Major League Baseball’s Major Labor Boondoggle: Rethinking Salary Arbitration (Print Vol. 114 Issue 4)
University of Kentucky J. David Rosenberg College of Law Student, Matthew W. Givens, details the inadequacies of the current MLB salary arbitration system and pitches alternative approaches, such as utilizing advanced statistics or independent baseball writers, to accurately determine player compensation.
The Separation of Election Contest Powers (Print Vol. 114 Issue 4)
University of Kentucky J. David Rosenberg College of Law Student, Casey Parker-Bell, proposes a three-tier election contest system that incorporates the State Board of Elections and the Kentucky Supreme Court to mitigate partisan influence by the General Assembly.
Kentucky’s Alford Predicament: The Case for Curbing Qualified Guilty Pleas in the Commonwealth (Print Vol. 114 Issue 4)
University of Kentucky J. David Rosenberg College of Law Student, Ben Whatley, argues that Alford pleas frustrate the administration of justice and erode public confidence, advocating for Kentucky prosecutors to actively limit their use.
Inside the Courts: Structure, Composition, and Working Methods of the Austrian Constitutional Court and the United States Supreme Court Compared
Authors Tobias Huber and Steven G. Dabney, Jr., highlight the distinct differences in judicial tenure, court calendars, and dissenting opinions between two of the world's highest courts, ultimately arguing that the Austrian model's simple constitutional framework makes it far more adaptable for modern emerging democracies than the U.S. system.
A Sherbert Colored Lens: Apache Stronghold and the Uphill Battle for The Recognition of a Substantial Burden For Indigenous Plaintiffs (Print Vol. 114 Issue 3)
University of Kentucky J. David Rosenberg College of Law Student, Emma P. Collins, argues for a return to the Sherbert balancing test for free exercise claims in response to the burden Indigenous religions face in trying to protect their constitutional right to freely exercise their religion.
Enforcement Mechanisms for Supreme Court Ethics Codes: Applying State Models to SCOTUS (Print Vol. 114 Issue 3)
University of Kentucky J. David Rosenberg College of Law Student, Katherine Nipper, proposes an enforcement mechanism for the Supreme Court of the United States’ Code of Conduct, and uses state models as a basis for the proposal.
Hope in the Holler: How Eminent Domain Can Bring Economic Justice To Central Appalachia (Print Vol. 114 Issue 3)
University of Kentucky J. David Rosenberg College of Law Student, Matthew B. Chaney, argues that the use of eminent domain under the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause provides a viable legal mechanism for revitalizing Central Appalachia. The note proposes that through eminent domain, state and local governments should condemn underutilized land in order to promote public-oriented redevelopment and address longstanding economic injustice in the region.
Much Ado About Nothing: The Effect of the “Nullity Rule” on Purported Pro Se Litigants in Federal Court (Print Vol. 114 Issue 2)
University of Kentucky J. David Rosenberg College of Law student, John T. Lambert, calls for abolition of the nullity rule after examining the circuit split between the Eighth Circuit in Jones ex rel. Jones v. Correctional Medical Services and the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Ireiele v. Griffin.
Consumer Bankruptcy: A “Gem” of the Legal Profession but a Diamond in the Rough (Print Vol. 114 Issue 2)
University of Kentucky J. David Rosenberg College of Law student, Tori Harris, proposes a new––less expensive and more streamlined––subchapter designed to be effective for those with low income or small debts.
Justice on a Budget: The $5,000 Charitable Bail Cap in “Safer” Kentucky
University of Kentucky J. David Rosenberg College of Law student, Amanda Lindsey’s Note argues that the Safer Kentucky Act's $5,000 charitable bail cap is a regressive policy that undermines pretrial justice. The piece highlights profound racial and economic disparities within the state's pretrial system, noting that Black Kentuckians are incarcerated at nearly three times the rate of white residents. Lindsey contends that charitable bail organizations provide a vital corrective to these inequities by maintaining court appearance rates above 90% and preventing wealth-based detention. To remedy these systemic failures, the Note argues that Kentucky must repeal the charitable bail cap and implement broader structural reforms. By adopting equitable risk assessment models like the CPAT-R and looking to successful bail reforms in Illinois and New Jersey, Kentucky can align its pretrial policies with justice and efficiency rather than wealth.
National Security vs. Constitutional Transparency: Reassessing the Experience and Logic Test
At the intersection of national security and the First Amendment, Washburn's Note argues that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) must abandon its reliance on "secret law." Driven by the legacy of the Snowden leaks and the USA Freedom Act's lingering transparency gaps, this piece contends that the FISC’s continued withholding of pre-2015 surveillance authorizations undermines the separation of powers. Washburn asserts that by claiming administrative exceptionalism, the FISC embeds an unreviewable system of executive power into the legal framework. To remedy this, the Note proposes integrating the "compelling need for secrecy" standard into the First Amendment's "experience and logic" test. By requiring particularized, evidence-based proof of harm, mandating independent judicial review instead of unilateral executive control, and instituting periodic reassessments of classified opinions, Washburn argues the judiciary can ensure transparency remains the default rule without compromising legitimate national security needs.
Restricting Home-Cooked Meals: An Analysis of Kentucky's Cottage Food Laws
Gregory’s Note argues that Kentucky must substantially reform its bifurcated cottage food regulatory framework to unlock the full economic, environmental, and public health benefits of local food production. Situating the issue within pandemic-era supply chain disruptions and rising food insecurity, the piece contends that Kentucky’s current system—distinguishing between home-based processors and home-based microprocessors—imposes unnecessary product limitations, sales restrictions, and certification burdens that suppress local enterprise without meaningfully advancing food safety. Gregory argues that the state’s narrow list of approved foods, direct-to-consumer constraints, annual certification requirements, and $60,000 sales cap collectively undermine food security, rural economic development, and environmental sustainability. To remedy these shortcomings, the Note proposes a series of targeted reforms: expanding the range of permissible foods (including shelf-stable, acidified, refrigerated, and fermented products), broadening permissible sales channels to include restaurants, schools, and online platforms, eliminating the sales cap, and easing recurring certification costs. By recalibrating its regulatory approach to better balance safety with economic freedom, Kentucky can strengthen local food systems and align its cottage food laws with contemporary economic and public health realities.
The Supreme Court's Goldilocks: Why the Major Questions Doctrine Is the Ideal Compromise Between Two Unattractive Extremes (Print Vol. 114 Issue 1)
University of Kentucky J. David Rosenberg College of Law student, Bradley Simpson, argues that the Major Questions Doctrine, notwithstanding its interpretive flaws, strikes an appealing balance between two extremes: an administrative state incapable of acting versus an administrative state left unchecked.
Exposing Car Dealerships’ Final Hidden Sales Con: A Call for the Disclosure of Interest Rate Markups When “Helping” Buyers with Indirect Financing (Print Vol. 114 Issue 1)
University of Kentucky J. David Rosenberg College of Law student, John Simms, argues that car dealerships routinely and lawfully exploit consumers by secretly marking up interest rates in indirect auto financing, a practice that remains undisclosed despite imposing significant financial harm—especially on subprime and marginalized borrowers. It concludes that existing legal justifications for nondisclosure are outdated and flawed, and calls for regulatory reform requiring dealers to disclose interest rate markups to restore transparency, bargaining power, and consumer protection.
Alone in the Storm: Trump's Plans to Dismantle Federal Disaster Response Will Leave Vulnerable States Behind the Federal Preparedness and Response Elimination Agenda
Helmuth’s piece argues that the Trump Administration’s proposed dismantling of FEMA and retreat from federal disaster preparedness represents a fundamental misreading of the causes of past emergency management failures. By shifting responsibility for disaster response and mitigation onto the states through executive action and funding cuts, the administration threatens to undermine economies of scale, institutional expertise, and cooperative federalism that have long defined effective disaster response. Because Kentucky is both resource-constrained and among the most disaster-prone states in the nation, Helmuth contends that these policies would leave the Commonwealth uniquely vulnerable to increasingly frequent and severe climate-driven disasters, exposing the dangers of replacing federal coordination with fragmented, state-level systems.
From a Reactive to a Proactive FDA Risk Assessment in Tampon Regulation
Whitridge’s piece argues that the Food and Drug Administration must adopt a proactive regulatory framework for menstrual tampons in light of emerging evidence of heavy-metal contamination. Prompted by a recent UC-Berkeley study detecting lead and other metals in widely used tampon brands, the Note contends that the FDA’s current § 510(k) “substantial equivalence” pathway is ill-suited for identifying modern chemical risks. Whitridge argues that tampons’ classification as Class II medical devices, combined with outdated guidance, leaves consumers vulnerable to untested contaminants. To remedy this gap, the piece urges the adoption of a forward-looking regulatory scheme—one that mandates routine testing, disclosure, and comprehensive risk assessments—to better safeguard public health and align FDA oversight with contemporary scientific realities.
Icing on the Yellow Cake: The Future of Small Modular Reactors in Kentucky
Schaeffer’s piece argues that Kentucky should adopt a statutory scheme to facilitate the development of small modular reactors (SMRs) similar to the one recently promulgated by the Virginia legislature. SMRs are advanced nuclear fission reactors that are smaller than traditional nuclear power plants. Their scale and modular nature makes them especially optimal for efficiency. With the proliferation of Kentucky's industrial sector, SMRs will play a crucial role in providing cost-effective electricity which will maximize Kentucky's economic output.