Recent Print Articles
Introduction: Righting Wrongs Through Restoration–A Nebraska Law Review Symposium
Kristin M. Blankley, University of Nebraska College of Law
Professor Kristin Blankley discusses her role in the 2025 Nebraska Law Symposium and its connection to alternative dispute resolution.
Foreword: Why Restorative Justice
Nicholas L. Marti, J.D., University of Nebraska College of Law, May 2026
Volume 104's Symposium Editor discusses why he chose restorative justice for the 2025 Nebraska Law Symposium.
Posthumous Restorative Justice
Michael L. Moffit, University of Oregon School of Law
This Article asks what, if any, adaptations of RJ processes may be appropriate in contexts in which some or all of the people listed above cannot participate, because they are now dead.
Protecting (Restorative) Justice: An Analysis of Confidentiality, Admissibility and Privilege Provisions in State Law
Thalia Gonzalez & Aidan Lorraine Tomlinson, University of California College of Law, San Francisco
This Article attends to one such gap and presents the first systematic review of “protective” restorative justice laws—those that create procedural protections for restorative justice through confidentiality, admissibility, and privilege.
When We Don’t Get Community Right in Restorative Justice Spaces: Cancel Culture and Failure to Transform
Aparna Polavarapu, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, William S. Boyd School of Law
This Article argues that community is a central but deeply misunderstood feature of restorative justice.
Restorative Justice Behind Bars: Evidence Supporting a Post-Adjudication Brief Intervention
Dennis E. McChargue, Ashley Votruba, Casey N. Tisdale & Sarah M. Noone, University of Nebraska-Lincoln
This Article details a post-adjudication restorative justice intervention implemented in Nebraska during the 1990s.
Restorative Reparatory Justice
Inga N. Laurent, Gonzaga University, School of Law
As global calls for reparatory justice—aimed at addressing “historical” and ongoing harms stemming from genocide, dispossession, assimilation, and enslavement—grow, this Article explores critical challenges in designing transformative processes of reparation.
Protecting Plaintiff Interests from Third-Party Influence: A Policy Framework to Address the Rise of Third-Party Litigation Financing
Jack Lorkovic, J.D. with Distinction, University of Nebraska College of Law, May 2026
This Comment suggests a different path forward, contending that Commercial and Consumer TPLF are inherently different and thus carry different risks best addressed by different policymaking institutions: federal courts for Commercial TPLF and state legislatures for Consumer TPLF.
Restoring the Fair Cross-Section Guarantee of the Constitutional Right to an “Impartial Jury”: A Critical Examination of the Nebraska Court System’s Systemic Default and the Supreme Court’s January 2026 Reform of the Juror Questionnaire and Jury Data Rule
Russell E. Lovell II and David S. Walker, Drake University Law School
This Article will analyze the comprehensive demographic jury data reforms adopted by the Nebraska Supreme Court through new Court Rules and a new Juror Qualification Form (“Questionnaire”) promulgated October 2024 (“January 2026 Reforms”) and effective January 1, 2026. The Court has embraced major reforms that are cause for optimism that the Court will continue the journey to reinvigorate the guarantee that juries be drawn from a fair cross-section of the community served by the trial court as required by the Sixth Amendment and the Nebraska Jury Selection Act of 1979 (“NJSA”).
The Second Amendment Rights of Undocumented Immigrants
Alan Mygatt-Tauber, Seattle University School of Law
This Article is the first in-depth look at the application of Bruen’s test, as modified by the Court’s June 2024 decision in United States v. Rahimi, that addresses both the question of whether undocumented immigrants are part of “the people” entitled to Second Amendment protections and, if so, whether any of the historical analogues identified by the government serve to justify § 922(g)(5)(a)’s complete ban on gun ownership. It concludes 1) that undocumented immigrants are part of “the people” because status is irrelevant to the question—it is physical presence in the United States that matters; and 2) none of the purported analogues support a categorical ban on undocumented immigrants possessing firearms. Instead, they support an individualized analysis where only the dangerous may be disarmed.