This Article offers a theory of nuisance law based on information costs. Like trespass, much of the law of nuisance relies on a strategy of exclusion in which rights are defined using low-cost signals like boundary crossings that are only indirectly tied to particular uses. Nuisance law also supplements and fine-tunes this Blackstonian package of entitlements by means of a governance strategy, which relies on signals more directly tailored to particular uses. The information-cost advantage of strategies close to the exclusion end of the spectrum helps explain why, despite repeated calls for more balancing, nuisance law focuses on who caused invasions of whose land. Also consistent with an exclusion strategy are the staying power of traditional nonreciprocal notions of causation and the virtual nonexistence in nuisance of Rule 4 liability rules, under which plaintiffs would be permitted to invoke the law to force the polluter either to abate or shut down upon payment of the polluter’s damages. Applying Hohfeldian analysis, the Article shows that the common law gives polluters at most a privilege to pollute and that Rule 4 does not refine the basic exclusion regime but rather undermines it. The general question becomes when to soften exclusion with governance and the Article concludes by arguing that, in situations such as oil and gas fields and Boomer-style pollution cases with numerous victims, only small judicial governance-style safety valves are necessary, especially if legislative and administrative solutions are forthcoming. More generally, the information-cost theory of nuisance brings the utilitarian and corrective justice approaches to nuisance closer together. Nuisance law is not a mess or mystery but does contain within it the inflection point between exclusion and governance.
Article
Beyond Statutory Elements: The Substantive Effects of the Right to a Jury Trial on Constitutionally Significant Facts
The Supreme Court’s decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey established a relatively clear rule: The Sixth Amendment’s right to a jury trial places a substantive restriction on legislatures by preventing any fact that has been deemed necessary for a particular level of punishment, either by statute or by constitutional decision, from being subject to judicial factfinding. Specifically, the Court held that the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial requires that any fact (other than a prior conviction) that exposes a defendant to a greater level of punishment be found by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
This decision was nominally directed at so-called “sentence enhancements”—facts found by the judge at sentencing that increase punishment beyond the maximum allowed by the underlying statute. Some scholars have expressed concern that legislatures, deprived of the use of the increasingly popular sentence enhancements, would redefine their criminal codes so as to avoid the new Apprendi requirement by simply raising the maximum penalty authorized by the underlying statute. The judge could then use this greater discretion in sentencing to inflict the higher level of punishment desired. In light of this fear, there has been a revitalized effort to understand the boundaries that the Constitution places on the substance of criminal law.
This Note argues that the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, as explained in Apprendi, places a substantive restriction on legislatures by requiring that any fact deemed necessary for a particular level of punishment, either by statute or constitutional decision, be treated as an element of the crime.
Thomas Jefferson Counts Himself into the Presidency
The Constitution instructs the President of the Senate to “open” the ballots submitted by members of the Electoral College, but it provides little guidance when a ballot turns out to be defective. This article provides the first in-depth consideration of two early precedents. Both Vice-President John Adams and Vice-President Thomas Jefferson confronted problems when counting the electoral votes in 1797 and 1801, respectively. Both men were placed in the awkward position of ruling on matters involving an election in which they were leading presidential candidates, but Jefferson’s problem was more serious. In 1801, Georgia’s electors cast their votes for Jefferson and Burr, but their ballots were in plain violation of the Constitution’s explicit formal requirements. If Jefferson had ruled these votes invalid in his capacity as Senate President, one of the Federalist candidates, Adams or Pinckney, might well have emerged victorious from the House runoff required under the Constitution. But Jefferson used his authority as Senate President to exclude his Federalist competitors, restricting the runoff to a two-man race between himself and Aaron Burr. This allowed him to emerge victorious on the thirty-sixth ballot. Rumors of this episode occasionally surfaced during the nineteenth century, but this article presents indisputable documentary evidence demonstrating the irregularity of the Georgia ballot. After telling the story, we appraise its significance both as an act of constitutional statesmanship and as an enduring legal precedent that may guide future Senate Presidents as they confront the electoral college crises of the twenty-first century.