Keeping Current – Property Article
Date of Publication:
Recommended Citation
Darryl Wilson, Keeping Current – Property, 39 Probate and Property 18 (2025)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Articles
The Banks Case: A Model for Persuasive Advocacy When Arguing Open Questions of Law Article
Date of Publication:
Recommended Citation
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.
Lobbying by Brief: Unveiling the Dominance of Amicus Lobbying in the Development of Business Law Article
Date of Publication:
Recommended Citation
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.
Three Blind Drafts: An AI-Generated Classroom Exercise Article
Date of Publication:
Recommended Citation
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.
Article IV and Indian Tribes Article
Date of Publication:
Recommended Citation
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.
Keeping Current – Property Article
Date of Publication:
Recommended Citation
Darryl Wilson, Keeping Current – Property, 39 Probate and Property 14 (2025)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
In Search of the Rule of Law: On Cybersecurity, Time Travel, and Interstellar Exploration Article
Date of Publication:
Recommended Citation
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.
Recusal’s Own Conflict of Interest Article
Date of Publication:
Recommended Citation
Louis J. Virelli, Recusal’s Own Conflict of Interest, 39 Criminal Justice 35 (2025)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Ethical Lawyering While Our House is on Fire Article
Date of Publication:
Recommended Citation
Jaclyn Lopez, Ethical Lawyering While Our House is on Fire, 40 Md. J. Int'l L. 1 (2025)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
This Essay scratches the surface of whether important tenets of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC) meet the needs of movement lawyers and their clients. It begins by describing what movement lawyering is and its role in advancing social movements. It explores the evolution of the MRPC's justice aspirations, including the more recent cultural competence and anti-bias instructions. While centering the major rules of the MRPC such as duty of loyalty, confidentiality, and communication, the Essay tackles issues such as how do the MRPC accommodate movement lawyers' duties of loyalties to both their clients and their movement, where do the MRPC limit how movement lawyers can push the law, whether the MRPC truly permit movement lawyers to aid their clients in civil disobedience and other law-breaking activity, the limitations on movement lawyers
as press contacts, and how the MRPC guide movement lawyers in advancing their causes in sympathetic jurisdictions.
Disabling Abortion Bans Article
Date of Publication:
Recommended Citation
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.