Review of Laws and Societies in the Canadian Prairie West, 1670-1940 Edited by Louis A. Knafla and Jonathan Swainger

For all intents and purposes, the settlement of the Canadian prairie was the founding of a new society using materials brought to the new land along with those close at hand. Of course, preexisting aboriginal society had to be supplanted in the course of this founding. In both the supplanting and the founding, the rule of law as we currently know it was a principal means and end of the settlement process.

Termination of Desegregation Decrees and the Elusive Meaning of Unitary Status

Discusses the termination of desegregation decrees and the elusive meaning of unitary status, first introducing the topic and then covering Jenkins III and providing an overview of desegregation scholarship including discretion, capacity, and legitima. Also discusses the evolution of equity, including English equity, American equity, and equity and desegregation. Explores the concepts of relevant rights and interests, focusing on Hohfeld, the interest theory of rights, and the application of the rights theory. The conclusion posits that what remains is a complicated and confused desegregation jurisprudence, and that the lines that separate desegregation from integration from diversity, if there ever were such lines, are blurring. A discussion of the theoretical premises underlying desegregation appears to continue to be necessary.

Perceptions of Procedural and Distributive Justice in the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund

The September l1th Victim Compensation Fund (the Fund) was created in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Much has been written about the Fund, both pro and con, in both popular media and scholarly literature. Perhaps the most widely used term in referring to the Fund is "unprecedented." The Fund is intriguing for many reasons, particularly for its public policy implications and its impact on the claimants themselves. The federal government has never before provided compensation to victims of terrorism through a special master who had virtually unlimited discretion in determining awards. Consequently, this formal allocation of money by a representative of the federal government to its citizens has provided an opportunity to test theories of procedural and distributive justice in a novel context. This article tests these theories by analyzing the results of a study of the Fund's claimants. Part I provides general background, summarizes existing commentary on the Fund, and discusses prior research on social justice that is relevant to the 9/11 claimants' experiences with the Fund. Part II of this article describes the methodology behind the study, in which seventy-one individuals who filed claims with the Fund completed surveys about their experiences with and perceptions of the Fund. Part III discusses the survey results. We found that participants were reasonably satisfied with the procedural aspects of the Fund, such as representatives' impartiality and respectful treatment. Participants were less satisfied, however, with the distributive aspects of the Fund, such as the unequal distribution of compensation and the reduction in compensation if claimants received compensation from other sources (e.g., life insurance). Part IV of this article addresses the implications of the study results for public policy and for theories of social justice.

United States v. Steinmetz: The Legal Legacy of the Civil War, Revisited

One of the enduring and yet unresolved issues concerning the Civil War is its legal nature: Was it an insurrection or an international war? During the war and since, the United States courts have repeatedly been called upon to determine the status of property which was under the control of the Confederacy and its agents during the Civil War. In the process of making such determinations, the courts have reopened questions about the war's legal status. United States v. Steinmetz is such a case.

The Ethics of Implementation: Institutional Remedies and the Lawyer's Role

The issue addressed in this article is whether and to what extent a lawyer has an ethical responsibility to pursue implementation of the remedy in institutional reform litigation. Institutional reform litigation refers to cases in which an individual or class of individuals sues a large organization in order to vindicate constitutional or statutory rights. The types of cases with which this article is concerned are the "public law" type, such as school desegregation, prisoners' rights and patients' rights cases, although included under the rubric of institutional reform can be, inter alia, antitrust, reapportionment and bankruptcy cases. The implementation stage of institutional reform litigation arises after an individual or class of individuals prevails at the liability stage, or pursuant to a settlement, and a court orders the defendant organization to change in order to vindicate the plaintiffs' rights. At that point, the defendant organization, whether it be a prison, mental hospital or school district, usually has the burden of implementing the order. One conclusion drawn is that the ethical duty of the lawyer must always be consistent with the lawyer's "special responsibility for the quality of justice."