Maggie Traubert explores how recent state efforts to expand youth employment create conflicts with federal child labor laws, leaving businesses uncertain of the law and young workers potentially at risk of abuse. The article examines how state child labor statutes disrupt the cooperative federalism model, function as “zombie laws,” exploit enforcement gaps, and impose asymmetric legal burdens on businesses.
Andrew Pyles discusses the new Small Business Administration’s Interim final rule preempting local laws in California that govern rebuilding after the 2025 Los Angeles wildfires. It analyzes whether, under the Supremacy Clause and the framework articulated in Arizona v. United States, federal agencies are permitted to preempt local land-use laws in the absence of a congressional directive.
Mofe Koya examines the arrests of journalists Don Lemon and Georgia Fort in Minneapolis, Minnesota following their controversial coverage of anti-U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement protests. She begins by discussing the circumstances surrounding the arrests before turning to an analysis of First Amendment protections for journalists and the essential role of the press in a democratic society. The article concludes by considering the broader implications of the arrests, including the precedent it may set and the policy considerations courts will need to address moving forward.
Molly McInnis examines Case v. Montana, a pending Supreme Court case that addresses whether officers must have probable cause to enter a home under the Emergecy Aid Doctrine. She discusses the real-word implications the Court’s forthcoming decision could have on Fourth Amendment privacy protections and the scope of officers’ community-caretaking responsibilities. Ultimately, she argues that the decision will reveal how far the current Court is willing to extend police authority into the home.
Faith Howard examines the Sixth Circuit’s recent decision in D.A. v. Tri County Area Schools. Ultimately, arguing that the Supreme Court should take the decision up for review to help certify for lower federal courts the extent to which the Fraser standard regarding student speech should apply.
Emmy Blane examines the constitutional doctrines governing the Separation of Powers and analyzes Presidential and Congressional war powers. This Article applies the War Power doctrines to the ongoing U.S. military airstrikes on vessels in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean and argues that Congress’s failure to pass a resolution calling for the termination of the airstrikes significantly expands unilateral presidential war powers.
Joshua Smith explores how the federal government’s use of Zach Bryan’s hit song “Revival” for immigration agent recruitment exposes unresolved tensions between copyright protection, expressive autonomy, and the limits of government speech.
Mofe Koya discusses the history of citizenship and naturalization in the United States. She first examines the constitutional framework behind the right to birthright citizenship, then explores how naturalization in the early twentieth century became a tool for defining and excluding who could belong in America, a pattern that may be reemerging as the impending review of Barbara v. Trump approaches the Supreme Court. Finally, she argues that the Court must reaffirm citizenship as a fixed constitutional guarantee rather than a political construct subject to shifting social or governmental priorities.
Brooke Karsteter examines the dangers posed by obsolete laws and constitutional provisions that remain on the books, arguing that these “zombie laws” threaten the integrity of constitutional interpretation and the rule of law itself.
In this Article, Abriana Malfatti analyzes the implications of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Noem v. Vazquez Perdomo. By comparing Justice Kavanaugh’s concurrence and Justice Sotomayor’s dissent, she argues that the American public should be concerned with the Supreme Court’s use of the Emergency Docket to weaken United States citizens’ Fourth Amendment Rights. She then concludes that in granting the stay, the Supreme Court allows practices that imply that there is a certain way to look that makes one more American.
