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.

Environmental, Social, and Governance (“ESG”) principles were forged in the 2004 UN Global Compact Report titled “Who Cares Wins: Connecting Financial Markets to a Changing World.”[1] This report served as a promotional piece for the incorporation of ESG criteria into the investment process and identified various strategies for investors, fiduciaries, and market regulators. Within the report, a key assertion is:

“Both investors and asset managers should develop and communicate proxy voting strategies on ESG issues as this will support analysts and managers in producing relevant research and services.”[2]

During and in the years following the COVID-19 pandemic, social media and the internet were a vital part of the daily lives of Americans. It is where we went to learn more about what was going on around us, and connect with others in unprecedented times. The increase in use also lead to an increase in misinformation, and of the federal government’s actions to stop its spread. In this blog, KLJ Vol. 112 Staff Editor Abigail Vicars discusses Biden v. Missouri, and its implications as case law on this topic continues to develop.

Pursuant to the Supreme Court’s ruling in National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Alston, NCAA student athletes now have the ability to profit off of their name, image, and likeness without losing their collegiate eligibility. However, the restrictions on accepting prize money earned in professional competitions remain in place. In this blog, KLJ Vol. 112 Staff Editor Tate Craft argues that the Court’s holding in Alston may also destabilized the NCAA’s amateurism rules, allowing student athletes to accept performance payouts earned in professional competitions.

Imagine that you are in the business of commercial real estate. You own a number of office buildings that you lease to businesses. This is normally profitable, but declining property values, the rise of remote work, and economic uncertainty have cut into your profits.[1] Worse, imagine now that a state regulator brings a consumer protection lawsuit against one of your largest tenants.[2]  The state regulator hauls your tenant in front of a judge. The lawyers for the state make a motion for court to place the tenant’s business in a receivership,[3] arguing that the appointment of a receiver is the only way to protect the tenant’s assets which could later be used to pay consumer damages and state penalties. Alternatively, the court could — on its own motion — appoint a receiver if the “facts justify the appointment and to preserve and protect property in litigation.”[4]

On January 9, 2024, the same day the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) published the Final Rule for Employee or Independent Contractor Classification under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”),[1] the DOL’s Wage and Hour Division announced their recovery of over $127,000 in wages from Lucero Aerospace Staffing Solutions, LLC for misclassifying workers as independent contractors.[2] The aviation maintenance workers were paid “straight-time rates for all hours” and were not paid the “half-time rate required” for overtime.[3] Investigators further reported that the Alabama staffing agency also violated the FLSA by failing to pay at least one worker minimum wage.[4]

A foundational point of the United States criminal justice system is the right to assistance of counsel in all criminal prosecutions.[1] In 1964, the Criminal Justice Act created a system for appointing attorneys and paying them for their work.[2]  For federal prosecutions, there are three systems in place for public defense: federal public defender agencies, community defender organizations, and Criminal Justice Act (CJA) panels.[3] Federal public defenders are federal government employees, with the chief defender being appointed to a four year term by the court of appeals in the relevant district.[4] Community defender organizations are non-profit organizations incorporated by state statute and receive grants from the federal government.[5] The majority of federal districts use these two systems. 

In October 2023, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) ruled that certain models of the Apple Watch infringed on patents held by the Masimo.[1] Masimo Corp., a global medical technology company, alleged that “Apple infringed its patent for a blood oxygen sensor that can read someone’s pulse.”[2] As a result of their ruling, the commission implemented an import ban on the allegedly infringing watches on Dec. 26, but Apple fought back on this temporary ban.[3] Apple “won a temporary reprieve from a federal appeals court . . . , two months after the US International Trade Commission ruled the smartwatches infringed patents held by medical-device maker Masimo Corp.—and one day after the device’s US sales halted.”[4] This allowed the Apple Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2 to be sold in Apple’s stores temporarily.[5] Apple also “filed an emergency request to pause enforcement of the ITC’s ban until its motion for a full stay pending appeal is resolved.”[6]

On December 20, 2023, LexisNexis announced that after a brief test period with over 450 law school librarians, its generative artificial intelligence (“AI”) platform, Lexis+ AI, would be available to second- and third-year law students for immediate use.[1] According to LexisNexis, 78% of law school faculty reportedly plan to teach students to use generative AI tools in legal scholarship.[2] With the Lexis+ AI tool, student users can choose from two functions: “Ask a legal question” or “Generate a draft.”[3] There is no doubt that Lexis+ AI and other similar generative AI platforms will continue to transform today’s legal landscape, and such innovative technology certainly give rise to many important considerations, both predictable and unforeseen. In response to these technological developments, several jurisdictions have implemented new rules concerning the submission of AI-prepared materials.[4] Kentucky is not one of them.