Josh Smith explores Congress’s latest move to restrict intoxicating hemp products through its latest spending bill following the government shutdown, focusing on what the new federal limits mean for states, regulators, and the future of the hemp industry.
Leah Luckett discusses current AI copyright cases that have been decided or are ongoing. She discusses how the fair use doctrine has shaped copyright law and now is shaping artificial intelligence development. Eventually she concludes authors may not be receiving the protection they deserve.
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.
Devin Scarborough examines the recent structural, regulatory, and political changes in the Food and Drug Administration brought on by the second term of the Trump administration. She argues that the Trump administration’s modifications have substantially weakened the FDA’s ability to protect the health of the American public by diminishing its ability to conduct sufficient research and implement necessary protections. She further analyzes the rising levels of foodborne illnesses that have coincided with FDA staffing cuts and decreases in food safety oversight, along with the increased risks associated with drug deregulation and political pressures within the agency. Ultimately, she concludes that the FDA’s institutional integrity and its ability to protect public health will continue to erode unless substantial corrective measures are taken.
Mofe Koya discusses social media addiction litigation, an emerging area in tort law. She examines how courts have narrowed the reach of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to hold social media platforms accountable for their algorithmic design choices and the negative consequences they have on vulnerable users.
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.
Brooke Karsteter analyzes how the recently vacated Seventh Circuit panel opinion in Arana v. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System, which dramatically expanded institutional Title IX liability, positions the full court’s impending en banc review as a pivotal moment for determining the scope of school obligations to student victims.
Brookelynn Stone examines Cavalleri v. Hermès International, a case challenging Hermès’ sales practices as an unlawful tying arrangement in violation of the Sherman Act. She analyzes the plaintiffs’ allegations and the district court’s reasoning for dismissal, and evaluates the potential implications of a Ninth Circuit reversal for antitrust treatment of luxury markets, while also considering what additional facts could have strengthened the plaintiffs’ claims to better support their antitrust theories beyond mere speculation.
Abriana Malfatti analyzes the ongoing trade war between the United States and China, arguing that China’s licensing restrictions on rare earth metals violate the Most Favored Nations Principle (“MFN”) of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (“GATT”). She explains how this unlawful policy allowed China to leverage a favorable trade deal with the Trump administration. She warns that the new trade deal is not a solution to the trade war, and China will likely continue to use rare earth metals against the United States in the future.
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.
