Professor Rosen joined Chicago-Kent in the fall of 1999, and was a Visiting Professor at the University of Minnesota Law School in 2005-06. One of Professor Rosen’s articles received the 2005 Outstanding Scholarly Paper Award from the Association of American Law Schools. He has a B.A. in economics and political science from Yale College and a J.D. from Harvard Law School, where he was articles editor of the Harvard Law Review. From 1988 to 1991, he studied Talmudic and comparative law at Shapell's University in Israel. Prior to joining the Chicago-Kent faculty, Professor Rosen was a Bigelow Fellow and lecturer in law at the University of Chicago Law School. From 1994 to 1997, he was an attorney at the law firm of Foley, Hoag & Eliot in Boston, where he focused on complex federal court litigation. Professor Rosen's scholarly interests include constitutional law, state and local government, civil procedure, conflicts of law, federal courts, and Federal Indian law. He has published in the Harvard Law Review, the University of Pennsylvania Law Review (twice), the California Law Review, the Virginia Law Review, the Texas Law Review, the Minnesota Law Review (twice), the University of Chicago Law Review, the William and Mary Law Review, the Wisconsin Law Review, Chicago-Kent Law Review, Emory Law Journal, the Journal of Law and Politics, Constitutional Commentary, and the Journal of Contemporary Legal Issues, among others. He teaches constitutional law, civil procedure, state and local government law, Federal Indian Law, conflicts of law, and contracts.
Articles
Hard or Soft Pluralism?: Positive, Normative, and Institutional Considerations of States’ Extraterritorial Powers, St. Louis University Law Journal (2007)
This article is an invited commentary to an extremely thought-provoking address delivered by Richard H....
Revisiting Youngstown: Against the View That Jackson's Concurrence Resolves the Relation Between Congress and the Commander-in-Chief, UCLA Law Review (2007)
Virtually all legal analysts believe that the tripartite framework from Justice Jackson’s Youngstown concurrence provides...
Was Shelley v. Kraemer Incorrectly Decided? Some New Answers (winner of the 2006 Outstanding Scholarly Paper Award from the Association of American Law Schools), California Law Review (2007)
Shelley v. Kraemer, the 1948 decision that famously forbade state courts from enforcing racially restrictive...
Why the Defense of Marriage Act Is Not (Yet?) Unconstitutional: Lawrence, Full Faith and Credit, and the Many Societal Actors That Determine What the Constitution Requires, Minnesota Law Review (2006)
This Article argues that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is not unconstitutional - at...