Recent Print Articles
On Sovereignty, Outer Space, and Taxation
Erika I. Scuderi, University of Florida Levin College of Law
This Article offers a comprehensive framework for States’ taxing powers in outer space. The discussion ultimately centers on Article VIII of the Outer Space Treaty, on which basis the present Article proposes the “Tax Jurisdiction by Registration Principle,” arguing that the act of registering a space object provides a legal basis for taxing income derived from its use.
Sticky Science in Court
H.A. Spitzer, University of Chicago Center for Health and Social Science
This paper applies network analysis to an original dataset containing all sources related to Parental Alienation Syndrome (“PAS”)—a controversial theory introduced into child custody litigation in the 1980s. By analyzing judicial opinions, peer-reviewed science, law reviews, and self-published materials relevant to the topic, the study traces how PAS entered the court system and continued to influence legal outcomes long after it was rejected by the scientific community.
Robot Wingman: Using AI to Assess Employment Termination
Henry H. Perritt Jr., Chicago-Kent College of Law, Illinois Institute of Technology
This Article presents the results of an experiment in which a transcript of a hypothetical client interview involving potential disability discrimination, retaliation, and wrongful termination claims was submitted to each AI system.
Carson v. Makin: Ending the Status-Use Distinction and Building a Foundation for the Emergence of Catholic Charter Schools
Tyler Lyon, J.D., University of Nebraska College of Law, May 2025
This Note argues that Carson has opened the door to the possibility of religious charter schools and evaluates this issue through the case of St. Isidore of Seville, which, in the aftermath of Carson, has made an attempt to become the nation's first Catholic charter school.
Let Them All Grow: Protecting Nebraska's Intersex Youth from Medical Intervention
Jori Peters, J.D. with distinction, University of Nebraska College of Law, May 2025
This Note argues that the Act violates the Equal protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it exempts intersex children, those born with ambiguous sex characteristics, from protections against unnecessary, irreversible, and nonconsensual medical procedures, while the Act protects those born with clearly male and female sex characteristics.
Zigzagging Outer Space: The Legal Complexities of MegaConstellations
Alex S. Li, #TheSpaceBar®
The rapid rise of satellite mega-constellations is reshaping the “spacescape” of Low Earth Orbits (LEO). This Article explores the unprecedented challenges introduced by these vast networks and proposes a comprehensive governance framework to ensure their sustainable operations.
The Self-Erasure of the EEOC in Bostock v. Clayton County
Nicholas B. Mauer, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
This Article explores the EEOC’s part in the backstory of Bostock, theorizing what the EEOC could and should have done differently to justify consideration of its views. Interpreting Title VII, the EEOC used the “traditional tools of statutory construction” statutory text and judicial precedent. This Article argues that the EEOC should have also used methods of interpretation that capitalized on its unique capacities and role as an administrative agency, different from the capacities and role of federal courts. This Article also analyzes why the EEOC’s interpretations of Title VII received little public opposition from conservative members of Congress. While the EEOC did publicize its actions, this Article suggests ways that the EEOC could have further increased public attention to and deliberation about its interpretations. This Article concludes that an agency seeking to make the case that it deserves consideration of and deference to its interpretations of statutes should take actions and use methods of interpretation that emphasize the agency’s differences from courts. In short, agencies should act like agencies, not courts.
Reading Is Dead: Can Law Schools Make Lawyers from Non-Readers?
Elizabeth Ruiz Frost, University of Oregon School of Law
Reading is dead. While its death has been widely reported in popular media, this Article contributes to the conversation by connecting the death of reading to core lawyering skills, arguing that the way we teach in law schools must change to account for the loss. Reading fuels critical thinking skills, communication skills, general knowledge, and our ability to understand and empathize with people. Thus, a lifetime of reading builds the foundation for core lawyering skills. But what happens when law students spend their lifetime doing anything but reading? This Article will first explain, briefly, how reading has been taught in American schools and how our brains do the work of reading. Next, the Article explores the state of reading in the United States to prove what many of us suspect: people now read less and less well than recent generations. Finally, the Article analyzes all that is lost when we stop reading and connects those deficits to core lawyering skills. It then proposes modest suggestions that may make equally modest inroads to address reading deficits in law students.
The Jurisprudence of Statutory Interpretation: A Framework for the Logical Restraints of Legal Positivism and Textualism
K. A. Stenseng, Washington State Legislature & Gonzaga University School of Law
Since President Donald Trump’s first term in office, the Supreme Court has become increasingly dominated by justices who identify as textualists. In recent years, the Court’s environmental decisions (and the Court itself) have become the center of public scrutiny. As President Trump proceeds through his second term in office, how can legal experts and policymakers better understand the trajectory of the current court? Answering this question is vital as the legal community faces new questions surrounding the Rule of Law. This Article centers on recent Supreme Court case law, including the Court’s controversial Clean Water Act (“CWA”) decision in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, to present a logical, normative approach to understanding statutory interpretation.
A Study of the Tap In Center Movement: How Collaboration in the Legal System Is Reducing the Negative Impact of Bench Warrants and Restoring Justice in Communities
Patrick C. Brayer, University of Missouri Kansas City School of Law
While many aspects of the criminal legal system have been criticized for the harm judicial institutions inflict on communities, a unique legal initiative is garnering praise from observers across the nation. What started as a local effort to help residents withdraw bench warrants during the COVID-19 Pandemic has blossomed into four independent legal service centers in three separate Midwest metropolitan areas called Tap In Centers. The primary mission of the Centers is the recalling of bench warrants issued when criminal defendants fail to appear for court or pay a fine; however, the needs of the individual and the community guide specific Center services. This Article explores a Tap In Center program that is incrementally restoring justice in communities by examining the unique collaboration that organized the program. The Article also explores the deep negative impact bench warrants have inflicted on both individuals and neighborhoods. Municipal and other low-level courts have used bench warrants to extract revenue from nonaffluent populations and control racialized residents. The Article views Tap In Centers through a lens of structural violence where courts use bench warrants as a tool of human submission.