Off the Clock, Not Off the Hook: Public Employees, Private Speech, & the Limits of the Pickering Test
The First Amendment to the Constitution declares that “Congress shall make no law…prohibiting the free exercise…or abridging the freedom of speech”. [1] Although this clause generally protects regular citizens’ and everyday workers’ right to free speech, the rights of those employed by the government are more limited. There has been a long-standing tension between protecting First Amendment rights for public employees and the need for government employers to manage workplace disruptions. This struggle has been significantly evident in the courts as judges attempt to balance government interests with public employees’ civil rights. On one hand, officials recognize the necessity of a government workplace that refrains from conflicts. However, they also acknowledge the unique and essential role public employees play in serving as an unofficial check on the government, uncovering misconduct within the government, and redressing their grievances. [2].
Read More
The Legal Case Against the EPA’s Rescission of the Endangerment Finding
According to EPA statistics, the U.S. vehicle sector produces enough emissions annually that, if it were a separate country, it would be the fifth-largest source of greenhouse gases in the world. [1] For nearly two decades, the EPA’s 2009 Endangerment Finding has served as the legal and scientific foundation for regulating these emissions through the Clean Air Act. However, under the second Trump Administration, the agency has recently reversed course, rescinding the Endangerment Finding, directly contradicting its own data, and allowing these emissions to continue unchecked. In light of this stark departure from the scientific consensus and past regulatory practice, this article will evaluate the merits of the legal reasoning the EPA used to rescind the Endangerment Finding. It argues that the EPA’s final rule raises serious questions about consistency with statutory text in the Clean Air Act, divergence from established legal precedent, and disregard for scientific evidence supporting greenhouse gas regulations. Moreover, if the EPA rule is brought to the Supreme Court, the rescission would likely face significant legal challenges, even against the current conservative-majority Court.
Read More
When Protection Becomes Erasure: How Black Voters Matter v. Byrd Undermines Minority Representation
In modern America, democracy can be drawn on a map. The universal right to vote means little if the power of that vote can be engineered away. [1] In Black Voters Matter Capacity Building Institute v. Byrd (2025), the Florida Supreme Court upheld a congressional map that eliminated a Black-performing district, effectively subordinating Florida's non-diminishment clause to the Equal Protections Clause. [1] While the Equal Protection Clause prohibits racial classifications without sufficient justification satisfying strict scrutiny, the Fair Districts Amendment imposes an obligation to protect minority voters’ ability to elect candidates of their choice. [2] By treating these two clauses as incompatible, the Florida Supreme Court has effectively turned a protective measure into a nullity.
Read More
Private University Tax-Exemption: Pathways for Revocation of 501(c)3 Status
In recent years, politicians across the political spectrum have brought the topic of private university tax-exemption into national discourse. In 2023, then-New York State Assemblymember Zohran Mamdani proposed the REPAIR Act, aiming to revoke the 501(c)3 statuses of Columbia University and New York University which exempts them from federal income and state property taxes due to their designation as charitable organizations, on grounds of “egregious property accumulation.” [1] More recently, President Donald Trump called for the revocation of the tax-exempt status of Harvard University for alleged antisemitic policy. [2] In June, the Treasury Department considered a blanket rule change to remove tax-exemption from universities that consider race in admissions. [3] In the cases where figures or entities challenged private university 501(c)3 status through action beyond mere words, they—namely Mamdani and the Treasury—only considered the strategy of changing the tax law itself. By comparison, little attention has been paid to whether legal avenues exist for revoking 501(c)3 status through the courts. While there may be practical barriers to litigation, several legal avenues for revocation have been affirmed by the courts and are applicable to the contemporary context of elite private universities.
Read More
Energy, Environment, and Economics: The Legal Case for the EU’s Emissions Trading System II
On March 18, 2026, 10 European Union (EU) Member States sent a letter to the European Commission, labeling the bloc’s carbon regulation policy an “existential risk” to industrial sectors and calling for immediate reform. [1] The letter comes amid the broadening controversy over the expansion of the EU’s carbon mitigation programs. Under the European Climate Law, the EU has committed to collective greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions, instituting a variety of widely successful economic-based policy measures to support its objectives. Now, the EU is endeavoring to expand the system with the Emissions Trading System (ETS2), a cap-and-trade regulatory framework that seeks to cover an industry previously unaccounted for: fuel supply. According to a report released by the European Commission, “emission reductions in those sectors have been insufficient to put the EU on a firm path towards its 2050 climate neutrality goal” and “The ETS2 cap will be set to bring emissions down by 42% by 2030.” [2] The program is anticipated to become fully operational in 2028, yet reporting and monitoring of the relevant sectors have already commenced. [3]
Read More
An Analysis of Deference in the Court of Arbitration for Sport
On January 2, 2026, after the Italian Sports Federation (FISG) published its list of selected athletes for the Milano Cortina Olympic Winter Games, Italian curler Angela Romei challenged her omission from the Italian women’s team. In response, the Ad Hoc Division of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), an arbitration tribunal that resolves disputes in international sports, dismissed her application on February 8, 2026. The sole arbitrator, who wields authority to make a final decision, explained how national sports federations have full prerogative in selecting athletes unless decisions are deemed “arbitrary, unreasonable, or in bad faith,” which Romei failed to provide compelling evidence for. [1] Due to the CAS’s highly deferential standard of review, athletes’ ability to successfully challenge disputes regarding misappropriations in selection criteria or violations of due process becomes limited, which negatively affects the legal protection of athletes.
Read More
How the Applicant for Admission’s Label Acts as a Tool to Erode Undocumented Immigrant Protections
Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) presence in the U.S. has increased, most recently with officers being deployed to airports in major cities to support airport security operations. With ICE officers in the headlines as a result of this heightened presence, there has been increasing attention on immigration detention centers and the constitutionality of their policies and treatment of non-citizens.
Read More
The Suspendable Citizen: Citizenship and Political Membership in Hungary’s Fifteenth Amendment
Picture two people of Hungarian descent. The first lives in Romania; they have never resided within Hungary’s current territorial boundaries, yet they speak Hungarian, identify culturally as Hungarian, and apply for citizenship under the 2010 “simplified naturalization” regime. The provision allows them to secure citizenship on the basis of ethnic identification and states, “a non-Hungarian citizen whose ascendant was a Hungarian citizen or who can substantiate being of Hungarian origin may be naturalized on preferential terms, if they prove that they are sufficiently proficient in the Hungarian language.” The Hungarian state welcomes her into the political community.
Read More
Prediction Markets and the Limits of Federal Power
On election night in November 2025, the culmination of months of trading, the results were not just reported—they were traded. On platforms such as Kalshi and Polymarket, users bought and sold “event contracts” on whether a candidate would win, with prices shifting in real time as new information came in. In the New Jersey governor’s race, Kalshi’s market indicated that Mikie Sherrill would win more than thirty minutes before any major news outlet called the race. As the result became clearer, contracts that had been trading at steep discounts moved rapidly toward full value, tracking the implied probability of the outcome as it changed. [1] What looked like a new form of civic participation also raised a classification problem under the Commodity Exchange Act. More fundamentally, it raises a question of federalism. Absent a clear statement from Congress, should federal derivatives law be read to displace state and tribal authority over gambling?
Read More
