Date of Publication:
Marco Jimenez, Rethinking the Make-Whole Principle, 2025 Jotwell: The Journal of Things We Like (Lots) 1 (2025)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Darryl Wilson, Keeping Current – Property, 39 Probate and Property 16 (2025)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Robyn Powell and Luci Duffy, Manifestations of Eugenic Ideology in New York Termination of Parental Rights Decisions Involving Parents Labeled with Intellectual Disabilities, 2013–2023, Journal of Public Child Welfare (2025)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Parents with intellectual disabilities (ID) frequently encounter ableism within the child welfare system, particularly in termination of parental rights (TPR) proceedings. To uncover ideological forces contributing to existing disparities, this study examines how historically rooted eugenic ideology manifests in current TPR proceedings involving parents labeled with ID. Using content analysis methods, 25 cases revealed three primary manifestations of eugenic ideology: pathologization of parental disability, privileging of Western medical science, and imposition of unreasonable standards and expectations. These manifestations contribute to a punishment and blame dynamic that ignores structural inequity, requiring comprehensive reform on multiple levels (e.g. legal, systemic, and practice).
Date of Publication:
Grant Christensen and Anne E. Mullins, The Lone Dissent, 82 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 1219 (2025)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
What can be learned when a Supreme Court justice decides to write a lone dissent? There exists a powerful set of incentives for Supreme Court opinions to achieve consensus. Although closely divided cases grab news headlines, unanimous opinions are actually the most commonly issued judicial alignment, and cases in which a single justice dissents are the most unlikely judicial outcome. Despite voluminous academic discussion of judicial behavior, no legal scholarship has focused upon the lone dissent. This Article is designed to insert consideration of lone dissenting opinions into the broader discussion of judicial behavior.
Looking at the set of Supreme Court opinions in which there is a lone dissent from the appointment of Chief Justice Vinson in 1946 through the end of the 2022-23 term, we explain how lone dissents occur in cases of particular salience to the dissenting justice and where the stakes of the litigation create an incentive for the dissenting justice to risk institutional opprobrium in order to insert their counter interpretation of the law into the written record. This Article then goes even deeper, examining the moment a justice decides to issue a lone dissent for the first time. We conclude that these initial lone dissents are crucially important datapoints to explain a justice’s subsequent jurisprudence and judicial identity. The first lone dissent is carefully selected by each justice to signal support for important constituencies, and to definitively define the justice who must write in opposition to all of their colleagues for the first time. The examination of a justice’s legal philosophy and broader jurisprudence is incomplete without an examination of this one seminal moment of judicial behavior.
Date of Publication:
Ellen S. Podgor, Prosecutorial Discretion Is Grounded in Law, 30 Berkeley Journal of Criminal Law 225 (2025)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
This Essay examines prosecutorial discretion by building on DA Kimberly Foxx's discussion of who holds this power, while adding critical questions about what discretion actually is and when it crosses into misconduct. Argued here is that while prosecutors are entitled to significant discretionary authority grounded in law, this discretion is not unlimited—prosecutors are not above the law. The fundamental challenge lies in distinguishing between lawful prosecutorial discretion and unlawful prosecutorial misconduct, both of which are defined by law.
The essay explores the expansive powers granted to prosecutors, with particular emphasis on their authority to bring criminal charges—a power with a unique constitutional status that remains unchecked by many constitutional protections extended to defendants, particularly the grand jury requirement which has never been incorporated to apply to the states. While acknowledging that prosecutorial powers are extremely broad, the author's core argument is that law provides clear boundaries distinguishing legitimate discretionary power from misconduct. Recognizing these limits does not infringe on prosecutors' rightful authority; rather, it establishes the legal framework within which their discretion properly operates.
Date of Publication:
Linda S. Anderson, Balancing Acts: Student Rights, Parental Authority, and State Interests in Modern Sex Education, 27 Marq. Ben. & Soc. Welfare L. Rev. 1 (2025)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
The article explores the complex interplay between parental rights, state authority, and student interests in the context of sex education in American public schools. It highlights the ongoing tension between abstinence-only and comprehensive sex education approaches, emphasizing the need for a student-centric framework that balances the rights and responsibilities of all stakeholders. The current legal landscape is examined through historical development, seminal court decisions, and recent legislative trends. Empirical evidence is presented to demonstrate the effectiveness of comprehensive
sex education in promoting public health and supporting adolescents' development. The article advocates for a framework that incorporates student autonomy, age-appropriate content, and comprehensive teacher training, while addressing practical considerations such as content standards and opt-out provisions. Through this analysis, the article aims to advance understanding of sex education law and advocate for policies that better serve students' health and well-being.
Date of Publication:
D. Benjamin Barros et al., Rethinking Generative AI’s Performance on the Bar Exam and on Law School Exams, 5 Stetson Business Law Review 1 (2025)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Rebecca C. Morgan et al., Elder Law in Context (2nd ed., Aspen Publishing, 2025)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Tim Kaye, Mastering Products Liability (2nd ed., Carolina Academic Press, 2025)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Mastering Products Liability is a clear, concise discussion of the law of products liability. It contains a short history of the development of that area, but focuses on the current controversies, such as:
This work will not only be an invaluable resource for students taking a course in products liability, but will also provide valuable information for students covering the products liability material in the basic torts class.
Date of Publication:
Darryl Wilson, Keeping Current – Property, 39 Probate and Property 18 (2025)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.