Faculty Bibliography

Congress has enacted into law thousands of statutory provisions containing rules of construction. These rules direct courts to the permissible interpretations of the statutes that Congress enacts. With respect to the self-determination contracts between Indian tribes and the United States at issue in these cases, the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDA) prescribes two interpretive rules that serve as congressional directives to this Court. First, each provision of the self-determination contract must be construed liberally for the benefit of the tribe. Second, the same is true of the statute itself: each provision of the ISDA must be construed liberally for the benefit of the tribe. The ISDA’s interpretive rules were intended to ensure agency compliance with Congress’s policy to promote tribal self-determination and are consistent with well-established rules guiding interpretation of treaties, agreements, and statutes that address Indian affairs and implement the United States’ unique responsibilities to Indian tribes. Congress enacted these rules in response to the executive branch’s repeated cramped readings of the relevant provisions of law and the resulting failures to ensure adequate federal financial support for tribes’ self-determination contracts. The parties here agreed to these rules as part of their contracts, and Congress codified these rules in the ISDA, as it has codified substantially identical rules for other agreements between tribes and the United States under other parts of the ISDA. Under ordinary principles of both contractual and statutory interpretation, these rules control in these breach-of-contract cases. The goal of interpretation— whether of a contract or statute—is to discern the authors’ intent from the written text. The plain text of the contracts and statute makes clear the parties’ and Congress’s intent regarding how the terms of their agreement and the applicable provisions of law are to be construed. As this Court has previously explained in a similar case, to prevail under these rules of construction, the government must demonstrate that its reading “is clearly required by the statutory language.” Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter, 567 U.S. 182, 194 (2012). The government has made no such showing here. Instead, its arguments seek to bypass the ISDA’s text and read into the statute and contracts restrictions on the government’s financial-support obligations that are based solely on inferences drawn against Indian tribes. Congress gave no indication, much less a clear one, that any of the government’s suggested inferences should be drawn. And adopting such inferences would require this Court to disregard Congress’s unequivocal directives to construe each provision of the ISDA and self-determination contract liberally in the tribe’s favor. Applying the ISDA’s rules of construction is consistent with longstanding principles of federal Indian law and congressional and judicial practice in other statutory contexts. In the context of federal Indian Law, the Indian canon already requires liberal construction of the ISDA and the agreements as a matter of the United States’ trust responsibility and duty of protection to Indian tribes. The canon’s well-settled application to agreements between the United States and tribes and to statutes affecting their interests further supports enforcement of these express congressional rules. Congressionally mandated provisions telling courts to construe a provision liberally in favor of one party are a familiar feature of government contracting law. Federal courts have similarly applied Congress’s rules of construction in cases concerning the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, the Federal Arbitration Act, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, the Miller Act, and numerous other statutes. Moreover, these are breach-of-contract cases in which the Court is construing statutory provisions incorporated into a contract. It is commonplace to enforce contractual provisions setting forth rules of interpretation, just like courts enforce any other provision of a contract. Indeed, that is precisely what this Court did in Salazar. It is unexceptional thus that the ISDA—a law authorizing and governing a specific type of government contracting with tribes—directs a liberal construction of those contracts for tribes’ benefit. The Court should enforce the ISDA’s rules of construction and affirm the decisions below in respondents’ favor.

When a resident of an anti-abortion state goes to a prochoice state to get an abortion, which law applies to that person? To the abortion provider? To anyone who helps them obtain the abortion? Since Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization overruled Roe v. Wade, states have passed conflicting laws regarding abortion, and courts will need to determine whether anti-abortion states can apply their laws to persons or events outside their territory either through civil lawsuits or criminal prosecution. This article canvasses the major disputes likely to arise over conflicts of abortion law and the arguments on both sides in those cases. It addresses both common law analysis and the constitutional constraints on application of state law under the Full Faith and Credit Clause and the Due Process Clause, and it comes to some conclusions both about what laws should apply in different fact settings and how the choice of law analysis should proceed.Since Dobbs focused on the “history and tradition” behind rights under the Due Process Clause, and because the constitutional test for “legislative jurisdiction” that regulates when a state can apply its law to a controversy is partly based on the Due Process Clause, we start with the prevalent approaches to conflicts of law available to judges at the time the Bill of Rights was adopted in 1791 and when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted in 1868, focusing on the “comity” approach championed by Justice Joseph Story. We consider also the First Restatement’s vested rights approach in vogue between the end of the nineteenth century and the middle of the twentieth century. We then move to modern choice of law analysis to determine which law applies when a person leaves their state to obtain an abortion. We will consider the Second Restatement’s “most significant relationship” test, the “comparative impairment” approach, the “better law” and “forum law” approaches, as well as the emerging Third Restatement of Conflict of Laws rules being drafted right now by the American Law Institute.One set of cases involves conduct that is wholly situated within the borders of the anti-abortion state. That state has full authority under the Constitution to regulate its internal affairs and to apply its laws to people who distribute or use anti-abortion medication there or who otherwise assist residents in violating its laws prohibiting or limiting access to abortion. Anti-abortion states have full authority to regulate conduct within their borders. However, the First Amendment protects people who provide information about the availability of abortion services in other states where it is legal, and the constitutional right to travel should protect those who transport someone out of state to get an abortion in a prochoice state or who subsidize the cost of such out-of-state travel.A second set of cases concerns cross-border torts where conduct in a prochoice state has effects in an anti-abortion state. Courts traditionally apply the law of the place of injury to those cases if it was foreseeable that the conduct would cause the injury there. But there are traditional exceptions to the place of injury rule that should apply in the abortion context when the place of conduct defines the conduct as a fundamental right and immunizes the actor from liability or places a duty or an affirmative privilege on the abortion provider to provide the care. Courts should depart from the place of injury rule in those circumstances when conduct is wholly confined to the immunizing (prochoice) state, and that means that an anti-abortion state cannot legitimately punish an abortion provider in a prochoice state who provides care there in reliance on rules of medical ethics that require the care to be provided. Nothing would violate rule of law norms more severely than placing a person under a simultaneous duty to provide care and a duty not to provide that care. On the other hand, anti-abortion states have full authority to regulate out-of-state conduct that does spill over the border into the anti-abortion state, such as shipping abortion medication to a recipient there. Difficult issues of foreseeability and proximate cause arise when an abortion provider prescribes abortion medication in a prochoice state but knows or suspects that the patient will be taking the medication back to the anti-abortion state to ingest. In some fact settings, the foreseeability issue is significant enough that it may rise to a constitutional limitation on the powers of the anti-abortion state to apply its law to out-of-state conduct or to assert personal jurisdiction over the abortion provider. In other cases, the place of injury has the constitutional authority to apply its law to out-of-state conduct that the actor knows will cause unlawful harm across the border but it may or may not have personal jurisdiction over the nonresident provider.A third set of cases involve bounty claims, tort survival lawsuits, or wrongful death suits that an anti-abortion state might seek to create by giving claims to one of its residents against the resident who left the state to get the abortion. Such cases may be viewed as “common domicile” cases by the anti-abortion state since both plaintiff and defendant reside in the anti-abortion state. That may tempt the anti-abortion state to apply its laws to an abortion that takes place in another state even though both conduct and injury occurred in a state that privileges the conduct and immunizes the defendant from liability. However, the law of the place of conduct and injury should apply in those cases since the prochoice law is a “conduct-regulating rule,” and choice of law analysis, traditional rules, and constitutional constraints on legislative jurisdiction all require deference to the law of the prochoice state in such cases. Courts sometimes apply the law of the common domicile when the law at the place of conduct and injury is not geared to regulating conduct there, but the opposite is true for laws directed at conduct, and this article will show why prochoice laws that define abortions as a fundamental right are conduct-regulating rules. The same is true for the question of criminal prosecution. An anti-abortion state has no legitimate authority to punish a resident who leaves the state to get an abortion in a state where abortion is protected as a fundamental right.

Laura Underkuffler has kindly commented on my progressive, social- relations approach to property and property law. I feel humbled, honored, and seen. She notices the core moral commitments manifested in that work. She focuses on my scholarship on discrimination in public accommodations, the violent dispossession and persisting sovereignty of Native nations, and the obligations of the rich toward the poor. She emphasizes my willingness to take a moral stance. And she comments on the fact that I attempt to persuade readers about what the law should be, not just by interpreting authoritative texts, but by making normative arguments that are built on stories. She ponders the role of stories in the legal system. Well, here are some stories, and here are some moral stances.

For a sizable swath of the U.S. population, incomes and wealth are insufficient to cover life’s most basic necessities even in the most ordinary of times. A disturbingly resilient explanation for this state of affairs rests on the view that resource inequities are avoidable through self-reliance, a stance that invites observers to see people in poverty as morally suspect. This Article advances a counterview in contending that the widespread lack of essential resources did not simply arise naturally via individuals’ life choices but instead has been, in very meaningful part, created and perpetuated by our system of property laws. The proposition that property—a social institution—generated the extant mismatch between incomes and wealth, on one hand, and critical expenses, on the other, is frightening: it reveals that we, the people, collectively and over time fashioned this staggering predicament out of whole cloth. But this same proposition is also cause for hope. If property laws helped create this predicament, perhaps property laws can help solve it. Against this backdrop, the Article charts a justice-inspired course for the reformation of property’s background rules. This course is centered on a series of norms appropriate for property governance in a free and democratic society, including circumstance sensitivity, anti-discrimination, realistic opportunity, and legal interdependence.

When conduct in one state causes injury in another state, and the law at the place of injury is more favorable to the victim than the law of the place of conduct, what law applies? Where can suit be brought? The traditional answers are that the law of the place of injury applies but that it may be unconstitutional to sue the tortfeasor in the courts at the place of injury because all the tortfeasor’s conduct took place outside the forum. Scholars have long criticized this contradiction, and this Article argues that they are right to do so. If we focus on choice-of-law theory and the emerging choice-of-law rules in the Third Restatement of Conflict of Laws, we see that the argument for applying the plaintiff-protecting law of the place of injury is strong. This Article explains and develops that argument, and it gives us reason to reject the idea that the place of injury courts have no personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Hobbes taught us that the first job of government is to protect us from harm at the hands of others and, as long as it is objectively foreseeable that the conduct could have caused harm in the place of injury, there is no fundamental unfairness or constitutional prohibition on applying place of injury law. If that is so, it is irrational not to allow victims to sue at home where they have been injured. Nor is personal jurisdiction unfair to the defendant. It is time to bring choice-of-law doctrine and personal jurisdiction law more in line with each other, and the right way to do so is to adopt an approach that ensures that victims have civil recourse in their home courts against those who stand across the border engaged in acts that intentionally or predictably cause harm there.

Hohfeld had (at least) three major insights: (1) freedom to do something is different from having the right to limit the free actions of others; (2) property entails a bundle of rights that can be disaggregated in various ways; (3) freedom from regulation is not a self-regarding act because it makes others vulnerable to the effects of one's actions. These insights are useful in analyzing recent disputes in public accommodations law. Can public accommodations engage in statutorily-prohibited discrimination when service violates the owner's religious beliefs? This question entails understanding about the substantive norms of businesses open to the public and the appropriate scope of religious liberty. But before addressing the substantive issue, we face a problem of conceptualization. What rights are actually at stake in these kinds of cases? That is where Wesley Hohfeld's analytical scheme of legal rights is helpful. Claims of religious liberty may either be Hohfeldian privileges (freedom to act without legal constraint) or Hohfeldian claim-rights (legal claims to the aid of the state in constraining the free actions of others). When a hotel refuses to serve a customer, it is seeking both the freedom to deny service (which makes customers vulnerable to being told they are unwelcome) and the right to exclude the customer (which entails a duty to stay off the property without the owner's consent). Hohfeld distinguished these types of legal entitlements and argued that a privilege to express distaste for the customer's being or "lifestyle" is logically different from having a legal right to prevent the customer from entering the store. And both of those are distinguishable from granting the customer the Hohfeldian power to demand service (with a corresponding obligation on the store to sell its goods or services to the customer) or granting the store owner an immunity from being compelled to provide such service (which corresponds to a vulnerabilty on the customer's part since the customer needs to call ahead to see if she will be able to obtain service). All this matters because claims of religious liberty usually entail claims to have the right to control the behavior of others. The same is true of those who claim they have a right to free access to public accommodations; those claims entail an obligation on stores to provide service. Neither side is actually asking to "just be left alone." That means that neither side is actually talking about freedom from regulation; each is demanding a legal rule that affects and regulates the behavior of others and the state must make a choice between these conflicting entitlements. Choosing whether a public accommodation can deny service to customers to whom the owner objects requires, as Hohfeld said, a judgment of "justice and policy." It cannot be decided as a logical deduction from the abstract concept of freedom or religious liberty.

Property rights in a free and democratic society are built on - and limited by - the values of liberty, equality, and democracy (among other norms). Those values define the types of property relationships that can be legally recognized, outlawing relationships of servitude, class distinctions, and caste assignments typical of nondemocratic societies. Property law defines things we should not have to bargain for. Property rights are partly defined by judges in common law rules and partly by elected representatives. Regulatory rules chosen by legislatures reflect the collective choices of citizens in setting minimum standards for social and economic relationships compatible with the norms of a society of free and equal human beings. While values like liberty and equality are essentially contested and open to interpretation, they place real limits on property law, ensuring a foundation for market relationships, while framing debate about contested issues. Contract law can rest on a norm of freedom to contract (and not to contract) only because property law and property law norms create a foundation that protects rights we should not have to bargain for when we enter the marketplace. And free and democratic societies cannot function with extreme inequality that undermines social relationships and warps political institutions.

Scott focuses on the conflicts in the state of Louisiana over a provision in the post-Civil War Louisiana Constitution of 1868 that guaranteed “public rights” to all regardless of race. While we still live with shockingly high levels of racial discrimination in public accommodations, front and center today are claims that the Constitution's guarantee of religious liberty requires exemptions from state laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. To understand the historical context within which we confront this issue today, it will help to understand how public accommodations law has changed over time through the course of United States history.

This book provides a new way to learn about the topic of conflicts of law through experiential learning. Most books describe the approaches that have been adopted over time to decide conflicts of laws. This book describes those approaches and includes the emerging Third Restatement. To promote experiential learning, it does more: First, it explains patterns of cases so that students can fit new cases into established frames of reference. Second, it distinguishes between easy cases and hard cases so students can determine when a case cannot be easily resolved. Third, it provides detailed arguments that are typically made on both sides of hard cases that fit the typical patterns. Fourth, it concludes with moot court exercises that students could perform in class to practice advocacy in this field and judging. With new requirements to provide students with experiential learning opportunities, this text enables any teacher to give students the tools they need to understand the issues in the field, the reasons why cases are hard, the arguments that are available on both sides, and justifications that judges can give for resolving cases one way or the other.

Lawyers have techniques to persuade decision-makers about what the law should be. Their normative toolkit uses arguments based on common values, storytelling, and framing to help us see our own values in a new light. These tools of reasoned argument enable us to engage in civil debate about divisive issues and to justify decisions in hard cases. Persuasion: Getting to the Other Side categorizes the arguments that lawyers use in debates about ambiguous or contested legal questions. It also explains how judges justify their decisions about what the law should be when the case involves competing values and there are plausible arguments on both sides. The goal is to provide law students with a toolkit to help them engage in reasoned arguments about what the law should be.

This Constitution Day speech focuses on how the Constitution has been interpreted both to protect and to undermine the sovereignty of Indian nations. The good news is that both the text of the Constitution and the practice of the United States have recognized Indian nations as sovereigns who pre-existed the creation of the United States and who retain their inherent original sovereignty. The bad news is that the Constitution has often been interpreted by the Supreme Court to deny Indian nations protection for their property rights and their sovereignty. Most Americans are not aware of the history of interactions between the United States and Indian nations and most lawyers and law students never study the ways the Constitution treats Indian nations and their citizens differently from non-Indians. It is important for Americans to better understand the ways that the Constitution protects Indian nations from continued conquest and to understand the ways that the Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution so as to deny equal rights to Indians and Indian nations. Limiting tribal sovereignty or harming tribal property without tribal consent is an act of conquest. It is an act that cannot be deemed consistent with our democratic values. Conquest is an historical fact that cannot be undone, but we can recognize that conquest was incomplete and that tribal sovereignty persists alongside that of the states and the federal government. The least we can do to honor the Constitution is to recognize the reality of conquest while committing not to do it ourselves. We can do that by consulting with Indian nations over matters that concern them; we can honor our treaty commitments. We can follow the lead of Chief Justice Marshall who lamented the fact of conquest and counseled the United States not to do it anymore.

This Article revisits the state action doctrine, a judicial invention that shields “private” or “non-governmental” discrimination from constitutional scrutiny. Traditionally, this doctrine has applied to discrimination even in places of public accommodation, like restaurants, hotels, and grocery stores. Born of overt racial discrimination, the doctrine has inflicted substantial injustice throughout its inglorious history, and courts have continuously struggled in vain to coherently apply the doctrine. Yet, the United States Supreme Court has not fully insulated “private” or “horizontal” relations among persons from constitutional scrutiny. The cases in which it has applied constitutional norms to non-governmental actors should be celebrated rather than shunned. This Article proposes reinterpreting the state action doctrine to mitigate its historical and contemporary harms. Ultimately, the Authors draw from property law theory to contend that the doctrine should be fundamentally reformed in favor of a more egalitarian conception of the state’s role in ensuring equal protection of law. The insights of property law theory lead the Authors to conclude that: (1) equal protection depends on law, not action; (2) common law is law and, whether it is coercive or permissive, it must comply with the Equal Protection Clause; and (3) common law that allows discriminatory exclusion from the marketplace violates the Equal Protection Clause. What matters, for the purposes of constitutional protection, is not “state action” but whether the law violates the norms of liberty, equality, and dignity recognized by free and democratic societies.

When the police in cities that prohibit sleeping in public spaces command that people on the streets “move along,” advocacy groups for the homeless have started a campaign that pointedly asks “move along to where?” This question seeks to highlight the reality that homeless persons are being subjected to an order with which they have no capacity to comply. In this instance, the state is defining and rigidly enforcing property rights without concern for the consequences of its doing so; it apparently is only after this exercise in definition and enforcement that the state can move to respect fundamental democratic values — such as dignity and equality — in the space that remains. Inspired by the work of André van der Walt, we here present the alternate thesis that property exists in service of the values that characterize our democracy. We advance this thesis through the lens of two stories of eviction — the leading cause of homelessness in the U.S. — in which our democratic values seemingly and, in our view, unacceptably are taking a backseat to property.

May a hotel owner that objects to same-sex marriage on religious grounds refuse to host a same-sex wedding in its ballroom or deny the couple the right to book the honeymoon suite? Do public accommodation laws oppress religious dissidents by forcing them to act contrary to their religious beliefs or does discriminatory exclusion threaten equal access to the market economy and deny equal citizenship to LGBTQ persons? Answering these questions requires explaining why one property claim should prevail over another and why one liberty should prevail when it clashes with another. And answering those questions requires analysis of the relationship between property and sovereignty. Sovereign power both creates and regulates the types of property rights that can be tolerated in a free and democratic society that values each person equally. Should we view sovereignty as a threat to property or property as a threat to sovereignty? Libertarians choose the first and liberals the second. But this is the wrong way to understand the relation between property and sovereignty. Property and sovereignty are not separate and independent concepts or spheres of social life that can be brought into relationship with each other. Rather, they are imbricated; they overlap like roof tiles. Our aspiration to live in a free and democratic society places certain constraints on both property and sovereignty. Such societies do not recognize absolute power, whether public or private. Free and democratic societies are committed to a substantive vision of both social relations and politics. We have fruitful debates about property and sovereignty and, in the end, must construct a legal system that effects an acceptable compromise between access and exclusion in the property regime. Our historic practices regarding racial and other forms of discrimination and our evolving norms suggest that public accommodation laws enable access to the marketplace without regard to invidious discrimination. Religious freedom cannot operate to deny equal citizenship or opportunity. For that reason, a same-sex couple should not have to call ahead to see if they are welcome to book the honeymoon suite. Public accommodation laws do not infringe on legitimate property rights or religious freedoms; rather, they define the legitimate contours of liberty and property in a society that treats each person with equal concern and respect.

This article discusses the racial injustice faced by Native Americans, with whom land titles in the United States originated with. The author argues it is vital to interpret the Supreme Court cases of the 19th century that correctly defined Indian title, and to honor the property rights of Indian title just as we do the "fee simple of the whites".

The book offers clear explanations of property law through textual treatment, with numerous examples, analytical discussion of key cases, and issues followed by hypotheticals.

MERS represents a major departure from and grave disruption of recording practices in counties such as Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, that have traditionally ensured the orderly transfer of real property across the country. Prior to MERS, records of real property interests were public, transparent, and provided a secure foundation upon which the American economy could grow. MERS is a privately run recording system created to reduce costs for large investment banks, the “sell-side” of the mortgage industry, which is largely inaccessible to the public. MERS is recorded as the mortgage holder in traditional county records, as a “nominee” for the holder of the mortgage note. Meanwhile, the promissory note secured by the mortgage is pooled, securitized, and transferred multiple times, but MERS does not require that its members enter these transfers into its database. MERS is a system that is “grafted” onto the traditional recording system and could not exist without it, but it usurps the function of county recorders and eviscerates the system recorders are charged with maintaining. The MERS system was modeled after the Depository Trust Company (DTC), an institution created to hold corporate and municipal securities, but, unlike the DTC, MERS has no statutory basis, nor is it regulated by the SEC. MERS’s lack of statutory grounding and oversight means that it has neither legal authority nor public accountability. By allowing its members to transfer mortgages from MERS to themselves without any evidence of ownership, MERS dispensed with the traditional requirement that purported assignees prove their relationship to the mortgagee of record with a complete chain of mortgage assignments, in order to foreclose. MERS thereby eliminated the rules that protected the rights of mortgage holders and homeowners. Surveys, government audits, reporting by public media, and court cases from across the country have revealed that MERS’s records are inaccurate, incomplete, and unreliable. Moreover, because MERS does not allow public access to its records, the full extent of its system’s destruction of chains of title and the clarity of entitlements to real property is not yet known. Electronic and paper recording systems alike can contain errors and inconsistencies. Electronic systems have the potential to increase the accessibility and accuracy of public records, but MERS has not done this. Rather, by making recording of mortgage assignments voluntary, and cloaking its system in secrecy, it has introduced unprecedented and perhaps irreparable levels of opacity, inaccuracy, and incompleteness, wreaking havoc on the local title recording systems that have existed in America since colonial times.

Hanoch Dagan argues that the legal realists conceived of law as “a dynamic institution, or set of institutions, that embodies three constitutive tensions: between power and reason, between science and craft, and between tradition and progress.” One tension that Dagan mentions but does not emphasize sufficiently is the tension between adjudication and legislation. Understanding the ways judge-made common law influences legislation and the ways that statutes affect the development of common law will improve our understanding of legal reasoning, the rule of law, and the role of judges in a free and democratic society.

The subprime mortgage crisis was not only an economic disaster but posed challenges to traditional rules of property law. Banks helped create the crisis by marketing mortgages through unfair and deceptive practices. They induced many consumers to take out high-priced loans they could not afford and then passed the risk to investors who were fooled into thinking these were safe investments. These practices violate traditional norms underlying both consumer protection and securities regulation statutes. In addition, U.S. banks greased the wheels of the mortgage securitization process by creating a privatized mortgage registration system that has undermined the clarity and publicity of property titles. Because of securitization procedures and the lax record-keeping practices, the banks have undermined the property recording system; we no longer have clear public titles to real property in the United States. To fix the mess they left us, we must adopt norms to govern the mortgage market that will protect both homeowners and investors from predatory loans while promoting legitimate property transactions. We also need to fix the mortgage registration system so we have a legal infrastructure for property that both works well and reflects the norms of a free and democratic society.

Property rights cannot work if they are not clear, and scholars generally assume that the best way to attain this goal is to define property rights by relatively rigid rules. However, recent evidence suggests that the intuitive view may be mistaken. The subprime crisis shows that clear rules do not produce clear titles if owners do not follow those rules. And during the twentieth century property law moved dramatically away from rigid rules toward flexible standards. Standards turn out to be crucial to property law, as well as increasingly important in property doctrine. Empirical evidence and historical experience alike demonstrate that rules cannot be applied without being supplemented by standards to determine the scope of those rules. Conversely, standards achieve predictability through core exemplars, precedent, and presumptions. Thus rules and standards are less distinct from each other than one might imagine. Standards perform crucial functions for property law. They perform systemic functions to shape the infrastructure and the outer contours of the property system by (1) setting minimum standards compatible with the norms of a free and democratic society, (2) protecting the justified expectations of consumers, and (3) responding to externalities and systemic effects of the exercise of property rights. Standards also determine the scope of property rights by (4) distinguishing cases; (5) resolving conflicting norms; (6) excusing mistakes; (7) escaping the "dead hand" of the past; and (8) deterring the "bad man" from abusing property rights.

Cohen's Handbook of Federal Indian Law is an encyclopedic treatise written by experts in the field, and provides general overviews to relevant information as well as in-depth study of specific areas within this complex area of federal law. This is an updated and revised edition of what has been referred to as the "bible" of federal Indian law. This publication focuses on the relationship between tribes, the states and the federal government within the context of civil and criminal jurisdiction, as well as areas of resource management and government structure.

Indian Law Stories, penetrates the often complex and unfamiliar doctrine of federal Indian law, exposing the raw conflicts over sovereignty and property that shaped legal rulings.

The Fourth in the Wolf Family Lecture Series on the American Law of Real Property.