Journal Article
15 April 2026
Current Issue
Volume 12, Issue 4 (2026)Read More
Featured Content
- Journal Article15 April 2026
Stolen Art Tolling Rules: One View of the (Stolen) Cathedral
Disputes over stolen art frequently result in arduous, decades-long litigation. These disputes are emotionally and morally charged—one recurrent fact-pattern involves the descendants of European Jewish families suing an art collector or museum that now possesses art the Nazis stole during the Holocaust. But courts often decide stolen art cases based on rules about the tolling of statutes of limitations, not the merits of the disputes. Further, these tolling rules are unclear, inconsistent, and generally favor the bona fide purchaser of stolen art over the original owner. In the spirit of Calabresi and Melamed’s seminal work Property Rules, Liability Rules, and Inalienability: One View of the Cathedral, this Article analyzes stolen art tolling rules by situating the different statutes of limitations paradigms in a version of Calabresi and Melamed’s framework. The contrast between the different rules reveals reasons to grant original owners an entitlement to bring suits, regardless of time, particularly when a museum or other art professional now possesses the art. This conclusion supports a version of an Anti-Statute of Limitations tolling rule: once a dispossessed owner takes certain steps to recover their property, their replevin claims should not be time-barred. Such a rule would place the burden of identifying stolen art on purchasers, the ex-ante least‑cost avoider.
Current Articles
- Journal Article15 April 2026
Stolen Art Tolling Rules: One View of the (Stolen) Cathedral
Disputes over stolen art frequently result in arduous, decades-long litigation. These disputes are emotionally and morally charged—one recurrent fact-pattern involves the descendants of European Jewish families suing an art collector or museum that now possesses art the Nazis stole during the Holocaust. But courts often decide stolen art cases based on rules about the tolling of statutes of limitations, not the merits of the disputes. Further, these tolling rules are unclear, inconsistent, and generally favor the bona fide purchaser of stolen art over the original owner. In the spirit of Calabresi and Melamed’s seminal work Property Rules, Liability Rules, and Inalienability: One View of the Cathedral, this Article analyzes stolen art tolling rules by situating the different statutes of limitations paradigms in a version of Calabresi and Melamed’s framework. The contrast between the different rules reveals reasons to grant original owners an entitlement to bring suits, regardless of time, particularly when a museum or other art professional now possesses the art. This conclusion supports a version of an Anti-Statute of Limitations tolling rule: once a dispossessed owner takes certain steps to recover their property, their replevin claims should not be time-barred. Such a rule would place the burden of identifying stolen art on purchasers, the ex-ante least‑cost avoider. - Journal Article15 April 2026
American Subsidy Law in a World of Changed Weather Patterns
This Article considers the extent to which governments in the United States, faced with escalating costs of weather-induced disasters, can refuse, restrict, or eliminate subsidies that encourage persons to locate or remain in harm’s way, without triggering the Takings Clause or other forms of liability. In most scenarios, the law unequivocally permits governments broad freedom to refuse, restrict, or cease subsidization. The policy issues are more variegated—claims of reliance on subsidy-induced encouragement, or the plight of being in the wrong place at the wrong time, are not fatuous, nor is the risk of housing price instability if subsidies are withdrawn in risk-prone areas too precipitously. Also, to be sure, there are income inequality effects that enter the equation, which often fall along racial lines. Other than recognizing their presence, these policy concerns are sufficiently complex and important to require separate treatment. It is incontrovertible that the harm being wrought by extreme weather events is immense and increasing: the weather impacts of climate change are being felt ever more often, and the cost of relief after such major events continues to reach new plateaus, now often in the billions of dollars spent after a single storm or wildfire. Continuing subsidies that encourage locating in risky places in their current form ignores the loss of weather and climate stationarity: weather extremes are greater at both the wet and dry ends of the spectrum, and the period between new record extremes in localities around the nation is declining. Changed conditions require changed assessments of safety and risk, and action based on those reassessments. More simply, encouraging continued or increasingly dense settlement in risky areas is irrational, whereas providing subsidies in the form of assistance to extreme weather victims is humane and has long been the norm in this nation. A great deal of support for the claims just set out was excellently marshalled by Professor Nevitt in his recent Article entitled, “Destroy, Rebuild, Repeat: How to Break the Climate Disaster Cycle.” The bulk of that information will not be repeated. Instead, the focus here is on one aspect of his proposal to end that cycle—"suspending” (his term) what this Article identifies as “subsidies” that encourage people to live in too risky locales. On that narrower topic, Professor Nevitt raised as a potential concern legally compelled compensation that might attend the suspension of rescue efforts, ceasing repair and maintenance of municipal services in those areas, and mandating the discontinuation of utility connections. On that specific point, while there may be some state-level laws that compel provision to too risky areas of some services, the general rule is that no such duties exist, and the discontinuation of subsidies is not a taking of property. The law is quite well settled that the government has no legal duty to subsidize in the first place. In fact, the precedents are reasonably clear that governments do not violate the Takings Clause or other constitutional requirements by withdrawing subsidies, leaving governments largely free to do so without liability unless the government explicitly agrees that a subsidy will be maintained via contract or legislation. Even then, past legislative enactments can be repealed or modified. This Article will examine the very narrow circumstances in which takings claims may require compensation when subsidies that encourage location in too risky locales are refused, reduced, or eliminated.
Most Popular Articles
- Journal Article15 February 2025
The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Lending: A New Form of Redlining?
The issue of biased lending is longstanding and has faced much legislation over the past few decades. When issues of discrimination in the housing market became center stage in the 1960s, Congress passed multiple acts to combat what became known as “redlining,” or systematically denying credit to minority groups of people. Acts such as the Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act worked to eliminate this discrimination, but that does not mean bias does not still exist. However, lending companies, due to the efforts of the above-enumerated acts, can no longer act on these biases. But with the introduction of algorithmic lending with artificial intelligence systems, the decades of work to eliminate lending discrimination are threatened. Artificial intelligence systems are trained by humans but often lack human oversight when making actual lending decisions. This human training leads to implicit biases within the algorithms themselves, bringing up the issue once more of discriminatory lending practices, known as “digital redlining.” To combat this discrimination, there needs to be regulation on how algorithms must be trained and the transparency of their decision-making. Without such regulations, protected classes of people will once again face housing discrimination, much like that of those in the 1960s and before. - Journal Article1 June 2019
Executive Order 13563 Creates Access to Affordable Child Support Orders for Incarcerated Parents
Former President Barack Obama issued Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review in his last month of presidency, prohibit- ing States from treating incarceration as voluntary when considering a par- ent’s request for a modification of his or her child support order. Although fully expected to, President Donald Trump has yet to act on the executive order, which right-wing politicians fought vehemently against for two years. This Comment argues that the President should leave the order in action be- cause it will promote payment of child support and relationships between non- custodial parents and their children, as well as help to combat the cycle of incarceration that plagues low-income, noncustodial parents. This Comment also argues that courts should opt to suspend child-support payments for non- custodial parents when they face sentences that will produce significant arrear- ages by the time the parent is released from incarceration. Finally, the Comment will address how incarceration affects modification of support orders and the cycle of incarceration, who is affected by this cycle, and public views as to President Obama’s executive order that attempted to resolve such issues. - Journal Article1 January 2014
Spanish and Mexican Land Grants and Heirs' Rights to Unclaimed Mineral Estates in Texas
This Comment discusses the history of Spanish and Mexican land grants in Texas and the complicated issues of: (1) recognizing the rights of original land grant owners; and (2) distinguishing what remedies, if any, shall be given to their heirs. Part II provides background of Spanish and Mexican land grants in Texas, including the provisions included in the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, and the underlying cultural, political, and social issues. Part III discusses the history of general land grant case law and mineral estate case law in Texas. Part IV discusses the current obstacles that heirs face in bringing ancient land grant claims, which are subject to the current property laws in Texas. Finally, Part V explores the possible future for land grant disputes including the recent passage of HB 724, the current goals of heirs seeking recognition of their rights, and competing arguments on the fulfillment of those goals. - Journal Article16 February 2022
Patently Absurd: The Invention Secrecy Order System
The current patent application secrecy order system has almost no safeguards to prevent abuse and overreach into private intellectual property rights by the Government. Defense agencies are presently able to have the United States Patent and Trademark Office place secrecy orders on applications by merely deciding for themselves that revelation of information found therein would be detrimental to national security; there are no rules or restrictions on how the agencies go about making this determination. Likewise, the current system contains little in the way of protection for inventors who are left without a meaningful way to challenge these orders. The prospect of devoting substantial time, money, and resources towards inventing a new technology only for the Government to both prevent inventors from obtaining a patent on it and forbidding them from leveraging such a patent cuts against the incentivization that lies at the heart of a healthy intellectual property regime. An overhaul to this system guaranteeing stronger safeguards and better protections is required to maintain the pace of technological advancement facilitated by the strong private rights afforded by the United States’ patent system. This Comment proposes a number of changes to the current statutory and regulatory framework that will create these necessary protections to check Government abuse and to safeguard inventors’ rights. - Journal Article1 June 2019
Courts React: Popularity of YouTube's Reaction Video Genre Sparks New Discussion on Fair Use Defense
Over the past few years, the rise in popularity of a genre of You- Tube videos known as “reaction videos” has resulted in controversy for various reasons. The United States District Court in Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, a landmark case for the genre, described the “reaction videos” as “a large genre of YouTube videos . . . [that] vary widely in terms of purpose, structure, and the extent to which they rely on potentially copyrighted material.” According to the Hosseinzadeh opinion, “[s]ome reaction videos. . .intersperse short segments of another’s work with criticism and commentary, while others are more akin to a group viewing session without commentary.” Essentially, reaction videos are exactly what the name suggests: a video showing a person or group of people reacting to the work of another, which by nature requires the incorporation of the work being reacted to for the viewer’s reference. The first time that controversy arose out of the “reaction” genre was in 2015 when the Fine Brothers, the creators of a popular YouTube channel known for its “Kids React” series along with several other “reaction video” series, applied to trademark the term “react.” The brothers did so with the intention to create a program called “React World,” through which they would license out the “reaction video” format to other video creators. This endeavor came not long after the Fine Brothers criticized Ellen DeGeneres for allegedly using their “re- action” format in a segment on her television show, suggesting the brothers’ belief that they were the sole owners of what is, in reality, a widely-used format. As a result, YouTube viewers became distrustful of the Fine Brothers’ intentions in trademarking the format, and viewers criticized them to the point that they issued a public apology in February of 2016 in which they announced their decision to “[r]escind all. . .‘React’ trademarks and applications” and “[d]iscontinue the React World program.” Later in 2016, reaction videos would again become the subject of controversy when Ethan and Hila Klein, the husband-and-wife creators of the popular YouTube comedy channel H3H3 Productions, were sued by Matt Hosseinzadeh of the decidedly less popular You- Tube channel, Matt Hoss Zone, for copyright infringement. Hosseinzadeh alleged copyright infringement for the use of segments of his video, “Bold Guy vs. Parkour Girl,” in a humorous reaction video made by the Kleins.8 What resulted was the aforementioned Hosseinzadeh v. Klein opinion, which set a precedent that will hopefully allow future reaction video creators to produce and share content without their creativity being stifled by the looming risk of copyright infringement lawsuits. Hosseinzadeh alleged that a video, which was part of a series of videos, starring himself as “Bold Guy,” “in which the Bold Guy flirts with a woman and chases her through various sequences” was infringement. Hosseinzadeh alleged that the Kleins’ video entitled “The Big, The BOLD, The Beautiful,” infringed upon “Bold Guy vs. Parkour Girl,” as it featured the couple “comment[ing] on and criticiz[ing] [his] video, playing portions of it in the process.” Accepting the Kleins’ motion for summary judgment, which pleaded the fair use defense, the court held that its “review of the. . .videos makes it clear that [the claim] in which plaintiff alleges that defendants in- fringed plaintiff’s copyrights, must be decided in defendants’ favor.” - Journal Article1 May 2025
Invasives: The How of Biodiversity Loss
Invasive species are non-native organisms, existing outside of their original habitat, which may cause damage to the biodiversity in their new environment. These species often outcompete native species for resources, which can dramatically disrupt ecological balance and biodiversity. This Article first surveys existing invasive species laws, documenting the current legal frameworks that various countries use to manage invasive species. It then proposes an array of new legal approaches that may improve how human civilizations manage the complex issues surrounding invasives. Finally, it evaluates the prospects for preventing—or even rolling back—the harm invasives cause to biodiversity. The broad goal of this Article is to understand the current and potential future ways that legal frameworks could help manage invasive species