Jason T. Hanselman analyzes Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, concluding that "[s]chool districts, which must assess indirect coercion to make termination decisions, will struggle to decide whether Kennedy establishes a new legal test or just revamps the old one."
Erin Yonchak, writing on stealthing and on rape exceptions to state abortion bans, concludes that, first, "[c]urrent rape law does not capture a swath of sexual violence, like stealthing—and rape exceptions, as written, do little to provide options for those victims," and second, "if providing abortion access to sexual violence survivors is a priority for legislators in abortion-restricted states, rape exceptions should be broadened to expansively define 'rape' as any unwanted sexual conduct and divorce rape exceptions from the criminal system, which remains an inadequate mechanism for victims of sexual violence."
Writing to revise Federalist No. 78, Publius proposes that the Constitution "be amended to require that the President nominate someone to the Supreme Court whose political affiliation we meaningfully know is opposed to that of the President."
Responding to On the Manner of the Appointment of Justices to the Supreme Court: Revising Federalist No. 78, Publius argues that "our devotion to the nation as a whole," not partisan Supreme Court reform, "is the only thing that will save our nation as a whole."
Stephen Vukovits argues that Kennedy v. Bremerton School District's treatment of the Lemon test means that, for purposes of standing, courts should now "recognize that merely being offended by an alleged government endorsement of religion does not constitute a concrete and particularized injury-in-fact."
Jaden M. Lessnick discusses the implications of Brown v. Davenport for federal habeas corpus law, answering two open questions: "[I]f a petitioner satisfies both AEDPA and the Court’s equitable precedents, may a court deny habeas relief regardless, and if so, on what basis?"
Claire J. Rice surveys state law approaches to establishing probable cause using plain odor and canine sniffs in states that have legalized marijuana, concluding that the Illinois legislature should, first, clarify that marijuana odor cannot serve as the sole basis for probable cause to search a vehicle and, second, ban the use of marijuana-detecting canines.
Alessandro Clark-Ansani applies the equal protection analysis in United States v. Carrillo-Lopez to federal marijuana laws, concluding that courts should find such laws to be an unconstitutional violation of the Equal Protection Clause because of their racially discriminatory intent.
Jace Lee explains that the reasoning behind the state-created-danger doctrine, as applied in cases involving suicides by adolescents in the school context, should also apply to cases involving suicides in noncustodial contexts beyond the school setting.
Host Reagan Kapp and Professor Nathan Chapman (U. of Georgia School of Law) discuss the interplay between the First Amendment's freedom of religion and state and federal vaccine mandates.