Date of Publication:
Roy Balleste et al. (eds.), A Research Agenda for Cybersecurity Law and Policy (Edward Elgar, 2025)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
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:
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:
Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, The Perils of Fundraising Using the Disinformation of the Big Lie, in Disinformation, Misinformation and Democracy (Ronald J. Krotoszynski, Jr. et al. eds., Cambridge University Press, 2025)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
"After losing the 2020 election, President Donald Trump went on a fundraising binge asking his supporters to give to his legal defense fund so that he could litigate the results of the 2020 election which he fraudulently claimed he had won. According to the January 6th Select Committee, this fund did not exist. Moreover, a stolen electoral loss by Trump in 2020 also did not exist. Trump’s post-2020 election fundraising was thus a fraud within a fraud. Thus, there is a reasonable argument that soliciting millions of dollars based on these two false premises actually violates the federal wire fraud statute and common law fraud."
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:
Roy Balleste, Cyberspace Domain & Legal Norms, in A Research Agenda for Cybersecurity Law and Policy (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2025)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Angelina M. Vigliotti, Indigenous Data Sovereignty: Data as a Resource, in A Research Agenda for Cybersecurity Law and Policy (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2025)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Ellen S. Podgor et al., Mastering Criminal Law (3rd ed., Carolina Academic Press, 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:
Andrew D. Appleby, Formulary Apportionment: A New Framework for Personal Income Taxation, 52 Pepp. L. Rev. (2025)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
The prevalence of post-pandemic remote working arrangements and increased interstate migration have upended existing personal income taxation regimes. For decades, the current paradigm proved to be an imperfect but workable means to determine which state has the prevailing claim to impose tax on a particular item of income. The individual’s state of residence has a residual claim to all the individual’s worldwide income, but defers to the state in which the income is derived if such a state is determinable. To that end, the state of residence typically provides a credit for income taxes paid on a source basis to other states. Fundamentally, source trumps residence in the context of personal income taxation.
The problem is that taxing jurisdictions can no longer readily determine the source of income or the individual’s state of residence within the existing legal constructs. Existing legal structures designed to tax employment income cannot cope with widespread remote working arrangements. The rise of the digital economy and independent contractor “gig work” allows individuals to shift the source of their income. At the same time, individuals are also shifting their state of residence from high-tax to low-tax states at historic rates. Increased interstate migration, particularly of high-net-worth individuals and profitable closely-held businesses, has allowed income to migrate with individuals. The result is a genuine threat of multiple taxation for individuals and significant revenue losses for taxing jurisdictions. The stakes are enormous, as personal income tax regimes account for approximately one-quarter of all state and local tax revenues.
The solution—formulary apportionment—is a concept with which states are very familiar. Although formulary apportionment has been the prevailing paradigm for multistate corporate income taxation for decades, state legislatures and the existing literature have largely and surprisingly failed to recognize the promise of formulary apportionment for multistate personal income taxation. This Article remedies that oversight.