Blog

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.

It would not comport with reality to assume that many Americans associate the Internal Revenue Code (hereinafter "The Code"), the codification of federal tax laws, with any degree of kindness or compassion. There are, however, a few provisions within The Code that legal scholars suggest are altruistic.[1] One such provision is 26 U.S.C. § 104(a)(2), which excludes from gross income “damages received [ ] on account of personal physical injuries or physical sickness.”[2] The reasoning for this exclusion rests partly on the sympathetic view that “the taxpayer has suffered enough.”[3] This sympathy, however, is not limitless, as evidenced by the provision's contrasting treatment of emotional distress damages as generally includible in gross income.[4]

“Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.”[1] This bedrock principle embedded in our Constitution is one of America’s most treasured values. It advances “democratic self-governance” and allows for “unhindered debate on matters of public importance.”[2] Although free speech is a fundamental right guaranteed by our Constitution, public employees have not always been afforded its full breadth.[3] Early in our nation’s history, public employment was not considered a constitutional right, and was instead viewed as a mere privilege.[4] For many years the Supreme Court relied on this rights-privileges distinction and took the position that individuals waived certain constitutional protections by simply accepting the terms of public employment.[5]

“Battered Woman Syndrome” (hereinafter “BWS”) has historically been introduced to support a self-defense claim in homicide cases.[1] Instances of individuals acting out of fear of violence from their abusers, however, call into question the limited application of BWS for defendants in non-homicide cases. While several circuits argue that BWS evidence does not fall into the “objective” consideration of a duress defense, other circuits have correctly recognized that the psychological patterns seen in survivors of abuse are anything but subjective[2].

In U.S. v. Vaello Madero, the Supreme Court determined that “[r]esidents of Puerto Rico and other U.S. territories do not have a constitutional right to receive certain federal benefits that the government provides to people who live in the 50 states.”[1] The majority opinion written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh rejected the argument that the federal Constitution guarantees the equal treatment of all and instead highlighted that many federal laws treat the “territories differently from the state.”[2] Yet, Justice Neil Gorsuch authored a concurrence opinion in which he posited that the Insular Cases, often used to justify the varied treatment of residents living in territories governed by the United States, relied on outdated racial stereotypes and had no foundation in the federal Constitution and should therefore be overturned.[3] Justice Gorsuch was disappointed that the Vaello Madero case did not provide an opportune time to do such and was eagerly waiting for a more appropriate case to appear in front of the Supreme Court challenging the doctrine of territorial incorporation; even referencing a case that at-the-time was pending before the Supreme Court.[4] Sadly, on October 17, 2022 the Supreme Court denied certiorari for Fitisemanu v. U.S.,[5] and Justice Gorsuch missed the moment he was hoping for.

Mental incompetence and the death penalty has been the topic of heavy discussion for decades. One of the most central conflicts has been what the standard is for incompetence that bars the use of the death penalty as a punishment. In Ford v. Wainwright, Justice Powell’s concurrence laid out a popular standard where an individual must be (1) unaware of the punishment they are about to suffer and (2) why they are to suffer it.[1]

In 2018, the Young Americans for Freedom (hereinafter “YAF") at the University of Florida and two of its members sued the University of Florida’s trustees and other administrators under 41 U.S.C. § 2983.[1] YAF alleged—among other things—a deprivation of its First Amendment rights under caselaw requiring viewpoint neutrality.[2] The allegation centered around the University of Florida Student Government’s allocation process.[3] The process gave student groups the opportunity to request funding from a $1 million pool, which was part of the over $20 million Student Government budget obtained through mandatory student fees.[4]

A minor league baseball player drafted outside of the first three rounds of the annual First-Year Player Draft has at best, a 35% chance of making it to the major leagues.[1] During the years in which a player must wade through the muck of minor league baseball, many are only compensated around $400 a week.[2] Although minor leaguers must attend mandatory spring training sessions, off-season workouts, and instructional leagues, these players are only paid during the active months of their respective leagues.[3] At most, these seasons span 5 months.[4] Thus, minor leaguers are often left making less than the federal poverty threshold.[5]

On September 14th, 2022, Patagonia’s 83-year-old founder Yvon Chouinard announced he and his family would be giving away their 100% ownership of the company, valued at around $3 billion dollars.[1] This environmentally-centered effort resulted in the Chouinard family being celebrated as one of the most charitable families in the country.[2] Amidst this praise, however, many have noticed that while the Chouinard’s “gave away” the company, they received considerable value in return.

In 2022, the Supreme Court of the United States decided West Virginia v. EPA.[1] In any other Supreme Court term, West Virginia may have been considered the blockbuster,[2] but in a term that issued landmark decisions on abortion,[3] gun ownership,[4] and religious expression,[5] West Virginia was just one case among a field of other headline grabbers.[6] Nevertheless, West Virginia’s holding and analysis of the Clean Air Act contributes to the continued weakening of a test that has been at the heart of Administrative Law by supplanting it with an obscure test known as the “Major Questions Doctrine.”[7]

In May of 2022, Politico published a leaked draft of the Supreme Court’s decision in the case Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, in which the Court overturned landmark abortion case Roe v. Wade.[1] In the weeks following the leak, Texas Governor Greg Abbott stated that in the wake of overturning Roe, the Court should reexamine and similarly overrule Plyler v. Doe, a landmark Supreme Court case from 1982 which provided undocumented children the right to attend public schools.[2] Abbott later elaborated at a campaign event, explaining that he believed the case should be overturned due to increasing costs that undocumented students have supposedly placed on the state of Texas in recent years.[3]

Healthcare fraud and abuse poses problems for both patients and payers.[1] Circuit Courts are split as to whether a difference in expert medical opinion that certain health services are medically necessary—and therefore payable by the government—is sufficient to establish that the claim for services provided is false or fraudulent under the False Claims Act (FCA).[2] This split stems from the interpretation of “falsity” under the Act.[3] The Supreme Court should adopt the Eleventh Circuit’s “objective falsity” standard in which a clinical judgment cannot be deemed “false” when there is merely a reasonable disagreement between medical experts as to the accuracy of that conclusion.[4] In contrast, the leading case for the opposing view is the Third Circuit’s decision in United States ex rel. Druding v. Druding (2020).[5] It found that the difference in opinion did create a “genuine dispute of material fact as to falsity.”[6]

COVID-19 spiraled into not only a healthcare crisis, but a financial one for both individuals and businesses across the nation. Parties that entered into contracts before COVID-19 were confronted by these hardships. Parties with contractual obligations that were suddenly challenged by lockdowns and a global tragedy steered us into an ideal problem; whether COVID-19 regulations excused performance.

As a society, we deem healthcare decisions as some of the most private and personal information one has. We accept that it is up to the discretion of the individual and their acting physician to create a medical plan best suited for their needs. It’s easy to support these decisions knowing that the individual is doing what is best for them in light of informed medical advice, but once this private decision results in the phrase, “physician-assisted suicide” heads start to turn. Why is that? Each process essentially involves the private decision of making a medical treatment plan with your doctor. It is society’s perception of suicide, paired with the logical longstanding belief that your doctors are here to save your life, not take it away, that closes the door on the conversation. There is no fundamental right to Physician-Assisted Suicide (PAS), but when applied to certain situations, doesn’t this interfere with one’s right to die with dignity, or the right to choose to refuse certain medical treatments?[1] Justice Ginsberg thought so.[2]