Arguendo
Established in 2018, Arguendo serves as the online extension of Texas A&M Law Review print publication. Arguendo features intriguing content on all areas of law, and provides a platform to publish content within weeks of a legal development.
Learn more
Arguendo features short, lightly footnoted pieces on timely and relevant legal issues. While the shorter length and light footnoting policy allows authors to publish responses expeditiously, our rigorous editorial process ensures we maintain the quality of scholarship expected of a print law review.
Arguendo articles, written by scholars, practitioners, and law students alike, feature
- short expositions of new ideas,
- analysis of emerging legal topics,
- dialogues on ongoing legal debates,
- analysis of upcoming or recently decided high-profile cases, and
- short responses to already-published scholarship.
If you have questions about
Arguendo, or wish to submit a piece to be considered for publication in
Arguendo, please contact the
Online Managing Editor or use the
online submission form.
Recent Articles
8 Tex. A&M L. Rev. Arguendo 9 (2021)
The Opioid Crisis or Climate Change: Which Is More Likely to Succeed Under the Tobacco Litigation Model?
Elizabeth W. De Leon
Societal problems can occasionally have legal solutions, and several tools exist to implement change, including litigation and regulation. However, what elements make a societal problem more suitable for litigation or regulation? This Article examines four different societal issues (tobacco use, obesity, opioid addiction, and climate change) to determine whether litigation or regulation is the more appropriate route for success. The tobacco litigation serves as a successful example, while the fast food litigation serves as an unsuccessful example. Six signs of success are derived from the tobacco litigation: a large settlement agreement, evidence of corporate wrongdoing, change in public opinion, the litigation inspiring regulations, new courtroom avenues, and the ability to aggregate claims. The Article concludes that opioid litigation will be more successful under the tobacco litigation model than climate change litigation, because opioid litigation adapts the tobacco model to end the opioid epidemic. Novel solutions include utilizing Multi-District Litigation and the first-ever “negotiation class” that allows all 30,000 American cities to participate in a global settlement agreement with Big Pharma.
Full Article
8 Tex. A&M L. Rev. Arguendo 9 (2021)
Brewing Green Beer: Building a Regulatory Scheme Robust to Changes in Brewing Technologies
Daniel Pashang Withers
New beer brewing technologies provide brewers with options to produce beer in more eco-friendly, less resource-intensive ways; however, as brewers adopt these technologies, they may find themselves straddling between the regulatory schemes of the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (“TTB”) and the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”). The two agencies have divided control over beers based on their ingredients, which places some beers under the TTB’s purview as “malted beverages” and others under the FDA’s purview. These distinctions have implications for the regulatory hurdles that brewers must overcome to market their products. Additional regulations that eco-friendly, green beers may face could provide higher hurdles than standard beers face, putting them at a competitive disadvantage. This Comment explores the relationships between beer brewing and the environment, new technologies that ease the environmental burden of beer brewing, and the regulatory boundaries affected by adopting these new technologies. By expanding its definition of “malted beverages,” the TTB can encourage the adoption of new eco-friendly technologies, avoid a regulatory quandary, and promote a healthy beer brewing industry.
Full Article
8 Tex. A&M L. Rev. Arguendo 1 (2020)
United States v. Lozoya: The Turbulence of Establishing Venue for In-Flight Offenses
Daeja Pemberton
The U.S. Constitution protects one’s right to a fair trial in a proper venue. Typically, venue is proper in whatever territorial jurisdiction a defendant commits an offense. But this rule is not as clear-cut when the offense takes place in a special jurisdiction, such as American airspace. A court must then determine whether the offense continued into the venue of arrival, making it proper under the Constitution. This issue was reexamined when Monique Lozoya assaulted another passenger on an airplane during a domestic flight. In
United States v. Lozoya, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals failed to correctly identify the assault as a “continuing offense” and in doing so risked harming the criminal procedure process for prosecutors and offenders alike.
Full Article