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.