"As Associate Dean for Faculty Scholarship at University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law, I am pleased to share with you the recent work of some of my colleagues who are at the forefront of the most critical areas of contemporary law. These faculty members are among our many professors who study and write about key and emerging areas of law. Our faculty members have also authored more than 115 books that are used in 185 ABA-approved law schools across the nation." — Professor Rachael Salcido, Associate Dean for Faculty Scholarship
Professor Brian Slocum's recent article, Replacing the Flawed Chevron Standard, published in 60 WILLIAM & MARY LAW REVIEW 201 (2018), proposes a replacement framework for the famous Chevron doctrine that is more linguistically nuanced and better aligns with important Supreme Court decisions. The article is a continuation of Professor Slocum’s interdisciplinary work in language and law. That work has recently produced three books, Ordinary Meaning: A Theory of the Most Fundamental Principle of Legal Interpretation, University of Chicago Press (2015), Inference, Intention and ‘Ordinary Meaning’: What jurists can learn about legal interpretation from linguistics and philosophy, University of Chicago Press (Brian G. Slocum, ed., 2017), and Justice Scalia: Rhetoric and the Rule of Law, University of Chicago Press (Brian G. Slocum & Francis J. Mootz III, eds., 2019). As well, Professor Slocum has recently published an article, Ordinary Meaning and Corpus Linguistics, Brigham Young University Law Review, 101-49 (2017), addressing the potential contributions that corpus linguistics can make to legal interpretation and will publish an essay, Judicial Activism and the Canon of Constitutional Avoidance, as an online feature in the NYU Law Review that offers a linguistic critique of the Supreme Court’s approach to the canon of constitutional avoidance.
In two recent articles, Professor Leslie Gielow Jacobs analyzes and explains knotty areas of free speech doctrine that have confused courts and complicated the work of state and local regulatory agencies. In Government Identity Speech Programs – Understanding and Applying the New Walker Test, 44 PEPPERDINE LAW REVIEW 305 (2017), she fleshes out and grounds the features that distinguish government/private speech combinations that produce "government speech" immune from the Constitution's prohibition of viewpoint discrimination from those to which it applies. In Making Sense of Secondary Effects Analysis After Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 57 SANTA CLARA LAW REVIEW 385 (2017), she identifies the characteristics of the "secondary effects" of sexually oriented businesses that may cause lesser scrutiny of these types of zoning restrictions to survive even after the Court's recent, broad definition of content-based speech restrictions that require strict scrutiny. Professor Jacobs has explored other areas of free speech doctrine in previous articles, including compelled speech, commercial speech, and cannabis advertising, and she is currently at work on an article that resurrects the constitutional significance of "public" in created speech forum analysis.
Professor John Sprankling's article, Property Law for the Anthropocene Era, 59 ARIZONA LAW REVIEW 738 (2017), explores how American property law should respond to the challenge posed by the newly-recognized Anthropocene Epoch―a geological period in which human activity has replaced nature as the principal force shaping our planet. It expands on the global approach to property law that has characterized his recent scholarship, including The International Law of Property (Oxford 2014). He is currently finishing an article that examines how traditional concepts of private property could apply to the global commons―the regions of our planet that are outside the sovereign territory of any nation.
In his article, Saying Yes: Reviewing Board Decisions to Sell or Merge the Corporation, published in 44 FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW 437 (2017), Distinguished Professor of Law Franklin Gevurtz responds to the explosion in litigation challenging board decisions approving corporate mergers and sales by undertaking a comprehensive exploration of the standards courts use and should use in such cases. This article is part of Professor Gevurtz’ broader efforts in recent years to bring sense to the law governing corporate mergers and acquisitions, including through a just completed treatise on the topic soon to be published as part of West’s prestigious hornbook series. He is presently finishing up an article on the impact of shareholder approval of mergers, before turning his attention back to his lines of scholarship addressing international regulatory and business law topics.
Professor Mike Mireles' article, Monitoring Behavior: Universities, Nonprofits, Patents and Litigation, has been published in 71 SOUTHERN METHODIST UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW 505 (2018) (with Firpo). This article is the latest in Mireles’ widely cited efforts to explore intellectual property and innovation in critical settings. The article continues his study of universities and patenting published in the UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN JOURNAL OF LAW REFORM, UMKC LAW REVIEW, UNIVERSITY OF MAINE LAW REVIEW, OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS’ JOURNAL OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW AND PRACTICE, and THE CARDOZO LAW REVIEW. The recently published paper presents and analyzes the literature concerning so-called "patent trolls" and university patenting, and evidence from multiple data sources, including the Stanford Nonpracticing Entity Database, Google Patents, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and Lex Machina, to inform the debate concerning whether universities and foundations are behaving similarly to so-called "patent trolls." Professor Mireles and a Senior Policy Advisor at the European Commission are working on an article exploring pharmaceutical royalty securitization, universities, pricing and patent eligible subject matter.
Professor Christine Manolakas' article, The Tax Law and Policy of Natural Disasters, has been accepted for publication by BAYLOR LAW REVIEW. The article exposes the uneven and unfair treatment of the victims of natural disasters. This is part of Manolakas’ ongoing efforts to explore previously unexamined areas of federal income tax policy. Recently, her scholarship explored the federal taxation of such groups of individuals as gamblers, thieves and their victims, and artists and the acquirers of art. Professor Manolakas’ scholarship has also examined the federal tax consequences of the non-personal use of a personal residence and the very different application of the home interest deduction to married couples and unmarried cohabitants. In the future, Professor Manolakas intends to delve into such interesting topics as the taxation of higher education, the LBGTQ+ community, and the budding cannabis industry.