Texas A&M Law Review

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

7 Tex. A&M L. Rev. Arguendo 1 (2019)

Fifth Indifference: Clarifying the Fifth Circuit's Intent Standard for Damages Under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act 

Derek Warden

The Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities. Title II of the ADA applies to public entities. That same Title allows plaintiffs to obtain damages upon a showing that the discrimination was intentional. There are generally two possible standards of intent: (1) deliberate indifference or (2) animus. While most Circuit Courts expressly adopted the deliberate indifference model, the Fifth Circuit has not. Indeed, the Fifth Circuit has not adopted any standard and this has led to confusion. The confusion is not helped, moreover, by the sheer lack of justification offered by a number of the Circuit Courts who have adopted either standard. This Essay seeks to clear that confusion. It offers reasons why deliberate indifference, and not the animus standard, should apply to ADA Title II claims. Further, it explains why no Fifth Circuit precedent should be construed as prohibiting the adoption of the deliberate indifference standard.

Full Article

Arguendo Volume 6, Issue 1 (2019)

Murphy v. NCAA: The Constitutionality of State-Authorized Sports Gambling
Shane Landers

Data Exclusivities in the Age of Big Data, Biologics, and Plurilaterals
Peter K. Yu

Whose Land Is It Anyway? Navigating Ghana's Complex Land System
Aimee Kline, Élan Moore, Elizabeth Ramey, Kevin Hernandez, Lauren Ehrhardt, Megan Reed, Morgan Parker, Samantha Henson, Taylor Winn, and Taylor Wood

Honoring Innocent Until Proven Guilty: Switching the Default Rule from Pretrial Detention to Pretrial Release in Texas's Bail System 
Stephen Rispoli​
Texas A&M Law Review