Leah Luckett analyzes the current lawsuit between the Federal Trade Commission and Ticketmaster through the eyes of antitrust law in a quickly evolving digital market. She considers the potential impact of the lawsuit on not only the ticketing industry but other digital markets, ultimately deciding there may need to be more consumer protection and regulation in a highly digital economy.
Molly McInnis examines Maryland’s tenant protection laws through the lens of the recent $11.2 million Heather Hill tenant-landlord housing settlement. The case involved hundreds of tenants who, for years, were forced to live in unsanitary, unsafe, and unlicensed conditions while continuing to pay rent. She examines the current state of Maryland housing law and identifies the gaps in enforcement that may have allowed such conditions to persist. Taking a comparative approach, she evaluates tenant protection laws from other states and local jurisdictions and proposes policy reforms to help Maryland better address and close these gaps. She argues that adopting these reforms would not only strengthen tenant protections in Maryland but ensure accountability for future breaches of landlord duties and responsibilities.
Devin Scarborough explores the apparent surge in politically motivated violence and examines the recently introduced Ohio House Bill 457 in combatting this violence. She argues that HB 457 inadequately addresses political violence, fails to deter future crime, and utilizes vague and underinclusive language. Ultimately, although she agrees that political violence must be addressed, she argues that legislators should pursue more effective methods in the fight against political violence and calls for HB 457 to be amended.
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.
In this article, Faith Howard examines the recently filed case Patterson et al v. NCAA. Ultimately, arguing that, in applying the rule of reason to some of the core elements of the plaintiff's complaint, they demonstrate a strong likelihood of success in their challenge against the NCAA.
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.
Brookelynn Stone analyzes the systemic abuse within collegiate athletics, asserting that member institutions have failed to provide adequate safeguards. She contends that the NCAA should adopt a standardized code of conduct to protect student-athletes and highlights the NCAA’s strategic legal positioning of itself as a supervisory body, rather than a governing authority.
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.
Emmy Blane analyzes the federal government’s consideration of apparent race or ethnicity in immigration investigations under the Equal Protection framework established in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College (“SFFA”). This Article contends that the government’s race-based decision-making in immigration enforcement does not satisfy the SFFA standards and, therefore, is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Joshua Smith examines the prosecution of rapper Young Thug and his record label, Young Stoner Life, focusing on the permissibility of rap lyrics as evidence in criminal trials. It explores the tension between artistic expression and free speech, analyzing key rulings and legal standards while situating the case within broader debates on race, cultural biases, and First Amendment boundaries.
