Blog

What do issues involving COVID-19, abortion, housing, and immigration, all have in common? Well, besides their controversial nature, they all have been recently dealt with on the Supreme Court’s “shadow docket.”[1] And lately, the conversation surrounding the shadow docket has been raging.[2] Many critics have been raising alarm, arguing that the Court is improperly using the “shadow docket” to subvert established appellate procedure and create new legal precedent without full transparency.[3] Those critics are correct.

The ubiquity of smartphones has brought about numerous changes. While some of these changes are bad (i.e., disengagement from society and the facilitation of narcissism), one particular and positive change must be noted: the ability to quickly capture quality footage. The proliferation of smartphones, most namely the iPhone, has equipped the average person with tech capabilities fit for cinema[1] and video journalism.[2] With respect to the latter, everyday citizens can place themselves at the vanguard of controversies they happen to witness. This access has led to a type of vigilante journalism, with one sect of the practice attracting significant controversy—those who film the police.

“Mos Maiorium” was a concept in the Roman Republic which can be broadly defined as the “ancestral custom.”[1] This deference to tradition governed family relations, public life and—most importantly—political life.[2] Key aspects of the roles of public officials and the limits of their power in the largely unwritten roman constitution were derived from Mos Maiorium.[3] As the republic entered its terminal decline, many of the strictures of Mos Maiorium fell away; the non-reelection of Tribunes,[4] the due process rights of citizens accused of capital crimes,[5] and the strict separation of municipal politics and military power,[6] were at one time sacrosanct principles. Once these taboos were violated, however, their transgression rapidly became regular fixtures of politics and eventually saw the previously competitive oligarchy collapse into dictatorship. The stabilizing force of the republic was not the written codes of law but rather these un-codified norms.

Imagine you are a defense attorney, sent to depose a plaintiff in a simple motor vehicle accident. At the deposition, you question the plaintiff about his background, education, the circumstances of the accident, his post-accident complaints and medical care, and his damage claims. But the plaintiff feels ill, and counsel decides to continue the deposition until later in the week, at which time you intend to attack the plaintiff with your defenses: the plaintiff’s level of fault, his post-accident malingering, and convince him and his counsel that his case against your client is worth nothing.

There are over 82,000 executives in the United States, and these individuals generally receive as part of their compensation the option to purchase stock options from their company.[1] Depending on the company, it may be easy or difficult for the executive to buy or sell their stocks.[2] Each of these executives serves as an insider of the company and are subject to the rules promulgated by the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) for when and how these stocks can be sold.[3]

One could call the Election Integrity Act of 2021[1] many things. First known as Senate Bill 202, the Georgia voting law was swift; it was passed and signed only months after the 2020 presidential election and early 2021 Senate runoff elections.[2]

Government spending has been a hot topic for many years with the government consistently running on a deficit.[1] A growing area of government spending is on government contracts, in 2020 spending in this area grew by fourteen percent.[2] Many people know the government is run on a deficit and worry about how their tax dollars are being spent. However, what many typically do not know is, there is a mechanism for everyday people to ensure that government contract expenditures are kept in check.[3] The False Claims Act (FCA) allows any individual to bring a lawsuit on behalf of the U.S. to sue an individual or group who has defrauded the U.S. by receiving more money in a government contract than they should have.[4] These types of lawsuits can range from claims for overpayment in Medicare and Medicaid to construction and procurement fraud.[5]

As the great Corey Smith once said, “times are a changing, and I’m still the same.”[1] This is the position held by the Kentucky Legislature in regard to allowing gambling to function within the state.

Imagine this: you are the defendant in a criminal case. You are facing eight charges. After a lengthy trial, the jury finds you guilty of three charges but acquits you of the remaining five. At your sentencing hearing a few months later, the judge nevertheless deviates from the probation officer’s recommended sentence, finding that the conduct underlying the charges of which you were acquitted merits a higher sentence. At first glance, does this practice seem fair, permissible, or in accordance with lay understandings of the role of the jury?

To prove a hostile work environment claim under Title VII, an employee must show they were subjected to harassment that is “sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment.”[1] Although this definition does little to articulate a workable standard, the Supreme Court in Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc. held a single use of a racial epithet is not enough for a hostile work environment claim.[2] But, subsequently noted an isolated, serious incident could be enough to constitute a hostile work environment claim if the incident is severe enough.[3] Seemingly, the Supreme Court holdings present an interesting dichotomy: whether a single use of an egregious racial epithet can constitute a “mere utterance” that fails to qualify as a hostile work environment claim or a “serious incident” that amounts to a hostile work environment claim.[4]

When the government needs outside services, they look to The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) for guidance on how to properly conduct their procurement contracts.[1] Among other restrictions, FAR includes provisions which limit conflicts of interest (OCI) between the government and their contractors. [2] Although the regulations provide this guidance, OCI are still commonplace in the procurement system.

Joel Chandler Harris popularized the fabled figure known in American folklore as Brer Rabbit.[1] The tale likely captured the hearts of the American public due to its pure yet profound message: The smaller side can overcome the stronger and larger opposition.[2]

On July 1, 2021, the world of college athletics changed forever with the implementation of interim NCAA policies allowing college athletes to profit off their name, image, and likeness (NIL) across all 50 states.[1] However, the NCAA’s suspension of its traditional amateurism rules, which barred any form of compensation, was not a voluntary one. Eight states were poised to implement NIL laws on July 1.[2] Further, in a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court held in NCAA v. Alston that the NCAA’s limitation of education-related benefits violated the Sherman Act.[3]

While social media sites hold great value to society, they are also one of the greatest downfalls when it comes to human trafficking. With new social media applications continuously arising, it is easy for predators to seek out innocent youth on these sites and coerce them into human trafficking.[1]

Challenged by landlords in nearly every state throughout 2020 and 2021, the courts were forced to tackle the moral and legal assessment of the proper balance between landlords’ property interests and the rights of tenants to remain within their home when Congress enacted the federal eviction moratorium in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.[1] When the Center for Disease Control (CDC) extended the eviction moratorium, courts were then also compelled to interpret whether the CDC had the statutory authority to protect tenants from eviction—knowing that if it did not, tenants throughout their state (and soon the entire country) would be at risk of homelessness.[2]

The meme-stock phenomenon that took investment markets by storm in early 2021 created chaos for both investors and regulators. Individual investors—led by the subgroup “WallStreetBets” on Reddit.com—collaborated to increase the stock prices of certain companies through a coordinated effort to purchase the stocks and generate losses for hedge funds who took opposing positions.[1]

Recently Britney Spears has recaptured the nation’s attention. However, it is not for a new song, interview, or viral clip. Instead, the world is focused on the state of Britney’s legal affairs centering around her conservatorship.[1] The New York Times released a documentary, “Framing Britney Spears” that explains Britney Spears’ treatment by the media and how she found herself placed under a court appointed conservatorship for the past thirteen years.[2] A conservatorship is an interesting legal construction that most people find difficult to understand especially, as in Britney Spears’ case, when the conservatorship is imposed on a seemingly independent and financially successful adult.

Boasting over one hundred thousand student-athlete signees,[1] Barstool Sports is positioning itself to be one of the first big winners following the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s (NCAA) decision allowing student-athletes to profit from their name, image, and likeness.[2] Even so, there remains a looming potential that student-athlete partnerships with Barstool Sports may violate the law, even in the seeming Wild West[3] of NIL regulations.