Symposium on Free Speech and Constitutional Values

The editorial board is pleased to present the fall 2015 publication of Slip Opinions, the online companion to the University of Illinois Law Review.

The symposium was generated primarily by the article Free Speech Constitutionalism by Professor Alexander Tsesis, which was published in the 2015 volume of the University of Illinois Law Review.

The symposium features responses to Free Speech Constitutionalism, with contributions from:

Mark A. Graber;

David S. Han;

Helen Norton; and

Margot E. Kaminski.

New Members Announced for 2015-16

Please join us in congratulating the Law Review’s newest additions:

Steven Bieszczat
Timothy Borchardt
Magdala Boyer
Laura Buecker
Elizabeth Carter
Jeffrey Cassidy
Shalyn Caulley
Michael Chandra
Zachary Clark
Sarah Craig
Gregory Dickinson
Carmine Dipiero
Danny Duerdoth
Ian Follansbee
Stephanie Freismuth
Matthew Goldman
James Hirsh
Ahmed Islam
Jack Jablonsky
Katherine Kargl
Elizabeth Kelly
Michael Kuntz
Jordan Lewandowski
Matthew Loar
Lindsey Lusk
Jeremy Mandell
Diego Martinez-Krippner
Aidan Milstead
Mark Nagel
Saman Pakshir
Kajal Patel
Jay Rahman
Conrad Scully
Anthony Steinmetz
Bryan Vayr
Timothy Yuhasz

Volume 2015, Number 3

The Board of Editors is pleased to present Issue 3 of the 2015 Volume of the Illinois Law Review.

First, Professor Alexander Tsesis proposes that First Amendment doctrine should reflect a general theory of constitutional law that protects individual liberty and the common good of open society.

Next, Professors Martin Gelter and Geneviève Helleringer identify a fundamental contradiction in the law of fiduciary duty of corporate directors across jurisdictions: the tension between the uniformity of directors’ duties and the heterogeneity of directors themselves.

Third, Professor Jeff Schwartz explores the burgeoning practice of investing in people as if they were corporations.

Fourth, Professor Patricia W. Hatamyar Moore responds to changes proposed by Congress to restrict civil lawsuits by reforming procedure, and argues that there is no reference to actual government statistics about whether the civil caseload has grown, whether the median disposition time has increased, or whether the most prevalent types of civil cases have changed.

Fifth, Professors Gabriel J. Chin & Douglas M. Spencer argue that the The Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of 1965 were inspired by sincere anti-racism and were not cosmetic responses in tended to have little practical effect.

Finally, Professors Jef DeMot & Alex Stein uncover and analyze the problem of pro-defendant bias in our civil liability system and its distortionary effect on settlements and primary behavior. They develop three alternative solutions to the problem and evaluate their pros and cons.

Issue 3 concludes with notes by Nisha Chandran, Alyssa Falk, and Kate Poorbaugh.