Prompted by the violent events at the August 2017 white supremacist protest in Charlottesville, Virginia, this article argues that state and local officials have significant latitude to enact and enforce laws that restrict the intimidating display of firearms at public demonstrations and protect people’s rights to speak freely and to peaceably assemble.

In the last twenty years, the concept of legitimate expectations has come to play a very prominent role in international investment treaty-based arbitration. This article explores what insights investment law scholars can gain from authors in the fields of critical race theory and settler colonial studies, who have examined the use, and implications of the use, of the concept of expectations in particular contexts.

This Essay argues that several principles associated with modern international investment law and dispute resolution arose in the wake of the American Revolution, as the revolutionaries and Britons sought to restructure trade relations, previously regulated by imperial law, under new treaties and the law of nations.

This Essay argues that federal land policy as a form of colonial administration has been constitutive for the logic of expectation as property in the United States. Approaching the Bundy occupations as flashpoints that illuminate competing interpretations and claims to land within the history of westward colonization, the Essay demonstrates the ways in which expectation emerges from particular economies of dispossession of indigenous peoples that have historically worked through and across the division of public and private property.

The article evaluates the doctrine of protecting investors’ specific-commitment backed-expectations. The author argues that the doctrine has shaky legal foundations and raises fundamental policy concerns. It affects the rules and processes governing allocation of property rights, can exacerbate inequality, and can send wrong signals to investors regarding responsible business conduct.

The “Morality Provision” of trademark law prohibits the registration of trademarks that are immoral or scandalous. This essay exposes how the Morality Provision is abused by individuals who do not have any real interest in the proposed trademark, but who morally disapprove of the trademark owner or its commercial activities.