Date of Publication:
Kristen David Adams and Brooke J. Bowman, The Banks Case: A Model for Persuasive Advocacy When Arguing Open Questions of Law, 54 Stetson L. Rev. 237 (2025)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Will Bunting and Tomer S. Stein, Lobbying by Brief: Unveiling the Dominance of Amicus Lobbying in the Development of Business Law, 78 SMU L. Rev. 83 (2025)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
This Article uncovers the pervasive and significant impact of business law Amicus Lobbying, a strategic tactic whereby lobby groups have commandeered the amicus curiae filing process in state courts to shape business law according to their interests.
The Article makes three primary contributions to the literature. First, it presents the only comprehensive dataset of amicus curiae filings in business law cases. This hand-collected dataset encompasses nearly all business law amicus curiae filings from 2005 to 2022 in the key jurisdictions of New York, California, Delaware, Texas, and Nevada. Second, it reveals a striking empirical finding: lobby groups account for 67% of all amicus curiae filings in the dataset, with a high rate of success in persuading courts to adopt their positions. Finally, the Article provides a normative assessment of Amicus Lobbying in business law and proposes policy recommendations designed to ensure a more balanced representation of stakeholder interests.
By shedding light on this understudied phenomenon, this Article aims to stimulate critical discourse on the intersection of lobbying, judicial decision-making, and business law formation. It offers valuable insights for scholars, practitioners, and policymakers engaged in the ongoing debate over the appropriate role and influence of interest groups in shaping legal doctrine.
Date of Publication:
Margie Alsbrook and Ashley Krenelka Chase, Three Blind Drafts: An AI-Generated Classroom Exercise, 37 Second Draft 1 (2025)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
This article offers a potential tool for legal writing professors seeking to quickly orient students to the positive power—and potential peril—of using generative artificial intelligence tools wisely in the practice of law. This article describes a verified, helpful classroom exercise designed to engage students in the critical evaluation of memos or briefs generated by various AI systems. Through this exercise, students quickly grasp pitfalls of the tools, while they also start to understand that different AI products suit different purposes.
Date of Publication:
Grant Christensen, Article IV and Indian Tribes, 110 Iowa L. Rev. 629 (2025)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Unlike the first three articles of the Constitution which create the three branches of the federal government, Article IV establishes a set of rules to police the actions of states and knit them together into a single union. Notably absent from Article IV is any mention of the tribal sovereign. Concomitantly, there has been no comprehensive academic discussion thinking about how the tribal sovereign complicates the purposes of Article IV. This piece advances a completely new understanding of Article IV and its implications in federal Indian law. It suggests that where Article IV advances rights to individual citizens (i.e. a citizen’s right to enforce a court judgment or their claim to the protection of the Privileges and Immunities Clause) then states may not use their connection to any tribal sovereign as an excise to deny them the protections of those rights. In contrast, where Articles IV speaks to rules designed to ensure states treat each other respectfully (i.e. requests for extradition, claims under the Equal Footing Doctrine, or any attempt to enforce the Guarantee Clause) then Article IV’s rules do not permit states to abridge, abrogate, modify, or erode the inherent rights of tribal nations. As the Court has recently opined, tribal governments themselves were absent from the Constitutional Convention and so constitutional limitations on the inherent powers of sovereigns do not extend to tribal governments.
Date of Publication:
Roy Balleste, In Search of the Rule of Law: On Cybersecurity, Time Travel, and Interstellar Exploration, 8 Arizona Law Journal of Emerging Technologies i (2025)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Louis J. Virelli, Recusal’s Own Conflict of Interest, 39 Criminal Justice 35 (2025)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Robyn Powell, Disabling Abortion Bans, 58 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 1091 (2024)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
In the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, states have rushed to enact restrictive abortion bans, often with vague and narrow health exceptions that disproportionately endanger the lives and well-being of people with disabilities. This Article argues that focusing on the disproportionate impact of these laws on disabled people is a critical strategy for dismantling the broader attack on reproductive freedom. It examines the deficiencies of current health exceptions, critiquing their subjective language, inconsistent application, and failure to account for the complexities of medical emergencies, particularly in the context of disability. The Article highlights the omission of mental health considerations and clashes between state and federal laws. Furthermore, it explores how these bans exacerbate existing barriers disabled people face when seeking healthcare while ignoring the disproportionately high risks of pregnancy-related complications and maternal mortality among the disability community. Drawing on constitutional arguments, the Article contends that even under rational basis review, these bans lack a legitimate governmental interest and instead perpetuate discrimination by contradicting core disability rights principles of bodily autonomy and self-determination. It explores potential avenues for challenging these laws, including leveraging state constitutional provisions, expanding health exceptions, and protecting abortion providers through statutory presumptions and burden-shifting provisions. The Article emphasizes the importance of moving beyond a purely medicalized framing of abortion rights and toward a more holistic, intersectional vision of reproductive justice that fully includes and empowers the disability community. It concludes with a call for robust coalition-building between the disability rights and reproductive justice movements to drive incremental change and ensure that reproductive autonomy is respected and protected for all.
Date of Publication:
Robyn Powell, Under the Watchful Eye of All: Disabled Parents and the Family Policing System’s Web of Surveillance, 112 Cal. L. Rev. 2005 (2024)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
The child welfare system, more accurately referred to as the family policing system, employs extensive surveillance that disproportionately targets marginalized families and subjects them to relentless oversight. Scholars observe that this ongoing surveillance obstructs effective parenting, exacerbates existing injustices, and contradicts the system’s stated protective purpose. Instead of safeguarding families, surveillance becomes a tool to control those it should assist, particularly the already vulnerable. This Article extends the analysis of the family policing system’s surveillance practices to encompass parents with disabilities and their children, revealing the unique consequences of continuous observation. The system’s ableism amplifies scrutiny of disabled parents, disregarding their disability- related needs and causing harm under the guise of protection. This persistent surveillance culminates in heightened systemic harm, trapping families in an inescapable cycle of perpetual scrutiny.
This Article provides a nuanced and novel analysis of the family policing system and its extensive surveillance targeted at disabled parents and their children. It begins by detailing the legal framework that supports the surveillance apparatus, investigating constitutional protections, federal and state statutes, and disability rights laws. The exploration then turns to the intricate network of surveillance mechanisms that ensnare disabled parents and their families. This pervasive scrutiny includes mandated reporting, family policing system investigations, “service” plans, child maltreatment registries, and digital surveillance tools. Subsequently, this Article uncovers the harms arising from such surveillance, both directly and within the broader context of societal injustice. Concluding with a call to action, this Article proposes normative legal and policy solutions to challenge the system’s surveillance. These measures include revising the definition of neglect, constraining the system’s scope of surveillance, establishing rights akin to Miranda warnings, revoking mandated reporting laws, ensuring prompt access to legal representation, and reimagining support systems for families. These solutions must be integrated into broader initiatives aimed at abolishing the family policing system entirely, freeing marginalized families from the cycle of being pathologized, controlled, and punished. Ultimately, the only path to liberating disabled parents and their children from perpetual scrutiny is through the complete dismantling of the family policing system, ensuring they are no longer under the watchful eye of all.
Date of Publication:
Louis J. Virelli and Richard W. Murphy, Tea Leaves and Maybe a Stay, 49 Administrative & Regulatory Law News 18 (2024)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Ashley Krenelka Chase and Sam S. Harden, Through the AI-Looking Glass and What Consumers Find There, 29 J. Tech. L. & Pol'y 1 (2024)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
While a lack of internet regulation is the norm in the United States, generative artificial intelligence presents a series of new challenges, particularly in the legal field. Those who are trained in the law know to check their sources whether they come from case law or a generative AI tool like ChatGPT, but the average consumer is not so discerning. When that average consumer is in the midst of dealing with legal issues and has to navigate those issues without a lawyer, he or she is less likely to sit back and evaluate the information they’re being given, particularly if it looks bright, shiny, and full of knowledge and the ability to help navigate the legal system quickly and efficiently. This lapse in judgment, whether conscious or subconscious, may deepen the justice gap and cause those who are unfamiliar with the legal system to become even more distrustful of not only the system, but the resources that are meant to help self-represented litigants navigate that system in a meaningful way.
This Article will begin with a brief explanation and analysis of generative artificial intelligence more broadly, as well as its current role in the legal field. It will go on to analyze global regulatory frameworks surrounding artificial intelligence and compare those frameworks to the current approaches in the United States. In Part II, the Article will discuss access to justice in the United States and the ways in which technology currently is and is not filling that gap, as well as the regulations to the industry. Part III will propose a scheme for regulating consumer-facing generative AI products and analyze the potential and pitfalls of regulation. Next, Part IV will discuss enforcement of any consumer-facing generative AI products that may be created to fill the justice gap, while Part V will look on the other side of the looking glass, and discuss predictions based on whether or not meaningful consumer-facing generative-AI reaches those in the justice gap, and whether regulating those products becomes a reality.