DENVER LAW REVIEW
DLR Forum Articles
Volume 102
Articles
Tabrez Y. Ebrahim
Tabrez Ebrahim explores how digital platforms for legal services can increase access to justice while recognizing the need for adapting the lawyer ethical code in the face of these technological advancements. Professor Ebrahim ultimately argues for a co-regulation approach to balance the needs of consumers with professional responsibility.
Volume 101
Articles
United We Fall? The Change Healthcare Cyberattack and the Danger of a Too-Big-to-Fail Health Insurer
Brendan Williams
Brendan Williams examines the implications of the outsized footprint that UnitedHealth Group (UHG) has on our healthcare system, and whether the February 21, 2024 cyberattack on UHG’s patient records will prompt policymakers to enact more regulations.​
Solving the Causation Problem in Colorado Medical Malpractice Law
​Charles R. Mendez and Karman J. Reed confront two central problems to the element of causation in medical malpractice law. They address how it has created a discrepancy between the legal standard of causation and its practical application.​​​​
​Today most Americans live in metropolitan regions which are comprised of numerous local governments. Home rule jurisdiction precludes these local governments from acting in isolation to curb the negative impact of sprawl. However, issues of regional significance that are not addressed by the state result in a regulatory vacuum. Juliana Todeschi explores how a general-purpose regional government structure can fill that regulatory vacuum, promoting a sustainable metropolitan region. Ms. Todeschi argues a regional governance approach better fits transit-oriented development and analyzes the Denver region in a case study.​​​
​As distrust and discontent grows, public willingness to conform voluntarily with legal norms declines. The fact that the government is perceived negatively is not debatable. However, it takes years to transform the national belief structure. Professor Popper challenges why the federal regulatory state is perceived negatively. He tracks the devolution of public confidence in the government through the lens of tort reform and several regulatory agencies and programs.​​
​As concerns about the environment increase, consumers have reportedly become more willing to purchase environmentally friendly products and services. To accommodate this, companies are developing environmentally friendly goods, which involves coordination among companies with similar goals. Annie Soo Yeon Ahn suggests that antitrust enforcement agencies and courts should carefully consider procompetitive justifications in antitrust cases concerning coordination on technology development. Further, procompetitive justifications should be considered when determining whether to apply the per se analysis or the rule of reason analysis.​​
Student Comments
Dakota Hamko
​Dakota Hamko addresses the increasing ability of states to regulate in unprecedented areas and several modern limitations on this authority and also explores critical lessons from Dormant Commerce Clause precedent and its effect on the future of regulating animal cruelty through sales bans.​
Concepcion v. United States: Compassionate Drug Sentencing Reform Against a Criminal Legal System Built on Racialized Social Control
Misty L. Schlabaugh
​Misty L. Schlabaugh argues that ending the use of retributive punishment for non-violent drug crimes is crucial for addressing mass criminalization and incarceration, but it also emphasizes the need for broader societal change.​​​
​Alyssa Schwartz examines Carson v. Makin and argues that the Court’s decision disregards precedent and attempts to rewrite history to diminish the seperation of church and state as a bedrock principle of our nation, and rules in favor of religion which erodes the Court’s constitutional neutrality.​
Hanna Woods
​Hanna Woods argues that although the Court correctly decided Denezpi, it failed to incorporate key public policy considerations in its reasoning by neglecting to acknowledge that barring Denezpi’s subsequent prosecution in federal court would yield unfavorable consequences.​
Volume 100
Articles
Avoiding Misidentification: Improving Best Practices Can Reduce Incidents of Wrongful Conviction
Andrew J. Fishman
​Andrew J. Fishman explores eyewitness identification collection procedures and the best practices adopted by different states. Looking at recent developments in New Jersey and Massachusetts, he suggests two practices that states can adopt to decrease the likelihood of wrongful conviction.​​​
Student Comments
Shurtleff v. City of Boston, Massachusetts: A Lost Opportunity to Address the Government Speech Doctrine
Benjamin Douglas
​Benjamin Douglas examines the history of the government speech doctrine up to its decision in Shurtleff v. City of Boston, Massachusetts. He argues that (1) the government speech test should be altered to provide more clarity, consistent results, and account for potential misuse; and (2) the Supreme Court missed an opportunity to address Establishment Cause concerns and its connection to the government speech doctrine.​​
United States v. Vaello-Madero: A "Shameful" Failure to Protect Needy American Citizens Living in the U.S. Territories
Carolyn Fergus-Callahan
​Carolyn Fergus-Callahan explores the doctrine of territorial incorporation and subsequent discriminatory treatment experienced by residents of the United States territories through the lens of Puerto Rico. She argues that Vaello-Madero was wrongly decided because the standard of review should be heightened in cases concerning territorial residency and the Congressional exclusion of residents of Puerto Rico from the SSI program does not survive rational basis review.​
Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L.: Keeping Off Campus Speech Off Limits
​The regulation of student's off-campus speech has grown significantly more complex in the digital age. This Comment argues that widespread use of social media has muddled the line between on-campus and off-campus speech, challenging traditional interpretations of the First Amendment within the context of student speech. Broadening the scope of a school's authority to regulate student speech off-campus infringes on a student's constitutional liberties.​
Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski: How the Injury-In-Fact Requirement Furthers Redressability Arguments
Allyson Beyer
​The United States Supreme Court's 2021 decision in Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski addressed the issue of whether nominal damages to redress non-economic injuries prevent cases from becoming moot. The Court ruled that nominal damages could satisfy Article III's redressability requirement, allowing a case to proceed despite no compensable harm. This Comment argues that in deciding that nominal damages can keep a case alive after a policy has been revoked the Supreme Court should have devoted further analysis to the injury in fact requirement to establish more concretely that nominal damages can redress a past injury.​
Sitting This One Out: Standing Doctrine After TransUnion v. Ramirez
Travis C. Murphy
In discussing Article III's standing requirement, this Comment argues that the Supreme Court’s decision in TransUnion v. Ramirez constitutes both a dramatic deviation from modern standing jurisprudence and an inadequate understanding of intangible privacy harms.​
Blog Posts
Emerging Trends in Asset Management: An Overview of SEC Chair Gary Gensler's Remarks
Isaac Mamaysky
​Isaac Mamaysky explores SEC Chair Gary Gensler's remarks at the Inaugural Conference on Emerging Trends in Asset Management. He observes that Mr. Gensler’s comments provide a view into how the SEC looks at emerging trends in asset management and the corresponding rulemaking and enforcement priorities.​
Volume 99
Articles
United States v. Allen And Judicial Review of Early Pandemic Courtroom Closures
Stephen Smith​
The COVID-19 pandemic posed a novel question to the courts: how should judges accommodate public health concerns while ensuring criminal defendants’ Sixth Amendment right to a public trial? Professor Smith addresses this question with a discussion of the appellate court’s review of United States v. Allen, a case in which a criminal defendant sought a retrial due to a courtroom closure. Through this analysis, Smith urges appellate courts to consider the public health information available at the time a decision was being made, rather than demanding trial courts to have had the standard of COVID-19 knowledge now available with the benefit of hindsight. ​​
The Harms of Police Surveillance Technology Monopolies
Elizabeth Joh & Thomas Joo
​Professors Joh and Joo explore the consequences of police officers’ increasing reliance on surveillance technologies developed and offered by private companies. The reliance on the private sector in everyday policing raises concerns of undue influence and suggests a need for additional technological regulations. Additionally, the authors warn of the possibility of a single private company monopolizing surveillance technologies by integrating the most useful tools for police on one platform. While this would be useful, it would effectively allow a corporate entity to have enormous power and control of functions that are essential to the democratic policing process. ​
Student Comments
Pereida v. Wilkinson: Non-Citizen Qualification For Discretionary Deportation Relief and the Application of the Categorical Approach
Chuck Alcock
​The 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act allows certain United States non-citizens to seek discretionary relief of a removal order when they can prove that they have not been convicted of certain criminal offenses, specifically offenses that involve moral turpitude. To determine whether an offense qualifies as a crime of moral turpitude, federal courts typically take a categorical approach, analyzing the nature of the crime as defined by the statute. In Pereida v. Wilkinson, the Supreme Court made a flawed departure from over a century of immigration law precedent by straying from this framework. This departure reflects a federal court trend of eroding categorical analysis in the immigration context that threatens the efficiency and justice the Immigration and Nationality Act was enacted to protect.​​​​​
