Friday, May 20, 2011

CFP: Supreme Court Preview by Charleston Law Review

The Charleston Law Review invites submissions for its annual Supreme Court Preview volume. 

Charleston Law Review. gif
Here's the call:

This year’s Preview will feature a foreword by Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean and Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of California Irvine School of Law.  The 2009 Supreme Court Preview volume was cited by Justice Clarence Thomas in his concurring opinion in FCC v. Fox Television Stations Inc., 129 S. Ct. 1800 (2009). 

We welcome an article or essay addressing a case before the Court in its October 2011 Term, or in the alternative, addressing an aspect of the Court itself such as recent voting trends, case load, an analysis of a particular Justice, or any other topic related to the Supreme Court. 

The Supreme Court Preview is published to coincide with the opening of the October 2011 Term.  We therefore ask that work be submitted no later than August 1, 2011.  Submissions will be reviewed on a rolling basis beginning June 1, 2011.  Please direct submissions and any questions about our Supreme Court Preview to Mollie Brunworth, Editor in Chief, via email at mgbrunworth [at] charlestonlaw.edu.

There are some notable criminal procedure cases scheduled for the October term, as well as a standing/retroactivity issue under SORA (Reynolds v. US), the Progress Clause of the United States Constitution, Article I, § 8, cl. 8, regarding Congressional copyright power (Golan v. Holder), and the political question issue regarding whether a birthplace of  "Jerusalem" entitles the person to list "Israel" as place of birth (MBZ v. Clinton).

RR

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/conlaw/2011/05/cfp-supreme-court-preview-by-charleston-law-review.html

Cases and Case Materials, Scholarship, Supreme Court (US) | Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bfae553ef01538e9997f9970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference CFP: Supreme Court Preview by Charleston Law Review:

Comments

Post a comment