By Victoria S. Kolakowski*

Click here for the PDF Version.

Introduction

One of the joys and hazards of teaching a class on cutting-edge constitutional law issues is that the U.S. Supreme Court can surprise us with decisions that take unexpected paths.

This occurred in the summer of 2021 when the Court issued its opinion in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia and did not address a crucial issue queued up by the parties: whether the Court would directly address the holding of Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith.[1] I prepared the syllabus of my course, “Equality and Religious Freedom,” with the expectation that Fulton would be the capstone and finally announce the new legal regime in religious freedom. This essay addresses the history of Smith, why the Court deferred taking Smith head-on in Fulton, and what the Court might choose to do in the future.

Continue reading “Whither Smith?” →

By Charles Belle* & Michele Neitz*

Click here for the PDF version.

Introduction

One evening in 2018, Professor Michele Neitz sat in a law school classroom surrounded by judges. She was teaching a workshop on the basics of blockchain technology. When the discussion turned to cryptocurrency, one judge raised his hand and asked, “But where does cryptocurrency actually live? Can I hold it in my hand?” Professor Neitz answered, “No, blockchain is a digital technology, and cryptocurrency is a digital asset.” The judge sat back, shook his head, and replied, “Nope. If I can’t touch it, it isn’t real.”

The judge’s feelings about cryptocurrency are understandable. Blockchain can, at best, feel like something that might only be used in video games. Blockchain technology, however, is not an abstract concept. People use the technology in the same way they use their phones and smartwatches to pay for coffee or board a plane: invisible but relied upon. Like other everyday tools, blockchain has clear technical definitions and uses. For example, although only a small segment of the global population uses cryptocurrency, the market value is nearly $2 trillion at the time of this writing.[1]

Continue reading “Unraveling the Legal Maze: USF Law’s Blockchain Law for Social Good Center Explores the Intersection of Law and Emerging Technologies” →

Continue reading “The Hidden Shoals of Maritime Law: A Maritime Lawyer’s Navigational Chart for Shoreside Counsel” →

By Kevin Frazier* on April 10, 2024

Click here for PDF Version.

Many promote the importance of the Rule of Law.[1] Its maintenance, or lack thereof, can substantially affect a democracy: “If you can weaken the Rule of Law, you can weaken democracy,” explains Asha Rangappa.[2] Similarly, protection of the Rule of Law[3] can foster economic growth. In recent decades, international development efforts led by the World Bank, for instance, have included investments in the Rule of Law.[4] Finally, the Rule of Law can facilitate societal well-being. As pointed out by Cass Sunstein, “When cases are settled in advance, people are able to plan their affairs and to do so with knowledge of what government may and may not do.”[5]

Continue reading “The Rise of the Interdisciplinary Lawyer: Defending the Rule of Law in the Age of AI” →

Continue reading “Revisiting Manson v. Brathwaite and Eyewitness Identification” →

Continue reading “Towards Intelligent Regulation of AI” →

By Matan Kotler-Berkowitz and Elijah Wiesman on November 12, 2020.

Click here for PDF version.

Introduction

A. Brett Jones

On August 9th, 2004, fifteen-year-old Brett Jones was attacked by his grandfather.[1] Backed into a corner, Jones stabbed his grandfather eight times with the object he had in his hands at the time, a steak knife.[2] He then unsuccessfully tried to perform CPR to save him.[3] Jones was subsequently convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison.[4] The Mississippi Circuit Appeals Court upheld his sentence on appeal.[5]

Continue reading “Inconsistent With Youth: Equal Protection, Cruel and Unusual Punishment, and the Issue of the Incorrigibility Standard” →

By Reza Dibadj* on April 10, 2020

Click here for PDF version.

The mass media is often justifiably criticized for conveying information with out-of-context “sound bites.”[1] Unfortunately, academic literature is not immune to this problem. In this short Essay, I take four iconic articles—each standing for a well-worn proposition—and make the rather simple argument that the articles themselves are far more nuanced than the sound bites for which they have become famous.

I address four articles: Ronald Coase’s The Problem of Social Cost,[2] Oliver Wendell Holmes’s The Path of the Law,[3] Warren and Brandeis’s The Right to Privacy,[4] and Jensen and Murphy’s CEO Incentives—It’s Not How Much You Pay, But How.[5] According to one well-known study, the first three are the most-cited law review articles of all time.[6] The fourth is a classic article on executive compensation—a topic of great social controversy at the moment—from the business literature.

Continue reading “On Academic Sound Bites” →

By Samuel Rosario on March 16, 2020

Click here for PDF version.

Introduction

Systemic sexism is a struggle that has plagued society for eons, not just American culture. Recently, there has been a systematic effort to achieve gender equality in the United States. With the emergence of the “Me Too” movement, women’s rights have moved to the forefront of national concern.[1] As a reaction to public outcry for a diverse workforce, large corporations restructured their bylaws and ethical rules.[2] The upper echelon of the work force used to be dominated by men.[3] However, because of this movement towards gender equality, the work force is increasingly becoming diverse. Now “more than half the U.S. work force . . . consists of minorities, immigrants, and women” thereby making “white, native-born males, though undoubtedly still dominant, . . . a statistical minority.”[4] Further, American companies now have the ability to do “their best to become more adaptable, to compete more successfully for markets and labor, foreign and domestic, and to attract all the talent they can find.”[5]

Continue reading “Gender Bias in the Legal Profession” →

By Alexis and Jessica Ramsey on February 29, 2020

Click here for PDF version.

Introduction

On February 19, 2019, President Trump signed the fourth Space Policy Directive, SPD-4.[1] It contains the potential addition of a sixth branch of the United States Armed Forces housed within the Department of the Air Force called Space Force.[2] SPD-4’s mission is to ensure the use of space for the United States’ national security, economy, and people, and SPD-4’s commander will lead any future space warfare.[3]

President Trump’s SPD-4, the fourth space directive he has ordered in the last two and a half years, leaves more questions unanswered than answered.[4] The first Space Policy Directive directed National Aeronautics and Space Administration (“NASA”) to land back on the Moon in eventual hopes of getting to Mars.[5] The second and third Space Policy Directives dealt with commercialization of space and space traffic.[6] While these first three SPDs are not inherently militaristic or aggressive in their language, focusing rather on peace and cooperation, Space Force is militaristic in name and nature, deviating significantly from the previous SPDs.[7] Continue reading “Space Force and the Outer Space Treaty: One Small Step Forward for a Man, One Giant Leap Backward for Humankind” →