116 Yale L.J. 1170 (2007)
A number of judge-made doctrines attempt to promote international comity by reducing possible tensions between the
116 Yale L.J. 1230 (2007)
What deference is due the executive in foreign relations? Given the considerable constitutional authority and institutional virtues of the executive in this realm, some judicial deference is almost certainly appropriate. Indeed, courts currently defer to the executive in a large number of cases. Eric Posner and Cass Sunstein nevertheless call for a dramatic expansion in the deference that courts accord executive interpretations of law in the foreign affairs context. They maintain that courts should presumptively give Chevron-style deference to executive interpretations of foreign relations law—even if the executive interpretation is articulated only as a litigation position, and even if it violates international law. In our view, substantial deference to the executive is singularly inappropriate in a large swath of cases eligible for Chevron deference under their proposal—namely, those involving foreign relations law that operates in what we call the “executive-constraining zone.” Courts have scrutinized, and should continue to scrutinize, executive interpretations of international law that has the status of supreme federal law, that is made at least in part outside the executive, and that conditions the exercise of executive power. Failure to do so would undermine the rule of law in the foreign relations context. It would also dramatically increase the power of the President in ways that would subvert the nation’s interests, discourage the executive from developing important internal checks on presidential power, and lead to less congressional regulation of the executive. In short, we maintain that deference at some point invites disregard and that law-interpreting authority at some point effectively constitutes lawbreaking authority.
116 Yale L.J. 1284 (2007)
The conventional approach to preliminary relief focuses on irreparable harm but entirely neglects irreparable benefits. That is hard to understand. Errant irreversible harms are important because they distort incentives and have lasting distributional consequences. But the same is true of errant irreversible gains. When a preliminary injunction wrongly issues, then, there are actually two distinct errors to count: the irreparable harm wrongly imposed on the nonmoving party, and the irreparable benefit wrongly enjoyed by the moving party. Similarly, when a preliminary injunction is wrongly denied, there are again two errors: the irreparable harm wrongly imposed on the moving party, and the irreparable benefit errantly accorded the nonmoving party. The conventional approach to preliminary relief mistakenly accounts for only half the problem.
Read Professor Lichtman's Pocket Part essay on this topic, Irreparable Benefits.
Read Professor Porat's response, When Do Irreparable Benefits Matter? A Response to Douglas Lichtman on Irreparable Benefits.
Read Professor Ben-Shahar's response, Against Irreparable Benefits.
Read Aaron Petty's response, The Relative Weight of Irreparable Benefits .
116 Yale L.J. 1302 (2007)
This Note provides a detailed history of the use of restrictive covenants in Beaver Hills, a planned residential subdivision built in New Haven between 1908 and the end of the 1930s. It analyzes these covenants in light of both the relevant common law of servitudes and the contemporary evolution of public land use regulation, most notably zoning. These analyses reveal that restrictive covenants in this era are best understood as a form of signaling and social norms rather than as a form of private law.
116 Yale L.J. 1344 (2007)
Most consumers learn about tenant-screening reports only when a landlord points to an item on such a report as the reason for rejecting an application and provides the tenant with a copy of that report as required by law. Legal scholars have criticized these reports for more than thirty years, however, observing that they are prone to error, open to abuse, and generally contrary to established public policies. This Note examines existing mechanisms used to regulate these reports and finds them inadequate, endorsing instead one state’s approach of “choking” information flows by disclosing eviction records only when the landlord prevails in court. In a digital age in which personal information is easily aggregated, court records should not be a vehicle for automatic damage to an individual’s renting prospects and reputation.
116 Yale L.J. 1389 (2007)
Read José R. Coleman Tió's Pocket Part Essay adapted from this Comment.
Read John C. Fortier's Response, The Constitution Is Clear: Only States Vote in Congress.
Read Christina Duffy Burnett's Response, Two Puerto Rican Senators Stay Home.