Home › Inter Alia

Inter Alia

Welcome to Inter Alia, the Yale Law & Policy Review's new online companion! Inter Alia is a cutting-edge forum for shorter, more informal legal scholarship at the intersection of law and policy. Its online-exclusive content provides in-depth yet succinct perspectives on the policy implications of legal happenings at the federal, state, and local levels.

As the FCC prepares to vote on newly proposed net neutrality rules on December 21, the Yale Law & Policy Review has released a symposium on net neutrality in its online companion, Inter Alia.

Please read the Introduction to Inter Alia for a complete discussion of YLPR's purposes and aspirations for Inter Alia and the inaugural symposium.



Bullcoming and Cold Cases: Reconciling the Confrontation Clause with DNA Evidence
Dylan O. Keenan

In Crawford v. Washington, the Supreme Court radically transformed Confrontation Clause doctrine. This Essay argues that the Court’s recent decision in Bullcoming v. New Mexico threatens the uneasy balance between prosecutorial needs and the Crawford line. Specifically, Bullcoming could be used to exclude DNA database evidence in prosecuting cold cases. DNA evidence has been used in criminal prosecutions for only a few decades, but it has revolutionized criminal justice during that time. DNA evidence has been particularly important for prosecuting rape cases, which historically have low conviction rates. Prosecutors should therefore be concerned that they might lose an essential tool for prosecuting rape cases and seeking justice for victims. Defense attorneys have a stake, too. When prosecutors lose access to DNA evidence, they are more likely to turn to less reliable eyewitness testimony and circumstantial evidence.

Ethical Aspects of Political Dilemmas Faced by Appointed Judges
Barry R. Schaller

Elected judges are not alone in having to deal with politics and politicians throughout their careers. This Essay discusses the ethical implications of judicial contacts with politics in states in which judges are appointed and reappointed for limited terms through the political process. A possible subtitle for this Essay might be: ‘Can appointed judges have a normal life while complying with the ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct within the political universe where they work and live?’

Worse Than Lochner
Ian Millhiser

There is an alternate universe where everything violates the Tenth Amendment—and much of Congress lives in it. Senator Tom Coburn believes that all federal education programs, from Pell Grants to Title I to student loans, violate the Constitution. Senator Rand Paul thinks that the federal ban on whites-only lunch counters is forbidden.  Senator Mike Lee believes that child labor laws, federal disaster relief, food stamps, the Food and Drug Administration, Medicaid, income assistance for the poor, and even Medicare and Social Security violate the Constitution. And, of course, half Congress thinks that health reform is unconstitutional.

Unilateralism, Defunding, and the Shrapnel of Health Reform
Michael Lee

In the shadow of a Presidential veto, it will be impossible to repeal health care reform completely—despite the overwhelming number of additional seats Republicans won in the 2010 election.

The First Amendment Issue of Our Time
Dawn C. Nunziato

Here we go, once more unto the breach, to face yet another battle in the near decade-long war over net neutrality. Some of the combatants have changed, and their positions have shifted slightly, but today we find essentially the same interests represented and the same arguments advanced. On one side, the major cable, Digital Subscriber Line (DSL), and wireless broadband providers continue to argue against increasing the Federal Communication Commision’s (FCC) authority over how these providers manage the flow of information through their pipes.

Net Neutrality as Diplomacy
Jonathan Zittrain

Popular imagination holds that the turf of a state’s foreign embassy is a little patch of its homeland. Enter the American Embassy in Beijing and you are in the United States. Indeed, in many contexts—such as resistance to search and seizure by a host country’s authorities—there is an inviolability to diplomatic outposts. These arrangements have been central to diplomacy for decades so that diplomats can perform their work without fear of harassment and coercion.

Search, Speech, and Secrecy: Corporate Strategies for Inverting Net Neutrality Debates
Frank Pasquale

Bottlenecks at any layer of the Internet—physical, social, application, or content[1]—create opportunities for the exercise of undue power over the flow of information and ideas online. Corporate forces menace both user privacy and free expression on the Internet. Market concentration lets powerful business leaders develop unprecedented digital dossiers on users. Such concentration also allows leading companies to pervasively shape culture and politics, elevating some voices and silencing others.

The Looming Cable Monopoly
Susan P. Crawford

On March 9, 2010, the city of Alexandria, Virginia received a letter from Verizon.[1] The letter, signed by Verizon’s Virginia president, Robert Woltz, said that Verizon would not be installing FiOS services in Alexandria.

Editor’s Note: Introduction to Inter Alia

Across twenty-eight volumes, the Yale Law & Policy Review has grown from a publication released by fourteen students to one of the most widely read nonflagship journals in the United States. With good reason, the Review’s leadership has focused its efforts on selecting and disseminating the best possible work implicating matters of law and policy.[1] As YLPR nears its fourth decade, a major effort is underway to bolster significantly its Internet presence.

What Deference Is Due? Constitutional Chiding and the State of the Union
Bruce Peabody

On January 27, 2010, President Barack Obama delivered his first State of the Union address before a joint session of Congress and, less directly, millions of American households. While some commentators focused on the political agenda, policy aspirations, tone, and rhetorical style of the speech, for students of law and courts, the President’s most significant remarks involved a concise criticism of the Supreme Court of the United States.

A Tale Told by a President
Mark A. Graber

President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address has been described both as “full of sound and fury” and as “signifying nothing.” The crucial passage declared:

“It’s Not What You Said, It’s How You Said It”: Criticizing the Supreme Court in the State of the Union
Douglas E. Edlin

In this Essay, I argue that presidential criticism of the Supreme Court during a State of the Union address (SOTU) is different from other forms and forums of presidential criticism of the Court. This is because the State of the Union is different from other presidential addresses and because the Supreme Court is different from other state and federal courts.

The State of the Union Is a Presidential Pep Rally
Keith E. Whittington

Some people were not very happy with President Barack Obama’s criticism of the U.S. Supreme Court in his 2010 State of the Union Address.

RSS feed