Home
Welcome to the Kentucky Law Journal webpage. KLJ is the tenth oldest continually-published law review in the nation. If you would like to learn more about us, please visit the links below.
Online Originals
Blogs
Student-Written Blog Posts
In an opinion piece for the New York Times, the CEO of Palantir Technologies analogized the advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AI) to the creation of nuclear weapons stating: “We have now arrived at a similar crossroad in the science of computing, a crossroad that connects engineering and ethics, where we will again have to choose whether to proceed with the development of a technology whose power and potential we do not yet fully apprehend.”[1]
Just under twelve years ago, the Supreme Court handed down a decision in Arizona v. United States[1] that would become the preeminent case on federal preemption of state law.[2] On March 18th, 2024, the Supreme Court entered an order that, on its face, seemed to virtually eviscerate Arizona without a written opinion of the Court.[3]
The goal to crack down on crime has stood as a foundational principle guiding the evolution of legal frameworks and societal norms across the world, and to effectuate this goal, states often pass new criminal laws. However, these new criminal laws are often met with criticism. Lawmakers in the Commonwealth have recently proposed a legislative package known as the “Safer Kentucky Act,” aiming to address crime and public safety in the state.[1] The legislation has moved to the Governor’s desk as it recently passed the House on March 28, 2024.[2] Led by Representatives Jason Nemes and Jared Bauman, the Act introduces a variety of measures including the reinstatement of Kentucky’s "Three Strikes Law," heightened penalties for substance-related offenses, mandatory sentencing provisions, and a ban on homeless behavior.[3] While advocates tout the Act as a crucial step towards enhancing safety within the Commonwealth, critics argue that its punitive approach may exacerbate existing issues within Kentucky’s justice system.[4]
Following the 2022 Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization in which the court held that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion,[1] some states have enacted their own legislation regulating one’s ability to access abortion procedures. Recently, these controversial abortion laws have given rise to confusion surrounding regulation of the unborn as it relates to alternative fertilization procedures such as In Vitro Fertilization.[2]
In 2021 the Sixth Circuit became one of the first circuit courts to navigate the waters of free expression and gender identity with its keystone decision, Meriwether v. Hartop.[1] Here, the Court upheld the speech rights of a philosophy professor at Shawnee State University who was charged with misconduct after refusing to use the preferred pronouns of a student in his class.
Far removed from the days of Moses and the reeds,[1] most adoptions today are open adoptions.[2] The particularities of open adoption agreements vary according to their individual terms but frequently include post-adoption visitation between the birth parent(s) and child.[3] Because Kentucky law is silent regarding the enforceability of open adoption agreements, these agreements are in effect unenforceable.[4] It is time for Kentucky’s laws to reflect what is known and practiced by other states[5] — that closed adoption no longer fulfills its intended purposes, and open adoption agreements often serve the best interests of the child, adoptive parents, and birth parents.