Debates - University of Pennsylvania Law Review
The University of Pennsylvania Law Review Online is pleased to host debates between respected scholars on current controversies. The format includes an opening statement, a rebuttal, and closing statements by each side. Each contribution is expected to be one to two times the length of an average opinion/editorial newspaper article (i.e., 1,000-2,000 words), and without footnotes. Scholars interested in participating in a Penn Law Review Online Debate should visit our Submissions page.




Is the Filibuster Constitutional?

Josh Chafetz & Michael J. Gerhardt

Should Bush Administration Lawyers Be Prosecuted for Authorizing Torture?

Claire Finkelstein & Michael Lewis

Plausible Denial: Should Congress Overrule Twombly and Iqbal?

Mark Herrmann & James M. Beck & Stephen B. Burbank

A Healthy Debate: The Constitutionality of an Individual Mandate

David B. Rivkin, Jr. & Lee A. Casey & Jack Balkin

Unconstitutionally Excessive Statutory Damage Awards in Copyright Cases

Pamela Samuelson & Ben Sheffner