Responses - University of Pennsylvania Law Review Online
The University of Pennsylvania Law Review Online is pleased to host responses to any scholarly content published by the University of Pennsylvania Law Review, including print articles, Law Review Online Debates, or even other Law Review Online Responses. We prefer Responses that do not exceed 4,500 words within the main text, and 2,000 words within the footnotes. Scholars interested in contributing to Penn Law Review Online should visit our Submissions page.




What Kind of Discrimination Does the Voting Rights Act Target?

Christopher S. Elmendorf

Custom, Codification, and the Verdict of History

Jean Galbraith
Responding to Timothy Meyer
Codifying Custom

One Market We Do Not Need

Giovanna Shay
Responding to Alexander Volokh
Prison Vouchers

Communications, Technology, and Present Sense Impressions

Susan W. Brenner

Section 2 is Dead: Long Live Section 2

Guy-Uriel E. Charles

Justice Kennedy to the Rescue?

Luis Fuentes-Rohwer

Fraud on the Market: An Action Without a Cause

Amanda M. Rose
Responding to William W. Bratton & Michael L. Wachter
The Political Economy of Fraud on the Market

Securities Class Action as Public Law

James D. Cox
Responding to William W. Bratton & Michael L. Wachter
The Political Economy of Fraud on the Market

The Role of Lawmakers, Lobbyists, and Scholars in the Normative Evaluation of Timing Rules

Frank Fagan & Michael Faure
Responding to Rebecca M. Kysar
Lasting Legislation

Constitutional Challenges to the Health Care Mandate: Based in Politics, Not Law

David Orentlicher

Fees, Incentives, and Deterrence

Linda Sandstrom Simard
Responding to Brian T. Fitzpatrick
Do Class Action Lawyers Make Too Little?

Humanity and Law

Michael Serota
Responding to Christine Stark
Run