingual exclusion. She then explains how the interests of justice are advanced by the inclusion of these bilingual legal actors. Link to article: https://lnkd.in/gCVqRf32

In "Cy Pres Silliness: Remedies That Do Not Remediate The Harm," Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law student Philip Pillari addresses the constitutionality of mandatory cy pres in class action settlements, arguing that federal courts lack jurisdiction to approve them. Pillari argues that there is no Article III jurisdiction for cy pres settlements because they do not redress plaintiffs’ injuries. Pillari instead proposes that settlement funds should escheat to the states’ unclaimed property system. Link to article: https://lnkd.in/gHYr3bMR

In "The False Choice Between Digital Regulation and Innovation," Professor Anu Bradford of Columbia Law School disputes the common view that regulation stifles innovation. She argues that other factors account for differences between U.S. and EU tech innovation. Professor Bradford notes evidence of regulation actually spurring innovation through compliance. She thus proposes that the U.S. and EU instead examine structural factors such as market heterogeneity and bankruptcy laws in calibrating regulation of tech companies. Link to article: https://lnkd.in/gmfhQiXG

In "Majority Rules," Professor Andrew Verstein of University of California, Los Angeles - School of Law broaches the question of what counts as a “majority” for finding a “disinterested majority” in shareholder litigation. Verstein identifies and compares three irreconcilable tests from the Delaware courts. Professor Verstein sets forth considerations for courts’ choice between these rules. He emphasizes the practical and purposive differences between them, and cautions that failing to clarify this seemingly arbitrary rule undermines predictability. Link to article: https://lnkd.in/gWtsamrg

In "Obstructing Precedent," Professor Bill Watson of the University of Illinois College of Law explores the ways in which courts depart from precedent without overruling. He argues against the normative position that these practices are necessarily or presumptively illegitimate. But Professor Watson questions the frequency with which the Court has utilized these practices in recent years. He argues that its rapid departures from recent precedent may evince biased decision-making—not not merely lessons learned. Link to article: https://lnkd.in/gnQ3qqHt

NULR is excited to publish Vol. 119.2! We’ll share more about the pieces over the coming days. However, we’re excited to post them here in case you can’t wait to read them. The full issue is available here: https://lnkd.in/g2XtyBXr

In "Felony Disenfranchisement and Voter Turnout," Alexander Billy, J.J. Naddeo, and Georgetown University Law Center Professor Neel Sukhatme test the effectiveness of various outreach mechanisms on increasing voter turnout among re-enfranchised individuals with past felony convictions in Iowa and Washington. Billy, Naddeo, and Sukhatme compare their findings to earlier studies, and theorize that prior efforts to encourage turnout in these groups may have limited the impact of their outreach, particularly in states with simple re-enfranchisement procedures. Full link to article: https://lnkd.in/gaAt-bdu

In "Prosecutorial Data Transparency and Data Justice," Professors Caitlin Glass of Boston University School of Law, Kat Albrecht, JD, PhD of Georgia State University, and Perry Moriearty of University of Minnesota Law School analyze how inconsistent and insufficient data on prosecutorial decision-making inhibit efforts to address racial bias. Professors Glass, Albrecht, and Moriearty argue that consistent and accessible prosecutorial data are necessary for researchers and defendants to analyze and prove discrimination in prosecution. They propose implementing infrastructure, standards, and safeguards to enable the collection of such data.

In "Lawyerless Litigants," Professor Judith Resnik and her team of JD candidates at Yale Law School survey the state of federal court filing-fee waiver requests by impoverished/self-represented litigants. They use SCALES to explore the significant burdens imposed by these fees. Resnik and her team find that these fees impose higher costs on prisoner–litigants, prisons, and courts, yet generate little revenue. They propose reforms such as automatic waivers and programs to help litigants alleviate their burdens. Link to full article: https://lnkd.in/gK8spmv5

In Settlement as Construct, Professor Charlotte Alexander of Georgia Institute of Technology, Professor Anne Tucker of Georgia State University, and data scientist Nathan Dahlberg seek an operationalizable definition of “settlement” to facilitate a more accurate study of settlement rates. Alexander, Tucker, and Dahlberg define settlement as party resolution, with an emphasis on mutuality. Using data made available via SCALES, they find 40,000 additional party resolutions that were unaccounted for by standard sources of court data. Link to full article: https://lnkd.in/gSYmvtTV