Written by Samantha Farpour, L’26 Introduction One-in-eight, or about 13%, of American adults have used a GLP-1 receptor agonist drug (GLP-1 RA), with higher percentages of younger adults using the drugs primarily for weight loss as compared to adults ages sixty-five years and older.[1] The prevalence of GLP-1 RAs is such that Jan Hatzius, chief economist at Goldman Sachs, predicted a 1% boost  (amounting to several … Continue reading Informed or Influenced?: An Overview of the GLP-1 Receptor Agonist MDL and Why the Excessive Direct to Consumer Advertising of These Drugs May Warrant An Exception to the Learned Intermediary Doctrine

Written by Libby Larro, L’26 Despite the Supreme Court precedent and overwhelming scientific evidence that tells us that children are fundamentally different from adults, our criminal legal system continues to treat children prosecuted for sexual offenses as adults. This methodology causes immense harm to these children and does little to restore communal relationships and heal victims. One of the most harmful consequences juvenile offenders face … Continue reading A New Kind of Death Penalty: Sex Offender Registries and Juvenile Offenders

Written by Matt Wright, L’26 Introduction The lack of a uniform state-wide policy on whether cell phones and other portable electronic devices may be allowed in courthouses has created an access to justice issue in Virginia courthouses. Policies vary from courthouse to courthouse, are not consistently communicated to the general public, and frequently restrict cell phone access, which may be necessary for some courthouse visitors. … Continue reading Calling for Clarity: Cell Phone Access in Virginia Courthouses

Written by Emma McGovern, L’26 INTRODUCTION The phrase “Driving While Black” is commonly used to describe racial profiling of Black drivers and passengers by police officers.[1] As a small datapoint, in 2021, 12.5% of drivers stopped in California were perceived to be Black even though Black people only make up 5.4% of the state’s population.[2] Though these policies and implicit biases that result in racial … Continue reading How the Supreme Court Aided and Abetted Racial Profiling

Written by Kadhapriya Lindo, L’26 The broad understanding of litigation abuse is best captured in the term “frivolous litigation.” Frivolous suits are cases brought by a plaintiff, not with the explicit hope of winning the case, but “solely in order to put the defendant to the burden” of defending themselves.[1] These are “legally or factually baseless suit[s],” or  suits “brought to harass or oppress.”[2] These … Continue reading Puppet Courts: Frivolous Litigation as a Tool of Domestic Violence

Written by Joe Meiners, L’26 Introduction Tennessee Senate Bill 1 (SB 1) bans all medical treatments intended to allow “a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s sex.”[1] Tennessee is one of twenty-six states that have enacted laws that limit or prohibit the use of “gender-affirming care” for minors.[2] Gender-affirming care is a term used to encompass a … Continue reading U.S. v. Skrmetti: The Case that May Define the Future of Legal Restrictions on Gender-Affirming Care for Minors

Written by Shawn Mattox, L’26 “The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution.”[2] “This independence of the judges is equally requisite to guard the Constitution and the rights of individuals from the effects of those ill humors.”[3] These words allude to one of the most important elements of a well-functioning democracy—the judicial power to review cases independently of … Continue reading Impartial Justice: Money in Judicial Electoral Campaigns and the Impacts on the Independence of State Courts

Written by Brooke Hoppe, L’26      In its landmark case, Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court created a procedural prophylactic to protect against compelled self-incriminating statements in violation of the Fifth Amendment.[1] These aptly called “Miranda warnings” (or their functional equivalent) are required before statements “stemming from the custodial interrogation of the defendant” can be used against the defendant in court.[2] These warnings ensure that … Continue reading The Castle Under Siege: Home Interrogations and the Erosion of 5th Amendment Protections