Author
The Washington and Lee Law Review Editorial Board

Published
January 8, 2020

Print Article
Download

WASHINGTON AND LEE LAW REVIEW

Volume 76, Issue 4

ARTICLES

Wither Zauderer, Blossom Heightened Scrutiny? How the Supreme Court’s 2018 Rulings in Becerra and Janus Exacerbate Problems with Compelled-Speech Jurisprudence

Clay Calvert

This Article examines how the United States Supreme Court’s 2018 decisions in the First Amendment cases of National Institute of Family & Life Advocates v. Becerra and Janus v. American Federation of State, County, & Municipal Employees, Council 31, muddle an already disorderly compelled-speech doctrine.

Reasonable Doubt and Relativity

Michael D. Cicchini

In theory, the Constitution protects us against criminal conviction unless the state can prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In reality, this lofty standard is only as strong as the words used to explain it to the jury.

Demystifying Patent Holdup

Thomas F. Cotter, Erik Hovenkamp, and Norman Siebrasse

Patent holdup can arise when circumstances enable a patent owner to extract a larger royalty ex post than it could have obtained in an arms length transaction ex ante.

(Un)Conscious Judging

Elizabeth Thornburg

Fact inferences made by the trial judge are the lynchpin of civil litigation.

Disguised Patent Policymaking

Saurabh Vishnubhakat

Patent Office power has grown immensely in this decade, and the agency is wielding its power in predictably troubling ways.

NOTES

Collateral Consequences of Pretrial Diversion Programs Under the Heck Doctrine

Bonnie Gill

Circuit courts disagree on whether participation in a pretrial diversion program counts as a favorable termination of the conviction or sentence such that a § 1983 action challenging the conviction can proceed.

Flip It and Reverse It: Examining Reverse Gender Discrimination Claims Brought Under Title IX

Courtney Joy McMullan

This Note examines if, and to what degree, courts should consider the pressure put on universities to address sexual misconduct on campus as support for an accused student’s Title IX claim of gender discrimination during university disciplinary proceedings.