2019

Karen Bradshaw In the windowless conference room of a drab building, roughly thirty people were waiting for a meeting to start. Several men sat in a tight bunch at a far end of the table, all wearing short-sleeve button down shirts, dark jeans, and work boots. These were the foresters. In the middle of the rectangular arrangement of tables sat a clump of wildlife biologists from the Forest Service. Two Forest Supervisors sat on opposite sides of the room, both in uniform. A collaboration expert in khakis and a polo shirt was nonchalantly checking his phone under the table. A researcher made her way around the room, touching the shoulder of various people as she spoke to them, her dolman sleeves fluttering behind her. After several minutes of casting furtive…

Shawn E. Fields On August 8, 2015, the Arizona newspaper Arizona Republic ran a story with the following headline: Celebration or Concern? We’re No. 1 for Guns. The story reported that, “[f]or the third straight year, Arizona was ranked [the] best state in the nation for gun owners by Guns & Ammo magazine, which praised the state’s self-defense and carry laws, its shooting sports and strong gun culture.” The balance of the article considered the well-worn debate between gun rights advocates and gun control advocates reflected in the story’s title: was this ranking to be hailed as a victory for the Second Amendment and responsible gun ownership, or denounced as the reason why “Arizona is the best state for criminals to get access to guns”? Full Article

Madeline Mayer High court decisions often result in unintended consequences, many of which courts either never contemplated or failed to fully appreciate. This Comment highlights some of the unintended consequences of the Arizona Supreme Court decision State v. Sisco and suggests several legislative solutions. Full Article

Scott F. Gibson Arizona courts take a skeptical approach to restrictive covenants— covenants not to compete, antipiracy agreements, and confidential information agreements—and have good reason for doing so. Restrictive covenants are contrary to fundamental principles of free enterprise,1as they place restrictions on free and unrestricted competition. Moreover, “the right of an individual to follow and pursue the particular occupation for which he is best trained is a most fundamental right.” And consumers pay a higher price for goods and services when competition is eliminated from the marketplace, even if only temporarily. Full Article

Timothy Sandefur The Arizona Constitution says “No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law.” This language is notably different from that used in the federal Constitution’s Fourth Amendment and analogous provisions in other state constitutions. It is found in only one other constitution: that of Washington State, from which it was copied, and where courts have developed a robust and protective Private Affairs jurisprudence. Yet Arizona courts have not done the same. On the contrary, despite repeatedly acknowledging that the Arizona Constitution can and should protect a broader range of rights than the federal Constitution, they have largely failed to give effect to that principle and have so far developed virtually no significant protections of private affairs that differ from federal…

Lauren Podgorski One of the last healthy flowing rivers in Arizona, the Verde River, contributes substantially to the Verde Valley’s high quality of life. The Verde River supplies fresh drinking water to more than two million people in Maricopa County. But the river, its springs, and its tributaries face a serious threat from groundwater pumping in the Verde Valley. Arizona’s complicated, bifurcated water laws leave groundwater appropriation in the valley effectively unrestricted. As with many other water bodies, multiple parties hold rights to use the same Verde River water under separate legal regimes. These competing water rights, coupled with the valley’s rapid population growth, threaten to dry up the Verde River just like many other Arizona rivers. But a growing conservation effort strives to avoid that fate, with winemakers and…

Jeffrey Locke & Lauren Dedon The United States remains embroiled in a national opioid epidemic. “More than 70,200 Americans died from drug overdoses in 2017, including illicit drugs and prescription opioids—a [two]-fold increase in a decade.” From 1999 to 2016, more than 350,000 people died from an overdose involving any opioid, including prescription and illicit opioids. On average, 130 Americans die every day from an opioid overdose. Full Article

Naomi Cahn, June Carbone & Nancy Levit. We increasingly live our lives in a digital world, buying textbooks, groceries, and travel on internet platforms, offering our own services as drivers or organizers or lawyers in the gig economy, and looking for professional connections and dating options on the Web. Computer programs oversee the transactions. They link parties in accordance with their preferences—whether for the cheapest e-reader or the right intimate partner. Full Article

Elayne E. Greenberg. This first-of-its-kind paper introduces ethical guidelines and suggested practices for dispute resolution providers and neutrals when third-party funders provide financial backing for parties in U.S. domestic arbitrations and mediations. Sophisticated third-party funders have realized that litigation and dispute resolution are fast-growing, unregulated investment opportunities. Seizing these opportunities, third-party funders are now making billions of dollars in profits through their strategic investments in domestic and global litigation and dispute resolution with few ethical rules or regulations to curtail their investment behavior.3 Preferring to be secretive about the terms of their funding contracts and invisible in their work, third- party funders are flourishing, in large part, by operating below the regulatory radar.4 The funders’ behavior has been allowed to proceed invisible and unchecked because courts and dispute resolution providers…

Paul F. Eckstein, Mikaela Colby. Among the more specific and significant powers in the United States Constitution vested in the President is the power to pardon found in Article II, Section 2, Clause 1, which provides in relevant part that the President: shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment. Although the Founders considered several limitations on the pardon power, such as requiring full consent of the Senate and prohibiting pardons in cases of treason, ultimately they adopted only one: prohibiting the President from issuing pardons in cases of impeachment. Full Article