WaPo: Volokh: A law review title pun that has run its course

WaPo: Volokh: A law review title pun that has run its course by Orin Kerr:

I’m not a fan of using puns in the titles of law review articles. But many authors writing about Fourth Amendment law seem unable to resist the lure of feline puns enabled by the Supreme Court’s seminal decision in Katz v. United States (1967). Here are examples of titles published just in the last two years, most (but not all) of which are from student notes:

● Is The Court Allergic To Katz? Problems Posed By New Methods Of Electronic Surveillance To The “Reasonable-Expectation-Of-Privacy” Test
● Florida v. Jardines: Dogs, Katz, Trespass And The Fourth Amendment
● Katz On A Hot Tin Roof–Saving The Fourth Amendment From Commercial Conditioning By Reviving Voluntariness In Disclosures To Third Parties

Readers are invited to think of more cat-themed titles for future Fourth Amendment scholarship, at least if any remain unused. Leave your suggestions in the comment thread. Meanwhile, authors might want to avoid this particular pun in light of its overuse. Or better yet, avoid title puns entirely.

Don’t worry about me: I long ago refused to cite any law review with a stupid pun for a name. One exception allowed: Bill Prewett, Act 62: The Crimination of Peeping Toms and Other Men of Vision, 5 Ark. L. Rev. 388 (1951).

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.