Restoring the Fair Cross-Section Guarantee of the Constitutional Right to an “Impartial Jury”: A Critical Examination of the Nebraska Court System’s Systemic Default and the Supreme Court’s January 2026 Reform of the Juror Questionnaire and Jury Data Rule
Russell E. Lovell II and David S. Walker, Drake University Law School
This Article will analyze the comprehensive demographic jury data reforms adopted by the Nebraska Supreme Court through new Court Rules and a new Juror Qualification Form (“Questionnaire”) promulgated October 2024 (“January 2026 Reforms”) and effective January 1, 2026. The Court has embraced major reforms that are cause for optimism that the Court will continue the journey to reinvigorate the guarantee that juries be drawn from a fair cross-section of the community served by the trial court as required by the Sixth Amendment and the Nebraska Jury Selection Act of 1979 (“NJSA”).
The Second Amendment Rights of Undocumented Immigrants
Alan Mygatt-Tauber, Seattle University School of Law
This Article is the first in-depth look at the application of Bruen’s test, as modified by the Court’s June 2024 decision in United States v. Rahimi, that addresses both the question of whether undocumented immigrants are part of “the people” entitled to Second Amendment protections and, if so, whether any of the historical analogues identified by the government serve to justify § 922(g)(5)(a)’s complete ban on gun ownership. It concludes 1) that undocumented immigrants are part of “the people” because status is irrelevant to the question—it is physical presence in the United States that matters; and 2) none of the purported analogues support a categorical ban on undocumented immigrants possessing firearms. Instead, they support an individualized analysis where only the dangerous may be disarmed.
Principle Over Pedigree: United States v. Rahimi, Post-Ratification History, and the Case for Justice Barrett’s Approach
Joel Myers, J.D. Candidate, University of Nebraska College of Law, 2026
The Court’s evolving Second Amendment jurisprudence offers fertile ground for the Court’s originalists to elucidate their perception of constitutional interpretation. In Rahimi, Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Justice Amy Coney Barrett penned concurring opinions weighing the utility and function of historical evidence post-dating the ratification of the Second Amendment. This Note considers those opinions and advocates for Justice Barrett’s approach: post-ratification history is useful to explicate the meaning of the Constitution’s text.
Touchdown: Upholding Precedent for Proper Venue in United States v. Lozoya
Mikayla Gross, J.D. Candidate, University of Nebraska College of Law, 2026
“The friendly skies are not always so friendly.” This Note supports the Ninth Circuit’s en banc opinion in United States v. Lozoya, which determined that the landing district is the proper venue for prosecuting in-flight crime. The Ninth Circuit’s en banc ruling overturned the requirement to prosecute in-flight crimes in flyover districts, which created practical and evidentiary burdens for the prosecution and defense. The establishment of the landing district as the proper venue for in-flight crime prosecution promotes practical adjudication, justice for victims, constitutionally sound trials for defendants, uniformity for inflight prosecution, and encompasses Congress’s intent when enacting 18 U.S.C. § 3237(a).
Toward a General Legislative Presumption of Probation in Nebraska
Velma Lockman, Joint J.D./History M.A. Candidate, University of Nebraska College of Law
In 2015, the Nebraska Legislature passed L.B. 605, which created a presumption of probation for Class IV felonies alongside other measures aimed at reducing prison overcrowding. In the interest of reducing prison overcrowding, reducing racial disparities in sentencing, and minimizing the individual injustice of excessive imprisonment, the Nebraska Legislature should extend the presumption of probation both to lesser misdemeanors and to higher classes of felonies that do not require imprisonment.
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 Let Them Grow 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 it protects those born with clearly male and female sex characteristics.