The Harvard Law Review's December 2016 issue, Number 2, features these contents: • Article, "Constitutionally Forbidden Legislative Intent," by Richard H. Fallon, Jr. • Article, "Deal Process Design in Management Buyouts," by Guhan Subramanian • Book Review, "Law and Moral Dilemmas," by Bert I. Huang • Note, "Charming Betsy and the Intellectual Property Provisions of Trade Agreements" • Note, "Political Questions, Public Rights, and Sovereign Immunity" Furthermore, student commentary analyzes Recent Cases on equitable relief from a foreign judgment under RICO, mootness after a 2014 Missouri election, compelling an Internet Service Provider to produce data stored overseas, immunity for failure-to-warn claims under the Communications Decency Act, whether the federal cannabis prohibition is a "substantial burden" under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, reasonableness of sentencing under the Guidelines after using a jury poll, and whether two-way video testimony violates the Confrontation Clause of the U.S. Constitution's Sixth Amendment. Finally, the issue includes several brief comments on Recent Publications. The Harvard Law Review is offered in a quality digital edition, featuring active Contents, linked footnotes, active URLs, legible tables, and proper ebook and Bluebook formatting. The Review is a student-run organization whose primary purpose is to publish a journal of legal scholarship. It comes out monthly from November through June and has roughly 2500 pages per volume. Student editors make all editorial and organizational decisions. This is the second issue of academic year 2016-2017.

Who controls how one’s identity is used by others? This legal question, centuries old, demands greater scrutiny in the Internet age. Jennifer Rothman uses the right of publicity—a little-known law, often wielded by celebrities—to answer that question, not just for the famous but for everyone. In challenging the conventional story of the right of publicity’s emergence, development, and justifications, Rothman shows how it transformed people into intellectual property, leading to a bizarre world in which you can lose ownership of your own identity. This shift and the right’s subsequent expansion undermine individual liberty and privacy, restrict free speech, and suppress artistic works. The Right of Publicity traces the right’s origins back to the emergence of the right of privacy in the late 1800s. The central impetus for the adoption of privacy laws was to protect people from “wrongful publicity.” This privacy-based protection was not limited to anonymous private citizens but applied to famous actors, athletes, and politicians. Beginning in the 1950s, the right transformed into a fully transferable intellectual property right, generating a host of legal disputes, from control of dead celebrities like Prince, to the use of student athletes’ images by the NCAA, to lawsuits by users of Facebook and victims of revenge porn. The right of publicity has lost its way. Rothman proposes returning the right to its origins and in the process reclaiming privacy for a public world.

A rigorous treatment of a thought experiment that has become notorious within and outside of philosophy - The Trolley Problem - by one of the most influential moral philosophers alive today Suppose you can stop a trolley from killing five people, but only by turning it onto a side track where it will kill one. May you turn the trolley? What if the only way to rescue the five is to topple a bystander in front of the trolley so that his body stops it but he dies? May you use a device to stop the trolley that will kill a bystander as a side effect? The "Trolley Problem" challenges us to explain and justify our different intuitive judgments about these and related cases and has spawned a huge literature. F.M. Kamm's 2013 Tanner Lectures present some of her views on this notorious moral conundrum. After providing a brief history of changing views of what the problem is about and attempts to solve it, she focuses on two prominent issues: Does who turns the trolley and how the harm is shifted affect the moral permissibility of acting? The answers to these questions lead to general proposals about when we may and may not harm some to help others. Three distinguished philosophers - Judith Jarvis Thomson (one of the originators of the trolley problem), Thomas Hurka, and Shelly Kagan - then comment on Kamm's proposals. She responds to each comment at length, providing an exceptionally rich elaboration and defense of her views. The Trolley Problem Mysteries is an invaluable resource not only to philosophers concerned about the Trolley Problem, but to anyone worried about how we ought to act when we can lessen harm to some by harming others and how we can reach a decision about the question.

Contents of Harvard Law Review: Volume 130, Number 8 - June 2017 include: * Article, "The Judicial Presumption of Police Expertise," by Anna Lvovsky * Essay, "The Debate That Never Was," by Nicos Stavropoulos * Essay, "Hart's Posthumous Reply," by Ronald Dworkin * Book Review, "Cooperative and Uncooperative Foreign Affairs Federalism," by Jean Galbraith * Note, "Rethinking Actual Causation in Tort Law" * Note, "The Justiciability of Servicemember Suits" * Note, "The Substantive Waiver Doctrine in Employment Arbitration Law" Furthermore, student commentary analyzes Recent Cases on: requiring proof of administrative feasibility to satisfy class action Rule 23; whether prison gerrymandering violates the Equal Protection Clause; justiciability of suit against the government for military sexual assaults; whether criminal procedure requires retroactive application of Hurst v. Florida to pre-Ring cases; whether statutory interpretation's rule of lenity requires fixing cocaine possession penalties by total drug weight; and, in international law, the UN's Security Council asserting Israel's settlement activities to be illegal. Finally, the issue includes several summaries of Recent Publications. The Harvard Law Review is offered in a quality digital edition, featuring active Contents, linked footnotes, active URLs, legible tables, and proper ebook and Bluebook formatting. The Review is a student-run organization whose primary purpose is to publish a journal of legal scholarship. It comes out monthly from November through June and has roughly 2300 pages per volume. Student editors make all editorial and organizational decisions. This is the final issue of academic year 2016-2017.

A distinguished Yale economist and legal scholar’s argument that law, of all things, has the potential to rescue us from the next economic crisis. After the economic crisis of 2008, private-sector spending took nearly a decade to recover. Yair Listokin thinks we can respond more quickly to the next meltdown by reviving and refashioning a policy approach whose proven success is too rarely acknowledged. Harking back to New Deal regulatory agencies, Listokin proposes that we take seriously law’s ability to function as a macroeconomic tool, capable of stimulating demand when needed and relieving demand when it threatens to overheat economies. Listokin makes his case by looking at both positive and cautionary examples, going back to the New Deal and including the Keystone Pipeline, the constitutionally fraught bond-buying program unveiled by the European Central Bank at the nadir of the Eurozone crisis, the ongoing Greek crisis, and the experience of U.S. price controls in the 1970s. History has taught us that law is an unwieldy instrument of macroeconomic policy, but Listokin argues that under certain conditions it offers a vital alternative to the monetary and fiscal policy tools that stretch the legitimacy of technocratic central banks near their breaking point while leaving the rest of us waiting and wallowing.

The Harvard Law Review is offered in a digital edition, featuring active Contents, linked notes, and proper ebook formatting. The contents of Issue 7 include a Symposium on privacy and several contributions from leading legal scholars: Article, "Agency Self-Insulation Under Presidential Review," by Jennifer Nou Commentary, "The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs: Myths and Realities," by Cass R. Sunstein SYMPOSIUM: PRIVACY AND TECHNOLOGY "Introduction: Privacy Self-Management and the Consent Dilemma," by Daniel J. Solove "What Privacy Is For," by Julie E. Cohen "The Dangers of Surveillance," by Neil M. Richards "The EU-U.S. Privacy Collision: A Turn to Institutions and Procedures," by Paul M. Schwartz "Toward a Positive Theory of Privacy Law," by Lior Jacob Strahilevitz Book Review, "Does the Past Matter? On the Origins of Human Rights," by Philip Alston A student Note explores "Enabling Television Competition in a Converged Market." In addition, extensive student analyses of Recent Cases discuss such subjects as First Amendment implications of falsely wearing military uniforms, First Amendment implications of public employment job duties, justiciability of claims that Scientologists violated trafficking laws, habeas corpus law, and ineffective assistance of counsel claims. Finally, the issue includes several summaries of Recent Publications. The Harvard Law Review is a student-run organization whose primary purpose is to publish a journal of legal scholarship. The Review comes out monthly from November through June and has roughly 2000 pages per volume. The organization is formally independent of the Harvard Law School. Student editors make all editorial and organizational decisions. This issue of the Review is May 2013, the 7th issue of academic year 2012-2013 (Volume 126).