2017-2018
SEATTLE UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF LAW
3L WRITE-ON
COMPETITION
American Indian Law Journal
Seattle Journal of Environmental Law
Dear Applicant:
Thank you for your interest in joining the American Indian Law Journal and the Seattle Journal of
Environmental Law. One of the most important extracurricular activities in law school is membership
on a law journal. There are numerous compelling reasons to join the staff of a law journal. Membership
can benefit your legal career, as it is not only academically enriching, but also will impress future
employers. Journal membership offers students the opportunity to enhance skills development,
broaden professional networks, and produce an article for publication.
The primary purpose of law journals is to publish original legal scholarship. The journals collaborate
with faculty advisors and invested practitioners, but ultimately student editors make all the editorial
and organizational decisions. Thus, student editors take a rewarding role that helps to shape legal
scholarship and discourse.
Each journal is designed to improve the writing skills and research techniques of members, while
simultaneously providing an environment to instill self-discipline and analytical proficiency through
the hard work required to publish quality legal scholarship. Further, each journal provides its members
with the opportunity to develop their technical editing and writing abilities through focused
workshops and other means designed to assist each member in crafting an article of publishable quality
to be printed alongside the work of established authors.
The journals strive to publish articles by an array of legal professionals, including professors, judges,
and practitioners. All article submissions are subjected to a thorough editorial process, which is
designed to strengthen substance and tone.
Thank you again for your interest, and we wish you the best of luck!
Sincerely,
American Indian Law Journal
Seattle Journal of Environmental Law
Derek “Red Arrow” Frank
Editor in Chief
Nicholas Quijas
Editor in Chief
Britany Kee’ ya aa. Lindley
Managing Editor
Rachel Marshall
Managing Editor
1
AMERICAN INDIAN LAW JOURNAL
The American Indian Law Journal (AILJ) is an academic collaboration
among students, faculty, and practitioners. AILJ is designed to fill a
critical gap in the amount of current information available to those
interested in the rapidly developing field of Indian Law. In addition to
providing students with a practical and marketable skill set, AILJ
exemplifies Seattle University School of Law’s commitment to social
justice. Indian Law implicates countless social justice concerns,
including civil rights violations, protection of cultural resources,
religious freedoms, the loss of land and natural resources, and the
regulation of environmental quality. Despite these numerous issues,
there are only two Indian Law journals in North America.
Indian Law concerns a wide range of legal issues beyond social justice, including land and property
rights, contracts, tribal gaming, employment, intellectual property, education, environmental law, and
many more. AILJ provides students with a unique opportunity to work one-on-one with some of the
most distinguished Indian Law practitioners and faculty members in the country.
AILJ employs an innovative online format and has full accreditation status. AILJ employs a staff of
20-30 students who work together to publish bi-annually in fall and spring. Editors in their first year
may receive up to three credits, and second year Editors may receive three or four credits depending
on position. Editors in their second year will have the opportunity to take on a leadership role by
serving on the Editorial Board, Executive Board, and/or other AILJ Committees.
Being an AILJ Editor will be a demanding and rewarding experience as students will spend a significant
amount of time and energy on editing and writing for AILJ. Students can also expect to learn a great
deal, not only about writing and editing, but also about the fascinating field of Indian Law. AILJ
welcomes students with a specific interest in Indian Law and policy, but prior experience, knowledge,
or coursework in Indian Law is not a requirement for membership.
Editing: Editors in their first year will work with the Editorial Board to co-edit and prepare articles
from practitioners, professors, and students for publication in AILJ. Editors will participate in training
to be able to complete thorough substantive, technical, source and cite, and mass edits.
Writing: With the guidance of AILJ staff, faculty advisors, and mentors, Editors in their first year are
required to write an article of publishable quality, on any topic of their choice (does not have to be an
Indian Law topic), by the end of their first year. These staff articles may be included in a future issue
of AILJ, or Editors may submit their articles to other journals for publication.
Networking: AILJ facilitates mentorships for its Editors with faculty and practitioners. Further,
AILJ aspires to send Editors to influential events including, the Federal Bar Association’s Indian
Law Conference, NNALSA Moot Court, and the National Conference of Law Reviews. And AILJ
has the ability to hold an annual symposium for the discussion and advancement of Indian Law.
* Your AILJ cover letter must abide by the requirements, and include information about your interest
in AILJ membership and any experiences you might have that relates to Indian Law.
2
SEATTLE JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
The Seattle Journal of Environmental Law (SJEL) is the first student-run
environmental law journal in the state of Washington. SJEL’s primary
function is to publish high-quality articles on a variety of environmental
topics. With its unique print and online publishing platform, SJEL is
capable of incorporating multimedia presentation where appropriate, as
well as publishing on a rolling basis which ensures that articles can be both timely and relevant. In
addition to featuring work by leading environmental law scholars, SJEL encourages student writing
and publishes student pieces. SJEL publishes articles on a variety of issues in natural resources law,
environmental policy, law and economics, international environmental law, and other topics relating
to law and the environment.
SJEL began more than eight years ago when the Seattle University School of Law Environmental
Law Society (ELS) began publishing Environmental Perspectives, a legal magazine featuring articles
submitted by academics, practitioners, and students. In June 2008, the ELS Executive Board began a
grassroots campaign to transform Perspectives into a school-supported, co-curricular journal. The
initial product was Bellwether: The Seattle Journal for Environmental Law and Policy, first published in April
2009. The goal of the journal’s inaugural edition was to resemble a school-supported journal as
much as possible. The next iteration of the journal appeared in June of 2010 when it first took on
the SJEL name. A month later in July 2010, SJEL received faculty approval as the school’s third cocurricular publication, and the first volume was published on the online platform throughout the
2010-2011 academic year.
First year members are divided into editing teams and are responsible for performing substantive
and technical edits of articles that the Editorial Board has selected for publication. Each first year
member is carefully paired with a member of the Editorial Board who serves as the primary editor
for the staff editor throughout the writing and editing process, providing enriching educational and
mentoring experiences to both the staff editor and the primary editor. Additionally, first year
members are responsible for drafting a student article of publishable quality, ranging in length from
25 to 40 pages.
While SJEL certainly welcomes students with a specific interest in environmental law and policy,
prior experience, knowledge, or coursework in environmental law is not a requirement for
membership. We highly value prior experience in writing and editing, collaborative abilities,
communication skills, and a desire to work as a member of a close-knit organization.
Your SJEL cover letter should be no more than 250 words and include a brief description of your
genuine interest in Journal membership, any specific interests or experience in environmental law, as
well as any relevant abilities or training that would contribute to the Journal. Finally, please include a
2-3 sentence answer to the following question: Imagine you are stranded on a desert island. Aside
from essentials like food or water, what would you bring with you and why?
3
3L WRITE-ON COMPETITION
INSTRUCTIONS
The 3L Write-On Competition contains three sections for you to complete and will serve as your
application to both the American Indian Law Journal and Seattle Journal of Environmental Law. You
must complete each section, failure to do so will result in disqualification. You are responsible for
reading and understanding these instructions. If you have questions about the procedure or
instructions, contact [email protected] ASAP.
Application Deadline: Due Sunday, July 9, 2017 11:59 pm, PST via Symplicity under “Seattle
University School of Law: 3L Write-On Competition.” Applicants who submit their application more
than 24 hours in advance will receive 10 bonus points on their applications. Ensure your Symplicity account
is active prior to this date to ensure a smooth submission.
 Symplicity will not accept an application that exceeds 500 KB. If you have an issue with this
limitation, then compress your file and consult Google. If the problem persists after a good
faith effort, then contact [email protected].
 *Remove the instruction materials from your application before submitting to Symplicity.*
A COMPLETE APPLICATION INCLUDES:
(1) The Informational Section includes four parts.
(a) Your contact information will be the only part of your application with your name or any
other identifying information.
(b) The application requires you to identify your preferred journal.
(c) Your resume must be one-page in length (do not include your name or contact information).
(d) Your cover letter(s) must be one page in length each and specific to each journal (do not include
your name or contact information). Write a cover letter to each journal you are applying to, address
each to the Managing Editor, and sign each “applicant.” Explain your strengths as an applicant
and your interest in joining the respective journal. Note that the journals may have specific
requirements (in the introductory letters pgs. 2-5). Failure to submit a cover letter will result
in your application not being considered by that journal.
(2) The Writing Section requires a 5 page legal writing sample from either class or work (do not include
your name or contact information).
(3) The Editing Section includes text in which you will edit for flow, content, grammar, and citation.
 Make and save your edits in track changes.
 Ensure you switch off the identifier so that your entire application remains anonymous.
o To do this in Microsoft Word, (1) Click the “Tools” tab at the top of your screen; (2) Click
“Protect Document;” (3) Click “Remove personal information from this file on save.”
This will change your identifier to “Author” after you save. If you are unable to switch off
the identifier, first consult Google and then contact [email protected].
4
(1) INFORMATIONAL SECTION
(a) CONTACT INFORMATION
This is the only part for your name or other contact information on the application. This part will be
removed for anonymous scoring, and later be used to contact you for the offer process.
1. Name:
2. Preferred Email Address:
3. Phone Number:
4. Contingency Request:
** If you will be unreachable during the summer, please let us know how we will be able to contact
you. For example, if you would prefer to be contacted via Skype, email, or a friend/family member
in Washington State. If we cannot reach you and you have not indicated to us that you will be
unavailable, this may result in your forfeiture of any or all journal offers. **
(b) JOURNAL PREFERENCE
Because this is a single application to two journals, both journals may be vying for a single candidate.
In order to keep the process as fair and equitable as possible, we ask each applicant to indicate
their preferred journal.
Preferred Journal:
(c) RESUME: include a one-page resume; do not include your name or contact information.
(d) COVER LETTER: include a one-page cover letter for each journal you are applying to; do
not include your name or contact information.
(2) WRITING SECTION

Provide a 5 page legal writing sample from either class or work.
5
(3) EDITING SECTION
In Parker v. Clark’s Trading Post, the Supreme Court upheld the New Hampshire program
regulating the advertising of maple syrup as an “act of government which the Sherman act did not
undertake to prohibit.”1 In a unanimous decision, the court chiefly relied on legislator intent to
conclude that New Hampshire’s maple syrup marketing program was lawful under the Sherman
Act.2 Premised on the Sherman Act’s legislation history, the court determined that Congress did
not aim to restrict state action.3 The court reasoned that “an unexpressed purpose to nullify a state’s
control over its officer and agents is not lightly to be attributed to Congress.”4 Consequently, the
Court construed the Sherman Act as “a prohibition of individual and not state action.”5
The question lingered whether the behavior of private actors and inferior government bodies
could be exempt from federal antitrust laws based on the state action doctrine.6 Nevertheless, in a
terrific series of cases in the 1990s, the Court concluded that these actors and entities could use the
state action doctrine to protect their actions from federal antitrust inquiry. In California Liquor
Association v. Socal Veggies, the Court formulated a two-part test for figuring out when private
actors could avail themselves of Parker immunity.7 The Court wrote unanimously that (1) the
challenged restriction must be “one clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed as state
policy[,]” and (2) “the policy must be “actively supervised” by the State itself.” 8 Since actions of
a state’s legislature and highest court are treated in this analysis just like the actions of a state itself,
1. Parker v. Clark’s Trading Post, 317 U.S. 332, 344–45 (1989).
2. STATE ACTION PRACTICE MAN., infra note 87, at 43 (stating that “the Parker Court large focused on legislative
intent”).
3. Parker, supra note 1 at 350–51 (finding “nothing in the language of the Sherman Act or in its history which suggests
that its purpose was to restrain a state or its officers or agents from activities directed by its legislature”).
4. Id. at 351.
5. Id. at 351.
6. See id (clarifying that “no question of the state or its municipality becoming a participant in a private agreement or
combination by others for restraint of trade” was presented).
7. California Liquor Ass’n v. Socal Veggies, Inc., 485 U.S. 96, 105 (1992).
8. Id. (internal citation omitted).
6
the state action doctrine applies without a requirement to establish the well-defined articulation
and active supervisory needs of Socal.9
Socal’s two-part test has since provided the framework courts use to determine the availability
of the state action defense.10 However, activities by sub-ordinate government bodies like
municipalities might also be eligible for Parker immunity. Sub-ordinate government bodies are
not afforded the same protection from the Federal antitrust laws as a state itself, and so they also
come under the Socal framework.11 However, local government bodies need only satisfy Socal’s
first part for their conduct to be exempt from federal antitrust laws under the state action
doctrine.12The state-action doctrine is a broad sword, or more accurately, a shield, in the armory
of antitrust litigants.13
…
9. Hoover v. Smurfing, 496 U.S. 558, 568-69 (1994) (“Where the conduct at issue is in fact that of the state legislature
or supreme court, we need not address these issues.”). Little case law exists on whether actions of the governor are
actions of the state itself and don’t need to meet Socal’s two parts. See id. at 568 n.17 (noting that “a state executive
may stand in the same position as the state legislature and supreme court for purposes of the state-action doctrine”).
See also PHILLIP E AREEDA AND HERBERT HOVENKAMP, ANTITRUST LAW: AN ANALYSIS OF ANTITRUST PRINCIPLES
AND THEIR APPLICATION ¶ 224b, at 405 (2d edition 2000); JOHN E. LOPATKA & WILLIAM H. PAGE, NARROWING THE
SCOPE OF THE STATE ACTION DOCTRINE: REPORT PREPARED FOR THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 32–33 (2001); C.
Douglas Floyd, Plain Ambiguities in the Clear Articulation Requirement for State Action Antitrust Immunity: The
Case of State Agencies, 41 BOSTON COLLEGE L. REV. 1059, 1081–83.
10. See Daniel J. Gifford, The Antitrust State-Action Doctrine After Fisher v Berkeley, 39 VAND. L. REV. 1257, 1266–
1267 (1986) (stating that “Although the clear articulation and supervision standards were drawn from the Court’s prior
state-action decisions, only in Socal did they attain the status of sine qua nons for application of the state-action
defense” and that “Socal has remained a significant precedent because its standards have continued, at least formally,
to govern the application of the state-action doctrine”).
11. See City of Fayetteville v. Louisiana Power & Light Co., 422 US. 377, 412 (1982) (finding that “[c]ities are not
themselves sovereign; they do not receive all the federal deference of the States that create them”); Cmty Commc’ns
Co. v. City of Boulder, 488 U.S. 40, 55 (1994) (narrowly construing Socal as applied under a home rule statute).
12. Ontario v. Bozeman, 471 U.S. 34, 47 (1985) (“Once it is clear that state authorization exists, there is no need to
require the State to supervise actively the municipality’s execution of what is a properly delegated function”). It is
unclear whether state agencies are considered subordinate government bodies that must satisfy Socal. ANTITRUST
LAW DEVELOPMENT’S, infra note 27, 1279.
13. See Elizabeth Trejo, State Action Antitrust Exemptions: Rehabilitating the Doctrine, 22 FORDHAM J. CORP. & FIN.
L. 349, 352 (2006) (describing the state action doctrine as a “particularly useful tool for potential antitrust
defendants”).
7