Professor Fredrick Vars criticizes the Supreme Court's recent decision in Metrish v. Lancaster. That case broadened the prohibition on introducing evidence of mental illness to negate intent in criminal cases. Because many states allow evidence of intoxication on intent, Professor Vars argues that it is illogical and unfair to prohibit evidence of mental illness.
In this response to William Baude's article, Rethinking the Federal Eminent Domain Power, Christian Burset challenges Baude's claim that antebellum legislators, commentators, and judges uniformly refused to acknowledge a federal eminent domain power. Examining historical sources and case law, Burset highlights how changing political attitudes influenced historic beliefs about the ability of the federal government to condemn land within state boundaries.
NEWS & EVENTS
August 12, 2014Defining the Whistleblower Under Dodd-Frank: Who Decides?
Founded in 1912, CLR publishes six times per year on a variety of engaging topics in legal scholarship.
The law review is edited and published entirely by students at Berkeley Law.