Announcements

Introduction from the Editors No one disputes the significance of Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), which fundamentally transformed Confrontation Clause jurisprudence. But ten years after the Supreme ...

rating 16

We are proud to launch the new Michigan Law Review website!  If you are a Law Review alum, we would love to stay in touch. Please enter your information in our new Alumni directory.  

Current Issue

Jane Bambauer* Before police perform a search or seizure, they typically must meet the probable cause or reasonable suspicion standard. Moreover, even if ...

Tun-Jen Chiang* An enormous literature has criticized patent claims for being ambiguous. In this Article, I explain that this literature misunderstands the ...

Brian D. Howe* Intended to prevent fraud against the government, the False Claims Act (“FCA”) contains a qui tam provision allowing private ...

Matthew Evans* Congress broadly authorized the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) to protect consumers of electricity from all forms of ...

First Impressions

Daniel E. Herz-Roiphe* Over the past fifteen years, a brutal civil war has claimed more than five million lives in the Democratic Republic of Congo ...

Richard D. Friedman* Jeffrey L. Fisher** Given the pair of Fishers, we’ll use first names. And because we have more to say about George’s essay, ...

Deborah Tuerkheimer* When the Supreme Court transformed the right of confrontation in Crawford v. Washington,[1] the prosecution of domestic violence ...

George Fisher* First a toast—to my colleague Jeff Fisher and his Crawford[1]compatriot, Richard Friedman, on the tenth anniversary of their triumph: What ...

Jeffrey L. Fisher* Imagine a world . . . in which the Supreme Court got it right the first time. That is, imagine that when the Supreme Court first ...

Richard D. Friedman* I want to get Justice Breyer back on the right side of Confrontation Clause issues. In 1999, in Lilly v. Virginia,[1] he wrote a ...