Washington College of Law


We're honored to have an article from Volume 63 cited in the Supreme Court's decision, Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., holding that disparate-impact claims may be brought under the Fair Housing Act.

Congratulations to the Volume 65 Junior Staff!

Federal Circuit Issue

Federal Circuit Issue

The American University Law Review is the only law review in the country to publish an issue exclusively dedicated to the Federal Circuit.  Each year, practitioners and academics provide a synopsis of the Federal Circuit's caseload from the previous year in five major areas of the court's jurisdiction:  patent law, trademark law, government contracts, international trade, and veterans' benefits.  Click here to learn more.

The 2015 Federal Circuit Symposium, "TRENDING IP TOPICS IN 2015:  A Table Talk with Chief Judge Sharon Prost (WCL '79) and Judge Arthur J. Gajarsa," will be held on February 12, 2015 at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit from 4:00 PM to 5:30 PM.  

Symposium Issue

Symposium Issue

This year's Annual Symposium is titled "Bordering on Legal Limits?  A Symposium Analyzing the President's Executive Action on immigration."  The keynote speaker will be Stephen Legomsky, the John S. Lehmann University Professor at Washington University Law School and former United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Chief Counsel.  It will be held from 9:15 AM to 4:00 PM on Friday, January 30, 2015, at the law offices of Mayer Brown LLP.  Click here for more information.

Current Issue, Volume 64.6

Unspringing the Witness Memory and Demeanor Trap: What Every Judge and Juror Needs to Know About Cognitive Psychology and Witness Credibility

By Mark W. BennettAm. U. L. Rev. 1331 (2015)

The soul of America’s civil and criminal justice systems is the ability of jurors and judges to accurately determine the facts of a dispute. This invariably implicates the credibility of witnesses. In making credibility determinations, jurors and judges necessarily decide the accuracy of witnesses’ memories and the effect of the witnesses’ demeanor on their credibility.

Almost all jurisdictions’ pattern jury instructions about witness credibility explain nothing about how a witness’s memories for events and conversations work—and how startlingly fallible memories actually are. They simply instruct the jurors to consider the witness’s “memory” with no additional guidance. Similarly, the same pattern jury instructions on demeanor seldom do more than ask jurors to speculate about a witness’s demeanor by instructing them to merely observe “the manner of the witness” while testifying. Yet, thousands of cognitive psychological studies have provided major insights into witness memory and demeanor. The resulting cognitive psychological principles that are now widely accepted as the gold standard about witness memory and demeanor are often contrary to what jurors intuitively, but wrongly, believe.

Why Capital Punishment is No Punishment At All

By Jason IulianoAm. U. L. Rev. 1377 (2015)

Capital punishment has generated an incredible amount of public debate. Is the practice constitutional? Does it deter crime? Is it humane? Supporters and opponents of capital punishment disagree on all of these issues and many more. There is perhaps only one thing that unites these two camps: the belief that the death penalty is society’s most severe punishment.

In this Article, I argue that this belief is mistaken. Capital punishment is not at the top of the punishment hierarchy. In fact, it is no punishment at all. My argument builds from a basic conception of punishment endorsed by the Supreme Court: for something to qualify as a punishment, it must be bad, in some way, for the person who is punished. By drawing upon the philosophical literature regarding death, I show that this is not the case. Contrary to our intuitions, the death penalty is not bad, in any way, for a condemned criminal.

This conclusion should not be understood to suggest that death is never bad. In most circumstances, death is bad. There are, however, situations in which it is not, and capital punishment, as employed in the United States penal system, is one such situation. By showing that capital punishment is not bad for the condemned criminal, I provide a strong constitutional objection to the practice.

Click here to view this Article


ESSAY: Griswold and its Surroundings: The 1963, '64, and '65 Terms

By L.A. Powe, Jr.Am. U. L. Rev. 1443 (2015)

There were four dominant themes of the mature—post-Frankfurter—Warren Court. First and foremost was ending Jim Crow in the South, a project that began with Brown v. Board of Education. Second was promoting democracy through “one person, one vote.” The third was the reform of the criminal justice system by requiring it to conform to national best practices. The last theme was expanding freedom of expression by ending McCarthy-era persecutions, liberating the depiction of sex from the Victorian Era ideal, and guaranteeing the right to vigorously criticize government. Of course there was considerable overlap among the themes, a point especially clear in the case of race and the criminal justice system. What makes Griswold v. Connecticut4 stand out so sharply is that it does not involve any of these themes and that it led to no further Warren Court decisions on the issue. The latter point is not surprising, as only the three New England states where the Catholic Church held undue influence had anti-contraceptive laws, and the Church, holding a losing hand, immediately capitulated. Thereafter, private entities like Planned Parenthood could offer contraception.

COMMENT: Clogging the Pipeline: Exploring the D.C. Circuit's Improper Segmentation Analysis in Delaware Riverkeeper Network v. FERC and its Implications for the United States's Domestic Natural Gas Production

By Mary-Kaitlin E. RigneyAm. U. L. Rev. 1465 (2015)

Technological advancement in drilling techniques, primarily hydraulic fracturing, has provided access to previously unreachable natural gas reserves. Much of this increase in natural gas production is derived from the Marcellus Shale, a shale formation that spans Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and New York. This surge in natural gas production has prompted natural gas pipeline companies to upgrade their pipeline networks. Pipeline companies must apply for certificates of public convenience and necessity from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and, if approved, perform an environmental evaluation, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). In examining the environmental impacts of the pipeline project, pipeline companies must be careful not to impermissibly segment the project into component parts, thereby failing to consider a proposed project’s full range of environmental impacts. This is referred to as the rule against segmentation, developed by courts to ensure that companies consider the full range of environmental consequences of proposed projects. The D.C. Circuit recently reviewed the scope of a pipeline project’s environmental assessment in Delaware Riverkeeper Network v. FERC, holding that the FERC impermissibly segmented four pipeline upgrade projects by failing to consider their impacts in one environmental assessment. This Comment analyzes the D.C. Circuit’s decision in Delaware Riverkeeper Network v. FERC and argues that the court improperly applied NEPA’s rule against segmentation. The precedent established from the D.C. Circuit’s decision will cause even further delays in the pipeline permitting process and will hinder the United States’s ability to utilize its supply of natural gas.

Click here to view this Comment

COMMENT: The Young and the Restless: How the Twenty-Sixth Amendment Could Play a Role in the Current Debate Over Voting Laws

By Nancy TurnerAm. U. L. Rev. 1503 (2015)

The Twenty-Sixth Amendment is commonly understood as lowering the voting age to eighteen. However, a close look at the Amendment’s language and history indicates that the Twenty-Sixth Amendment does more than just grant a right. Properly read, the Twenty-Sixth Amendment acts as an anti-discrimination law similar to the Fourteenth, Fifteenth, and Nineteenth Amendments. Accordingly, the Twenty-Sixth Amendment possesses the power not just to invalidate legislation that explicitly contravenes its purpose, but also to neutralize facially neutral legislation that was enacted with a discriminatory intent. Using Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendment jurisprudence as a guide, this Comment proposes a framework for structuring Twenty-Sixth Amendment claims against facially neutral legislation. It argues that where claimants can show that a law was enacted for the purpose of impeding the youth vote, the Twenty-Sixth Amendment should trigger strict judicial scrutiny. It uses North Carolina’s new voting legislation, the Voter Information Verification Act, to illustrate how a group of students may demonstrate that this facially neutral legislation was enacted for the purpose of frustrating young and student voters.

Click here to view this Comment

NOTE: Shoot First, Ask Later: Constitutional Rights at the Border After Boumediene

By Brittany Davidson │ 64 Am. U. L. Rev. 1547 (2015)

Adopting Boumediene’s functional approach in analyzing extraterritorial application of the United States Constitution at the U.S.-Mexico border will promote uniformity and provide guidance to courts and officials. Currently, courts are applying Verdugo-Urquidez’s sufficient connections test, and different variations thereof, permitting courts to arbitrarily decide who is entitled to constitutional protection in the absence of uniform precedent. Adopting Boumediene as the guiding test will not automatically trigger constitutional protection, instead, constitutional protection will only be granted if extending protection to an alien at the U.S.-Mexico border is justified based on the three-prong test. 

Click here to view this Note



Thank you for visiting the American University Law Review website!  This site provides a central and convenient location to browse our volumes, preview forthcoming scholarship, and learn more about our publication.  Please send any questions or comments to lawrev@wcl.american.edu.

Founded in 1952, the Law Review is the oldest and largest student-run publication at the Washington College of Law and publishes six issues each year.  The Law Review is consistently ranked among the top fifty law journals in the nation and is the most-cited journal at WCL, according to the Washington and Lee University Law Library.

Rather than focus on a particular area of law, the Law Review publishes articles, essays, and student notes and comments on a broad range of issues.  Recent topics have included the Second Amendment right to bear arms; the Freedom of Information Act; electronic copyright infringement; attorney-client privilege; immigration law; international trade law; and many other timely legal issues.

The Law Review receives approximately 2,500 submissions annually and publishes articles from professors, judges, practicing lawyers, and renowned legal thinkers.  The Law Review has published articles or commentary by Supreme Court Chief Justices Warren Burger, William Rehnquist, and Earl Warren, as well as Associate Justices Hugo Black, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Arthur Goldberg.

Click here to learn more.

Forthcoming, Vol. 65.1

Diane Lourdes Dick:  U.S. Tax Imperialism in Puerto Rico

Robert M. Sanger:  I.Q., Intelligence Tests, "Ethnic Adjustments" and Atkins

Kennan El Khatib:  To B, or Not to B:  The Harms of the Benefit Corporation

Amanda A. Humphreville:  If the Question is Chocolate Related, the Answer is Always Yes:  Why Doe v. Nestle Reopens the Door for Corporate Liability of U.S. Corporations under the Alien Tort Statute

Abram Olchyk:  A Spoof of Justice:  Double Jeopardy Implications for Convictions of Both Spoofing and Commodities Fraud for the Same Transaction 

Follow Us!

facebook twitter
linkedin Instagram Icon