Alexander A. Reinert

LAW REVIEW ARTICLES

• Solitary Troubles, __ Notre D. L. Rev. __ (forthcoming 2018)
•  
• Erie Step Zero, 85 Fordham L. Rev. __ (2017)
•  
• The Second Circuit and Social Justice, 85 Fordham L. Rev. 73 (2016) (with Matthew Diller) [commissioned by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on the 125^th Anniversary of the Court]
•  
• Reconceptualizing the Eighth Amendment: Slaves, Prisoners, and “Cruel and Unusual Punishment,” 94 N.C. L. Rev. 817 (forthcoming 2016)
•  
• Measuring the Impact of Plausibility Pleading, 101 Va. L. Rev. 2117 (2015)
•  
• The Burdens of Pleading, 162 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1767 (2014)
•  
• Screening Out Innovation: The Unrecognized Merits of Meritless Litigation, 89 Ind. L. J. 1191 (2014)
•  
• Asking the First Question: Reframing Bivens after Minneci, 90 Wash. U. L. Rev. 1473 (2013) (with Lumen N. Mulligan)
•  
• Revisiting “Special Needs” Theory via Airport Searches, 106 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1513 (2012); 106 Nw. U. L. Rev. Colloquy 207 (2012)
•  
• Release as Remedy for Excessive Punishment, 53 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1575 (2012) (selected for presentation at the Annual Meeting of the American Society of Criminology)
•  
• Pleading as Information-Forcing, 75 Law & Contemp. Probs. 1 (2012)
•  
• The Costs of Heightened Pleading, 86 Ind. L. J. 119 (2011)
•  
• Does Qualified Immunity Matter? 8 U. St. Thomas L. J. 477 (2011)
•  
• The Impact of Ashcroft v. Iqbal on Pleading, 43 Urb. Law. 559 (2011)
•  
• Public Interest(s) and Fourth Amendment Enforcement, 2010 U. Ill. L. Rev. 1461 (2010) (adapted for republication in 38 Search & Seizure L. Rep. 45 (2011))
•  
• Measuring the Success of Bivens Litigation and Its Consequences for the Individual Liability Model, 62 Stan. L. Rev. 809 (2010) (reprinted in Civil Rights Litigation and Attorney Fees Annual Handbook (Steven Saltzman & Barbara Wolvovitz eds., 2010))
•  
• Procedural Barriers to Civil Rights Litigation and the Illusory Promise of Equity, 78 UMKC L. Rev. 931 (2010)
•  
• Eighth Amendment Gaps: Can Conditions of Confinement Litigation Benefit from Proportionality Theory? 36 Fordham Urb. L. J. 53 (2009)
•  

 OTHER PUBLICATIONS

•  
• Finding the Proper Measure for Conditions of Pretrial Confinement, Response, 161 U. Penn. L. Rev. PENNumbra 191 (2013), http://www.pennumbra.com/responses/response.php?rid=113
•  
• National Security and the Shadows of Judicial “Common Sense,” 96 Iowa L. Rev. Bull. 1 (2010) (essay in response to Peter Margulies, Judging Myopia in Hindsight: Bivens Actions, National Security Decisions, and the Rule of Law, 96 Iowa L. Rev. 195 (2010))
•  
• Accounting for the Limitations of Congress’ Enforcement Power, U. Chi. L. Rev. Legal Workshop (Oct. 25, 2010) (editorial in response to Richard Frankel, Regulating Privatized Government through § 1983, 76 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1449 (2009))
•  
• The Legal System’s Misuse of Epidemiology, 87 Judicature 12 (2003) (with Arthur Bryant)
•  
• Epidemiology in the Legal Arena and the Search for Truth, 154 Am. J. Epid. S27 (2001) (with Arthur Bryant)
•  
• Note, The Right to Farm: Hog-Tied and Nuisance-Bound, 73 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1694 (1998)
•  
• Corruption of Previously Published Asbestos Research, 55 Arch. Envtl. Health 75 (2000) (with David S. Egilman)
•  
• Asbestos Exposure and Lung Cancer: Asbestosis Is Not Necessary, 30 Am. J. Ind. Med. 398 (1996) (with David S. Egilman)
•  
• The Asbestos TLV: Early Evidence of Inadequacy, 30 Am. J. Ind. Med. 369 (1996) (with David S. Egilman)
•  
• The Origin and Development of the Asbestos Threshold Limit Value: Scientific Indifference and Corporate Influence, 25 Int. J. Health Serv. 667 (1995) (with David S. Egilman)