About

Adam Winkler is a professor of law at UCLA Law, serving as the Connell Professor of Law since 2002. His academic expertise focuses on American constitutional law, the Supreme Court, and gun policy. Winkler has authored notable books including 'We the Corporations: How American Businesses Won Their Civil Rights' (2018), which was a finalist for several awards including the National Book Award, and 'Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America' (2011). His scholarship has been cited in landmark Supreme Court cases concerning the First and Second Amendments, and he is recognized as one of the twenty most cited law professors in judicial opinions today. Winkler's popular writings have appeared in major outlets such as the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and Los Angeles Times, and he is a frequent commentator on legal issues on various television and radio programs. He has also served as co-editor of the 'Encyclopedia of the American Constitution' and is a member of the board of directors of the Brennan Center for Justice. His background includes a B.S.F.S. from Georgetown University, a J.D. from New York University, and a master's degree in political science from UCLA. He clerked for Judge David Thompson of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and practiced law at Katten Muchin in Los Angeles, where he was involved in high-profile litigation. Prior to joining UCLA, Winkler was the John M.. Olin Fellow at USC Law School’s Center in Law, Economics and Organization.

Research topics

• Sociology
• Humanities
• Political Science
• Ethnology
• Art

Selected publications

• The rise of corporate rights in the United States

  Entreprises et histoire · 2021 · 1 citations

  1st authorCorresponding
  • Political Science
  • Humanities
  • Political Science

  Le pouvoir politique des entreprises se développe et s’entretient par différents biais, en particulier le lobbying et l’intervention directe dans l’arène politique. Mais aux États-Unis, les entreprises ont aussi accru leur pouvoir par l’intermédiaire de décisions de justice qui leur ont octroyé les mêmes droits qu’aux personnes physiques. Cet article analyse le processus, long de deux siècles, par lequel les entreprises ont mené des batailles victorieuses pour obtenir les droits individuels garantis par la Constitution. L’un des succès les plus importants des entreprises tient à l’obtention de la protection du 14e amendement, adopté à l’origine après la guerre de Sécession pour protéger les anciens esclaves, mais qui, au début du XX e siècle, a fini par être surtout utilisé dans des procès ayant trait aux droits des entreprises. De l’égale protection devant la loi à la liberté d’expression, les droits civiques des entreprises n’ont cessé de progresser, et l’article contribue à la réflexion à propos de la meilleure manière de définir ces droits.

  PublisherDOI

• Bank of the United States v. Deveaux and the Birth of Constitutional Rights for Corporations

  Journal of Supreme Court History · 2018-01-01

  article1st authorCorresponding

  Bank of the United States v. Deveaux and the Birth of Constitutional Rights for Corporations ADAM WINKLER Introduction Recent decisions by the Supreme Court of the United States in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, holding that corporations have a First Amendment right to spend money to influence elections, and Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., permit­ ting corporations to assert religious liberty rights under a federal law, have brought the issue of rights for corporations into the public consciousness. The rise of corporate constitutional rights is usually traced to an 1886 case, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, which is often cited for establishing that corporations are “persons” under the Constitution. While the story ofthe Southern Pacific’s case is highly entertaining —involving an illustrious lawyer who deceived the Justices and a misleading headnote that claimed the Court had decided issues it had not—Santa Clara County was hardly the first Supreme Court case to address the constitutional rights of corporations. That honor belongs to another case decided almost eighty years earlier, Bankofthe UnitedStates v. Deveaux, and corporate personhood played little role.1 Although still cited from time to time for other issues, Bank of the United States v. Deveaux is one ofthe neglected landmarks of American constitutional law. The explicit question addressed in the case was whether business corporations had constitutional protections—namely, the right to sue in federal court on grounds of diversity under Article III. While there is little evidence the Framers ever intended the Constitution to apply to business entities, Chief Justice John Marshall’s opinion for the Court broadly construed the text to cover corporations. Marshall did not say that corporations were 238 JOURNAL OF SUPREME COURT HISTORY people; in fact, his reasoning rejected the core tenets of corporate personhood. Instead, Marshall based his decision on a very different conception of the corporation—as an association of people—that would prove far more influential than corporate personhood injustifying the expansion ofindividual rights to corporations over the next two centuries. The Bank of the United States The corporation behind the first corpo­ rate rights case was the Bank of the United States, arguably the first great corporation in the new nation. The brainchild of Alexander Hamilton, George Washington’s Secretary of the Treasury, the Bank of the United States was chartered by the first Congress in 1791 and carried the country’s name. Yet it was what Americans today would think of as a private business. It was a for-profit corpora­ tion with publicly traded stock, managed by executives who were accountable to stock­ holders. The federal government had seats on the board and a considerable number of shares, but otherwise the investors were private individuals. At a time when the handful of existing American corporations were local concerns—operating, say, a toll bridge across the Charles River—the Bank was a national enterprise, with headquarters in Philadelphia and branches stretching from Boston to New Orleans.2 The mission of the Bank of the United States was to secure America’s credit and stabilize the nascent nation’s precarious economy. There were already a number of state-created banks but their notes were unreliable. A federal bank, backed by Congress, would have the resources to guarantee its notes and offer a more secure place to hold the federal government’s deposits. Hamilton had been inspired by the success of an earlier bank, the Bank ofNorth America, founded during the Revolutionary War. When Washington’s army was short on rations and pay, with soldiers on the verge of mutiny and American currency nearly worthless, the Bank of North America was established to print more dependable notes and insure liquidity. The plan worked to the benefit of both the nation and investors, who received annual dividends of thirteen-tofourteen percent. The Bank ofNorth America was transformed into a private state bank in 1786, and today, after more than two centuries of mergers and reorganizations, remains a tiny part of Wells Fargo.3 Despite the success of the Bank of the North America, Hamilton faced significant hurdles in setting up his bank. One of them was the text ofthe Constitution. Did Congress have the power to...

  PublisherDOI

• Successful Implementation of High Viscosity Friction Reducer in Marcellus Shale Stimulation

  2018-10-07 · 28 citations

  article

  Abstract Throughout multiple shale plays, high viscosity friction reducers (HVFRs) have successfully placed more proppant mass with lower treating fluid volume; thus, the industry is accelerating adoption of these treating fluids. Previous published studies have included treatments in Bakken shale and Permian Basin formations. The characteristics of the Marcellus shale make it particularly beneficial to minimize water and gel injection into the formation. At the same time, operational constraints related to smaller footprint and pad sizes in the Marcellus region make it beneficial to reduce gel hydration equipment on location. In spite of these potential benefits, application of high viscosity friction reducers has only recently begun in the Marcellus region. One factor delaying the introduction of HVFRs into the Northeast has been the challenging waters and brines often used in treatments. This study documents the successful introduction of a brine tolerant, high viscosity friction reducer with multiple operators in the Marcellus region. Marcellus operators compared several different friction reducer chemistries through field trials on multiple pads. Based on measurements of surface treating pressure and proppant placement, an optimum fluid system was selected that is effective in a range of water qualities and allow increased pump rate. The friction reducer was also compared to conventional gel technology based on the same method. The brine tolerant friction reducer was found to be an effective replacement for linear gel fluids and allowed reduction of equipment on location. A brine tolerant, high viscosity friction reducer enabled treatments to be placed with increased sand loadings, higher pump rates, and decreased surface treating pressures. The fluid system was able to work with a variety of water conditions, including brines having more than 30,000 ppm chlorides. In one case the new fluid system allowed operations to entirely move away from gel chemistry and surface hydration equipment. The study presents measured results during the frac on one of the first applications of a high viscosity friction reducer in Marcellus shale treatment.

  PublisherDOI

• <i>Bank of the United States v. Deveaux</i> and the Birth of Constitutional Rights for Corporations

  Journal of Supreme Court History · 2018-11-01

  article1st authorCorresponding
  PublisherDOI

• Is the Second Amendment Becoming Irrelevant

  Indiana law journal · 2018-06-13 · 3 citations

  articleOpen access1st authorCorresponding

  Why might the Second Amendment cease to serve this vital constitutional function? The explanation begins with the difference between how the Second Amendment is invoked in political debates and how the amendment is invoked in court. There are, it seems, two Second Amendments. There is a Judicial Second Amendment comprised of court decisions interpreting the provision, and there is an Aspirational Second Amendment that is used in political dialogue. These two versions of the Second Amendment are different; the aspirational one is far more hostile to gun laws than the judicial one.\nMoreover, the Aspirational Second Amendment is overtaking the Judicial Second Amendment in American law. In the vast majority of states, the gun laws that people live with are largely a product of the Aspirational Second Amendment as it has been articulated by gun advocates and elected lawmakers. Ironically, the same political forces that led to the reinvigoration of the Second Amendment and the Heller decision are also helping to sap the Judicial Second Amendment of its role in separating out good laws from bad ones. This is a sign of gun advocates’ political success, not political failure: state law is embracing such a robust, anti-regulatory view of the right to keep and bear arms that the Judicial Second Amendment, at least as currently construed, seems likely to have less and less to say about the shape of America’s gun laws.\nOf course, the future is unpredictable. And in the paradoxical world of guns, the amendment that seems increasingly irrelevant could alternatively be transformed in the opposite direction to become far more significant in American law than the Second Amendment—or any state constitutional provision guaranteeing the right to bear arms—has ever been.\nThe Future of the U.S. Constitution: A Symposium. April 14-15, 2017, Bloomington, Indiana. Sponsored by Indiana University Maurer School of Law, Indiana Law Journal &amp; the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy.

  Publisher

• 10. Citizens United, Personhood, and the Corporation in Politics

  Harvard University Press eBooks · 2017-09-06 · 15 citations

  book-chapter1st authorCorresponding
  PublisherDOI

• The Scope of Regulatory Authority Under the Second Amendment

  SSRN Electronic Journal · 2013-01-01 · 6 citations

  articleOpen accessSenior author
  PublisherDOI

• Law Enforcement's Flagrant Conduct, reviewing Dale Carpenter, Flagrant Conduct: The Story of Lawrence v. Texas

  2012-01-01

  articleOpen access1st authorCorresponding

  What if "Jane Roe," also known as Norma McCorvey, had not really been pregnant when she challenged Texas's ban on abortion?I What if Oliver Brown's daughter, Linda, had never really attended a segregated school in Topeka, Kansas? 2 What if Dred Scott had never really been enslaved? 3These questions come to mind when reading Dale Carpenter's thoughtful and carefully researched book, Flagrant Conduct: The Story of Lawrence v. Texas. 4 As every law student learns, Lawrence v.Texas is the 2003 decision of the Supreme Court that held unconstitutional a state ban on sodomy (oral and anal sex) among consenting adults of the same sex. 5 The case was a major victory for gay rights and paved the way for the challenges to same-sex marriage bans now working their way up to the Justices. 6 Lawrence, in short, is a landmark.The landmark, however, was built on a mirage.At least that is what Carpenter's research suggests.Justice Anthony Kennedy's opinion for the Court in Lawrence recounts the facts underlying the case:In Houston, Texas, officers of the Harris County Police Department were dispatched to a private residence in response to a reported weapons disturbance.They entered an apartment where one of the petitioners, John Gedes Lawrence, resided ....The officers observed Lawrence and another man, Tyron Garner, engaging in a sexual act.

  Publisher

• Heller’s Catch-22

  2011-01-01 · 2 citations

  article1st authorCorresponding

  Joseph Heller's satire Catch-22 has become a classic for its revealing look at the illogic, inconsistency, and circular reasoning common in modern bureaucratic life. This article uses Heller's novel to frame a critical analysis of the recent landmark Second Amendment decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that carries the Catch-22 author's surname, District of Columbia v. Heller. The majority opinion in Heller suffers from many of the missteps and contradictions Heller's novel identified. Although hailed as a triumph of originalism, the opinion paradoxically relies on a thoroughly modern understanding of gun rights. Justice Scalia has argued that originalism is necessary to preserve the legitimacy of the Court, but Heller is more likely to be accepted as legitimate precisely because Scalia's opinion departed from the original meaning of the Second Amendment. Moreover, this celebrated landmark decision has had almost no effect on the constitutionality of gun control. To date, the federal courts have yet to invalidate a single gun control law for violating the Second Amendment right to bear arms, despite scores of cases. While some laws are sure to be invalidated in time, the new Second Amendment's bark is far worse than its right. The greatest irony is that Heller's logical flaws and inconsistencies improve the decision, making it more likely to endure and helping to cement a reasonable, not radical, right to bear arms.

  Publisher

• Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America

  2011-09-19 · 45 citations

  book1st authorCorresponding

  Gunfight promises to be a seminal work in its examination of America's four-centuries-long political battle over gun control and the right to bear arms. In the tradition of Gideon's Trumpet, Adam Winkler uses the landmark 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, which invalidated a law banning handguns in the nation's capital, as a springboard for a groundbreaking historical narrative. From the Founding Fathers and the Second Amendment to the origins of the Klan, ironically as a gun control organization, the debate over guns has always generated controversy. Whether examining the Black Panthers' role in provoking the modern gun rights movement or Ronald Reagan's efforts to curtail gun ownership, Winkler brilliantly weaves together the dramatic stories of gun rights advocates and gun control lobbyists, providing often unexpected insights into the venomous debate that now cleaves our nation.

  Publisher

Frequent coauthors

• Jan Rath

  2 shared

• Anna Triandafyllidou

  Toronto Metropolitan University

  2 shared

• Thomas Sabatini

  Twin Cities Orthopedics

  2 shared

• Arthur L. Stinchcombe

  2 shared

• Jonathan Thomas

  Oklahoma-Texas Water Science Center

  2 shared

• Jim House

  2 shared

• James B. Zagel

  2 shared

• Sarah Delamont

  Cardiff University

  2 shared

Education

• B.A., Political Science

  University of California, Los Angeles

  1987

• Other, Law

  University of California, Los Angeles

  1990

• Ph.D., Political Science

  University of California, Los Angeles

  1994

Awards & honors

• National Book Award finalist for We the Corporations: How Am…
• National Book Critics Circle Award finalist for We the Corpo…
• American Bar Association's Silver Gavel Award finalist for W…
• California Book Award finalist for We the Corporations (2018…
• Scribes Award for We the Corporations (2018)