Blog

Voting and democracy is one of the most revered parts of the American experiment. Our founders envisioned a government that was directed by the people and for the people. The most import facet of this government by the people, of course, is access to the polls and voting. Unfortunately, for many Americans it is not easy to vote, and there has been a wave of restrictive voting registration policy over the last several years.[1] In 2021 alone, nineteen states passed laws restricting access to voting, and this represents only a small fraction of the legislation that was introduced.[2] This restriction on who can vote, when they can vote, and what they must present when they arrive at the polls has far reaching impacts. Some of those impacts are well known. Public policy and lawmakers shape everything about our world and environment, including health, social, and economic policy.[3] Recent research has also indicated that that there is a strong correlation between access to voting and public health outcomes.[4] Overall, this research has indicated that states who have more inclusive voting policies combined with higher levels of civic participation have citizens who have better health outcomes.[5] Using the Cost of Voting Index[6] and health data gathered from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System and America’s Health Rankings[7], this correlation is easy to see.

Last month, the Kentucky legislature enacted Senate Bill 5, otherwise known as “An Act relating to education and declaring an emergency.”[1] The new law empowers parents to challenge – and ideally remove – materials, programs, and events that are “harmful to minors” from their children’s schools.[2]  The best part about the bill-now-law, according to one of its primary sponsors, is its purposeful ambiguity.[3] Every community can decide for itself what kind of content it considers “harmful to minors.”[4] But ambiguity invites tyranny – a community’s attempt to remove “harm” from its schools may infringe on the First Amendment rights of its students.

In the last several years, the United States has experienced an increase in voter turnout, as evidenced by the historically high participation in the most recent presidential election.[1] It seems that Americans recognize the importance of this patriotic duty now more than ever. While it is encouraging to see a surge in active voters, many individuals are still unable to participate. The basic restrictions on voting, like age and citizenship status, are widely-known, but some may be surprised to learn that one’s criminal record may result in disenfranchisement. While upon first blush it may seem reasonable to take the right to vote away from someone who has been convicted of a crime, it nonetheless takes away an important democratic right, potentially invoking a lifetime punishment with little justification.

Social media has created a new world for how people communicate and interact with one another. With the ability for users to send messages out instantly to countless individuals, public officials have recognized the value of these platforms and have begun using them for their benefit.[1] Whether it is the President of the United States or a city manager, social media allows government actors to connect with their constituents conveniently.[2] But as is often the case with technological advancements, new constitutional issues are implicated when using these platforms.[3] As a result, an objective test is needed to aid the courts when entering into the new realm of social media.

A recent Supreme Court decision makes it easier for Section 1983[i] plaintiffs alleging malicious prosecution to survive a motion to dismiss. Thompson v. Clark is a substantial shift in civil rights litigation favoring plaintiffs after years of the formidable Heck v. Humphrey decision. In April 2022, the Court in Thompson held that to satisfy favorable termination of malicious prosecution, the plaintiff need only show “the prosecution ended without a conviction.”[ii] For the 6-3 decision, Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the majority, including Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Amy Coney Barrett. Justice Samuel Alito, in dissent, along with Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, contested placing malicious prosecution under the Fourth Amendment.

Due to the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process protections, “[p]ersonal jurisdiction has always constrained plaintiffs’ access to courts.” [1] States can further limit plaintiffs’ access to courts by adopting long-arm statutes.[2] Kentucky’s long-arm statute does this by enumerating nine categories of conduct where a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant.[3] One of the categories provides for personal jurisdiction over a defendant “transacting any business” in Kentucky;[4] however, there has been “little precedent interpreting the meaning of ‘transacting business’ as used in” Kentucky’s long-arm statute.[5] Therefore, understandably, Kentucky district courts have differed in their approaches to applying “transacting any business.” Kentucky district courts generally apply one of three approaches: (1) the plain meaning interpretation,[6] (2) the Michigan Court of Appeals interpretation emphasizing “any,”[7] or (3) an interpretation requiring “a course of direct, affirmative actions” in Kentucky.[8]

Mental health and substance abuse (MH/SA) problems are on the rise in the United States, in what many Americans call a “mental health crisis.”[1] According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, there was an increase in adults with either a mental illness or substance abuse disorder from 2019 (61.2 million in 2019)[2] to 2020 (73.8 million in 2020).[3] Moreover, MH/SA often goes untreated,[4] with the cost of healthcare being cited as the most common barrier keeping Americans from attaining care.[5] These effects are particularly prevalent in the Commonwealth of Kentucky, where 43.7 percent of adults reported anxiety and depressive symptoms in 2021.[6] In 2020, Kentucky had the nineteenth highest suicide mortality rate of the fifty states (801 deaths, 17.6 per 100,000 people).[7] Moreover, in 2020, Kentucky had the second highest drug overdose mortality rate (1,330 deaths, 49.2 per 100,000 people).[8] This crisis has been uniquely exacerbated in Kentucky by the Opioid Epidemic, inducing the Kentucky state government’s attempts to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies and pass legislation aimed at securing drug treatment.[9] Amidst these attempts to provide MH/SA treatment to Kentuckians, there exists a barrier that often goes unnoticed— judicial shields for health insurance companies to deny MH/SA coverage on a federal level.

In December 2022, Governor Andy Beshear announced that Kentucky had been awarded a $36 million grant to partially fund universal preschool for all Kentucky four-year-olds.[i] The announcement came after several calls by the governor for the Kentucky General Assembly to enact a universal preschool program.[ii] Earlier in the same year, Beshear proposed a budget that included an additional $2 billion toward public schools, with $172 million per year funding the universal preschool program for four-year-olds.[iii] Despite the governor’s best efforts and Kentuckians’ hopes for assistance, childcare costs continue to surge—and the 2023 Kentucky General Assembly chose not to advance legislation that would significantly improve the lives and educational outcomes of children and families.[iv] House Bill 35 was sent to the House Committee on Committees following its introduction on January 3, 2023.[v] The bill did not receive a reading as legislators instead duked it out over drag and pronoun bans.[vi]

Abraham Lincoln earned the nickname “Honest Abe” due to his prioritization of honesty in every situation that he found himself in.[i] A famous statue of Lincoln sits in a chamber of the Lincoln Memorial to honor “Honest Abe” for his strong beliefs in dignity and freedom.[ii] A replica of this statue can be found in Middle Creek Battlefield in Prestonsburg, KY, where the Union army stopped a Confederate charge during the Civil War.[iii] This battlefield, however, is not the replica’s first location. Initially, this statue was purchased by a local attorney and was placed in front of his law office.[iv] Ironically, this local attorney, Eric C. Conn, was sent to prison for committing the largest Social Security fraud in American history.[v]

Non-compete agreements[1] have become a prevalent mechanism used by employers in the United States.[2] In fact, around 20% of American workers are bound by non-compete covenants.[3] Employers use these agreements to protect themselves from unfair competition practices that may result from an employee leaving to work for a competitor or establish a competing business of their own.[4] Many, however, criticize the use of non-compete agreements as oppressive on an employee’s ability to take advantage of opportunities to move upward in the workforce.[5]

In copyright law, computer codes are treated in the same vein as literary works.[1]  The definition of a literary work in 17 U.S.C. §101 describes a literary work as one made of words, numbers, or similar symbols that does not otherwise classify as an audiovisual work, which helps to rationalize the convention of treating computer code as a literary work.[2]  A computer code falls squarely into that definition as a work comprised of nothing more than letters, numbers, and various associated symbols.  Additionally, a computer code is the unique expression of a programmer’s creative endeavors which confers copyright protection upon the code, much like a writer would have copyright protection for a short story or novel.[3]  Based on these parallels, the rationale makes sense, but what about other aspects of copyright law?  Does this comparison make sense for other aspects of copyright law such as derivative works and fair use? After thinking it through, I think it may be worth taking a closer look at the copyright implications of translating computer codes, specifically source codes. The current test courts use for comparing computer codes may provide too narrow of protection, and there is a risk of programmers translating codes into new languages to prevent reinventing the wheel.  

In 1988, the Kentucky General Assembly passed a Concurrent Resolution to establish a “Family Court Feasibility Task Force.”[i] At the time, Kentucky had no Family Court System.[ii] Instead, the responsibilities commonly associated with the modern Family Court, such as divorce and child custody, were distributed among the already existing levels of the Commonwealth’s judicial system.[iii] As a result of the task force’s findings, in 1991 the Kentucky Supreme Court created a pilot project in Jefferson County to oversee the viability of developing a Family Court system within the Commonwealth.[iv] It was a resounding success.[v] Over thirty years later, with the passage of a constitutional amendment making “Family Court a permanent part of the Kentucky Constitution[vi] . . . with more than 75 percent of the vote,”[vii] the Kentucky Family Court system has indeed seen many successes.[viii] Touted under the “One Family, One Judge, One Court” mantra, Kentucky’s Family Court System espouses the promise that it allows “the same judge to hear all matters involving a particular family.”[ix] Contrary to this mantra, however, it appears that two counties, and nearly 26,000 people, are at risk of being kicked out of this judicial family called Family Court.[x]

To determine whether a product is defectively designed, the existence of a feasible alternative design that could have reduced or prevented the plaintiff’s harm may aid the court in a defective determination.[1] The more feasible the alternative is, either economically or scientifically, the more likely the court will find the product to be defectively designed.[2] Some courts have decided that, in a design defect action, the plaintiff has the burden of proving that a feasible alternative design exists.[3] Establishing proof of a feasible alternative design puts an unreasonable burden on plaintiffs which requires them to provide evidence that is usually within the knowledge of manufacturer.[4]

In 2004, the All of Us or None organization devised the Ban the Box movement with the hope that former criminals could start receiving a fair chance at gaining meaningful employment. Rather than being hindered by their past conviction, the movement sought to allow former criminals to be judged purely based on their skill set.[1] Despite the hypothesized negative impacts of the Ban the Box initiative, the movement has been steadily growing across the United States. Ban the Box has led to substantial impacts for the economy, employers, and especially convicted criminals.[2] It is time for Kentucky to Ban the Box and give criminals a “fair chance at redemption.”[3]

If Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health taught us anything, it’s that no United States Supreme Court precedent is safe. Roe v. Wade protected reproductive rights for almost 50 years until it was overturned by Dobbs.[1] Justice Clarence Thomas’s concurrence in Dobbs called for multiple landmark cases, including Obergefell v. Hodges, to be revisited entirely due to defective reasoning.[2] Even though the Dobbs majority dicta stated it does not threaten Constitutional protection of same-sex marriage, the decision itself contradicts that statement.[3] The fact that Dobbs overturned nearly 50 years of precedent proves that any precedent – even that which many Americans believed was untouchable— can be overturned. This includes same-sex couples’ right to marriage.[4] Thus, it is completely rationale to think the same fate that befell Roe can befall Obergefell as well.[5] And if that happens, there doesn’t appear to be anything Kentucky state courts can do.

Throughout our lives, we all work diligently to provide for ourselves and others. We work to buy our first car and house; to purchase jewelry, furniture, décor, etcetera; and to acquire many other assets. While we cherish these assets during our lives, we cannot hold onto them forever. We do, however, retain the right to control their disposition. For some, this process is made simple by hiring an attorney. For others, they will take matters into their own hands and write out their final wishes. Both processes, if done correctly, are valid,[1] but one mistake may have major consequences.

The United States’ airlift evacuation of Afghan citizens from Afghanistan in the summer of 2021 facilitated the departure of Afghans whose personal safety was compromised in the face of the Taliban seizure of Afghanistan.[1] Evacuees airlifted by the United States military were leaving Afghanistan because their personal safety was compromised due to the assistance an evacuee or their family member(s) had provided to the United States government in Afghanistan.[2] Since the airlift evacuations, “more than 250 children have been born to Afghan evacuees on United States military bases [within the United States].”[3] At least 570 babies in total have been born in the United States to Afghan evacuee mothers.[4] These 570-plus children were automatically granted U.S. citizenship because they were born on United States soil.[5]

This article examines how the Supreme Court compositions are influenced, notably the Warren and Rehnquist Courts, by the judicial philosophy of the Chief Justice. These Chief Justices imprinted their judicial philosophy on the Court, not only by their voting patterns, but by their choices in how the decisions were written, who wrote them, and which tools the Court chose to use.[1] In this article, the Chief Justice will be viewed as the wielder of either the hammer or the chisel.

The last Supreme Court session brought some of the most controversial rulings in recent times. One of those was the Court’s ruling in New York State Rifle and Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen.[1] Bruen clarified the two-step test under which regulations of Second Amendment rights are to be evaluated, looking at first, if the conduct is covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment, and second if there is a historical tradition of such a firearm regulation in this Nation.[2] This test, although consistent with Heller[3], has recently caused federal judges to reach inconsistent holdings regarding the constitutionality of certain 18 U.S.C. § 922 provisions.[4] While the first step of the test does not seem to be the strongest point of contention among judges, the disparities in the historical traditional step of the test beg the question as to whether judges are applying the test correctly at all.

Picture this. In 2017, two co-defendants are tried and convicted for possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime in the Eastern District of Kentucky. Both are first-time offenders. But, because both the gun and drug charges are covered by 18 U.S.C. § 924, the penalties “stack,” and both defendants are treated as repeat offenders. Both are sentenced to mandatory minimum 55 years imprisonment. Both appeal their convictions and sentences. Further, in both cases, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals vacate their sentences. The first is vacated on December 15, 2018. The second was on January 3, 2019. When the resentencing hearings roll around, are both co-defendants resentenced under the same law? In the 6th Circuit, that answer is no.