Prepare for the Worst: a Constitutional Examination of Public School Emergency Preparation Procedures
Following the turn of the century and the shooting at Columbine High School in 1999, the United States began implementing “active shooter drills.” According to the New York State Education Department, an active shooter drill, or a “lockdown” drill, is defined as the “essential steps necessary to lockdown in an emergency (clear the hallway, lock/barricade doors, hide from view and remain silent until law enforcement gives the ‘all clear’).” As more tragic events unfolded, lockdown drills rapidly expanded. By 2016, approximately ninety-five percent of public schools reported drilling students on lockdown procedures, making these exercises a routine part of the American educational experience. While lockdown drills have long been conducted, some districts have shifted toward increasingly hyper-realistic active shooter simulations which involve artificial gunfire, victims, blood, and more intense sensory elements designed to replicate an authentic school shooting.
Read More
Sheds Without End: New York City’s Scaffolding Problem and the Fifth Amendment
Stroll the streets of New York City, and chances are, whether the fact has dawned on you or not, you will pass beneath a few—perhaps even 8,500—narrow chutes of metal poles and planking that dot the city’s environs. Otherwise known as sidewalk sheds, or most famously scaffolding, these structures are entrenched in the city’s collective identity every bit as much as hotdog vendors, dollar slice pizzas, or corner bodegas. As of late, property owners throughout the city have been beset by encroaching scaffolding, some of which have persisted for upwards of a decade, depriving neighboring owners of the use and enjoyment of their property and the revenues their businesses would otherwise generate.
Read More
The Listener’s First Amendment: Chatbot Output, Coverage, and the Limits of Liability
When fourteen-year-old Sewell Setzer III took his own life after months of intimate, sexualized exchanges with a companion chatbot, the firm that built it immediately reached for the First Amendment. Character Technologies argued that its users had a First Amendment right to receive what the chatbot produced, and that the precedent shielding books, films, and video games from tort liability should shield a large language model (LLM) as well. Judge Anne Conway denied the motion. She accepted that Character Technologies could assert the First Amendment rights of its users, yet she was “not prepared to hold that Character A.I.’s output is speech” at this stage of the case. [1] The company thus had standing to assert a right to receive speech the court would not yet call speech.
Read More
Why AI-Generated Music Deserves the Same Copyright Rules as Everyone Else
In 2019, a jury decided that Katy Perry owed 2.8 million dollars for a sequence of eight descending notes on a minor scale. The notes formed an ostinato, a short repeating line of notes, in her hit, “Dark Horse,” and the rapper Flame claimed that she took them from his song, “Joyful Noise.” Three years later, the Ninth Circuit threw the verdict out in Gray v. Hudson, stating that the pattern was made entirely of commonplace musical elements that no one can own.[1] The court warned that giving this protection to something as simple as that ostinato could essentially create a precedent of handing one artist a monopoly over a basic building block of music itself. Today, those same eight notes of the ostinato can create a piece of music from a simple text prompt. New AI tools like Suno and Udio generate full songs in minutes, trained on more music than any person could hear in a lifetime. These rapid developments have already pulled such companies into federal court; sooner or later, a court will once again have to refine how musical copyright infringement exists in the context of AI.
Read More
Treating Victims, Not Offenders: The Case for Replicating Los Angeles County’s STAR Court Nationwide
Every year, tens of thousands of children in the United States become victims of commercial sex exploitation (CSE). Yet depending on where they live, these children may be treated very differently by the justice system. Some states divert them into specialized programs designed to promote healing and reintegration into society, while others prosecute them as juvenile offenders. This disparity raises an important question: should a child’s access to justice depend on where they live? Specialized courtrooms such as Los Angeles County’s Succeeding Through Achievement and Resilience (STAR) Court, created to address this disparity, show that these children can be treated as victims rather than offenders. However, replicating this success nationwide demands more than simply copying its court model. That is, states must first enact strong safe harbor protections, specifically immunity paired with mandatory referral, and then commit the sustained funding and institutional coordination needed to sustain programs like this.
Read More
When Patients Are Not Believed: Diagnostic Delay and the Limits of American Tort Law
In 2018, twenty-four-year-old Hannah Catton had symptoms of bloating, extreme abdominal pain, multiple urinary tract infections, significant fatigue, and irregular menstrual cycles. For three years, she went to numerous physicians across Australia and the United Kingdom. Every doctor sent her away, claiming the symptoms were due to stress or hormonal changes. After years of terrible and worsening pain, an ovarian tumor the size of a volleyball was discovered that needed immediate surgery. Catton felt she “knew something was wrong” way before any doctor was ready to believe her.
Read More
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
