Artificial intelligence (AI) has been growing rather rapidly in recent years. Especially now with the release of Chat GPT, AI has been the center of many conversations, and has become a controversial issue in many different professions as to whether it should be used and if it should be regulated. There is a large focus on the effects it will have on education. With easy access to AI resources, many students can get out of doing assignments by searching for the answer using an AI machine, such as Chat GPT, without doing any of their own work. AI has also become sophisticated enough that it can become difficult to differentiate between human work and what is created by a machine, which brings additional challenges to the field of education. Technological advancements will never stop, but should they be regulated? A discussion of AI should also be had in respect to different fields, including the legal field.

On April 4, 2023, former President Donald Trump was charged with 34 felony counts of falsifying New York business records, committed in order to undermine the integrity of the 2016 presidential election. The charges are related to a series of hush-money payments Trump paid to Stormy Daniels, a second woman who claimed to have had an affair with him, and his former doorman, which he disguised as reimbursements paid to his former attorney, Michael Cohen. Although falsifying business records is traditionally a misdemeanor in New York State, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has charged Trump with Class E felonies because, he argues, their payments were central to a larger scheme to avoid negative press and influence the outcome of the 2016 Election.

Advancements in artificial intelligence have contributed toward some of the most significant technological progress made in the 21st century. The rise of AI has transformed the way people live, from aiding transportation to other areas including education, healthcare, and even music in countries all over the world. However, AI’s progress has also led to numerous concerns regarding intellectual property infringement laws, along with copyright and defamation laws.

One popular and contentious AI-driven technology is ChatGPT, an AI language model that was released in November of 2022. ChatGPT provides users with a wide range of information, from self-generated music lyrics to explanations of mathematical concepts, after taking instructions and questions from users. Just two months after its release, ChatGPT boasted over 200 million users worldwide. Amidst the growing popularity of ChatGPT, questions regarding intellectual property laws have arisen. ChatGPT does not provide citations on the information it presents to users, which can be a source of problems. However, Michael Kelber, co-chair of law firm Neal Gerber Eisenberg, states that lack of citations may take away from credibility on a research standpoint, but is not detrimental in other standpoints as “[f]rom an intellectual property [IP] perspective, if the source material is not specifically quoted, there would be no requirement to include citations”.

Over 40 years ago, Apple designed its first computer, known as the Apple I. Since then, rapid evolution in technology has hastened advancements in the company’s smart devices, wireless communication, and location tracking services. One of Apple’s more recent technologies, the Apple AirTag, was released nearly 2 years ago in the Spring of 2021.

The Apple Airtag is a tracking device that is commonly attached to backpacks and keychains. However, the AirTag’s pocket-sized structure allows it to be attached onto inconspicuous places including purses, bikes, and even car license plates. The AirTag works by sending out a Bluetooth signal that is received by nearby devices that are registered under Apple's extensive “Find My” network. Through using the “Find My” app, users are subsequently able to view the location of the tracker. Starting at just $29, the AirTag provides an affordable way to track items, but the convenience of the AirTag has also led to concerns regarding stalking and illegal tracking of individuals.

The talk of the town to close out the year has been none other than Elon Musk’s coup of Twitter. The billionaire has been busy, to say the least, since taking over the social media platform three days ahead of Halloween. Before the controversy over the eight-dollar plan for blue verification checkmarks even had time to resolve itself, the app was already seeing millions of tearful “last tweets” as employees were dismissed in such large quantities that it was difficult to see how the platform would continue operating. After gutting the child safety team, removing the app’s COVID-19 misinformation policy, and reinstating former president Donald Trump’s account as the result of a poll (among other things), Musk has made many substantial changes in his apparent crusade for free speech, but whether or not they are for the better — or even legal — is still in contention.

On November 1, 2022, Taylor Swift announced her first concert tour in over five years. What should have been a joyous occasion turned into chaos as Ticketmaster crashed after receiving a record-breaking 3.5 billion system requests on the day of presale, four times their previous record. As a result of the site crash and insufficient ticket supply to meet demand, Ticketmaster canceled the general public ticket sale much to the dismay of both Taylor and her fans. The ticket fiasco has since called into question the legality of Ticketmaster's operations following its controversial merger with Live Nation in 2010. Several politicians and lawmakers have called for an investigation into whether Ticketmaster is operating as an illegal monopoly, possibly violating multiple antitrust laws. A lawsuit has also been filed against Ticketmaster for alleged breach of contract, intentional misrepresentation, and fraud.

Kim Kardashian’s recent lawsuit surrounding a cryptocurrency ad she posted on Instagram raised questions about what American policies actually are surrounding advertisements. This blog post discusses what Kardashian’s post violated and the implications of the related lawsuit. The rise of social media and how influencer advertising culture interacts with advertisement policy is also discussed.

This blog post reviews that background around the Work and Mobility Act that was recently passed in both the Massachusetts House and Senate. This law allows undocumented immigrants to apply for a drivers license while having to provide two pieces of documentation to prove their identity. This law passed but a petition stopped it from going into full effect, which caused the law to put on the Massachusetts ballot for voters to decide on it in November.

Supreme Court Justices refute the claims that the Court has become a political body, but recent trends indicate dramatic shifts in the Court’s role in the mainstream political landscape. The Court has decided a greater number of important cases with the shadow docket, Justices have begun to retire in a strategic manner, and Congress has also politicized the Court in the view of the public with confirmation proceedings. These trends all point toward the Court’s becoming more innately politicized, as well as in the public eye. The degradation of the Court’s apolitical stance has important implications for its legitimacy and prompts the need for reforms.

The “shadow docket” refers to the Supreme Court’s decisions on emergency applications. While emergency docket orders are intended to be used sparingly, the recent rise in “shadow docket” decisions suggests a broader expansion of power by the Court, calling its apolitical standing into question.

With no nationwide legislation regulating marijuana, lots of recent developments have taken several different angles. For states like New Jersey, the inception of legal marijuana sales has illustrated the need for important safeguards, particularly for marginalized communities and the youth. For others, like South Dakota, the push for legalization has failed on previous occasions, requiring a further push and learning from past mistakes. Some calls for the expansion of marijuana use are more contentious, especially for groups like police officers, a disagreement that is recent, but not universal. Groups like the American Medical Association oppose marijuana legalization, citing its limited benefit, while industry members draw attention to its potential for job creation and revenue. As discussions at the state and national level rage on, it remains paramount to not leave historically mistreated groups, like Native Americans, behind. Conversations about marijuana legislation are ongoing and not perfect, but identifying issues from the onset and actively working to combat them will ensure no group has to suffer mistreatment.

This Blog discusses the present and future plans that Boston Mayor Michelle Wu has planned. She has made mayoral history by becoming the first woman and the first Asian American mayor to be elected. She is also the first mayor to be elected on a Green New Deal Platform. Her plan consists of divesting from fossil fuel companies –which has been successful– electrifying Boston’s vehicle fleet, and investing in housing in Boston, specifically focusing on affordable housing.

According to the leaked draft opinion of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Justice Samuel Alito’s second argument against Roe v. Wade is that the right to an abortion is not “deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and traditions.” Yet there is incredibly flawed logic in this assessment. Notwithstanding the conservative Supreme Court justices’ fairly public views on abortion, which are in the minority of the United States, the arguments that this draft bases itself on do not align with a typical understanding of the Constitution or historical abortion practices. Instead, the draft ignores settled constitutional precedent and general political and social trends in views on abortion to argue for an anachronistic model of interpretation. This article will discuss the second issue.

According to the leaked draft opinion of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Justice Samuel Alito’s first argument against the Court’s holding in Roe v. Wade (1973) is that the Constitution “makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision.” Second, the right to an abortion is not “deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and traditions.” Yet there is incredibly flawed logic in both of these conclusions. Notwithstanding the conservative Supreme Court justices’ fairly public views on abortion — which are in the minority of the United States as a whole — the arguments from which this draft stems do not align with the mainstream judicial understanding of the Constitution. Instead, the draft ignores settled constitutional precedent and broader sociopolitical trends in views on abortion to argue for an anachronistic, originalist interpretation of abortion rights. This article will discuss the first of Alito’s two argumentative shortfalls: his ignoring of Court precedent.

In 2018, iconic actor Johnny Depp was accused of spousal abuse by his now ex-wife Amber Heard in a Washinton Post op-ed. Now, four years later, Depp is suing Heard for defamation and claims that she, in fact, was the abuser in the relationship. Regardless of the outcome of the trial, however, once the stain of “abuser” is tied to a person, it is hard to erase that reputation, especially for an actor so iconic in the industry. However, much of Depp’s pervasiveness in the industry disappeared essentially overnight, and now he is fighting for his spot back, but will most likely be treated as an abuser his entire career. Depp and Heard’s situation exposes the often no-win nature of defamation cases, regardless of innocence or guilt.

From blocking ISIS hate speech to censoring the President of the United States, Twitter has had largely unchecked power in how it moderates free speech as one of the largest social media platforms in the globe. Well-known billionaire and Tesla CEO Elon Musk has been especially vocal on his issue with Twitter’s free speech violations infringing on democracy. Recently, he has decided to take matters into his own hands and has attempted a hostile takeover of Twitter in order to privatize the company and instill his absolutist free-speech ideals in order to make Twitter the global platform for free speech. His informal attempt has been met with resistance from the Twitter board creating a massive legal battle for control as well as leaving many wondering if the legal holes in his offer may be indicative of an ulterior motive behind his move.

The introduction of the “Don’t Say Gay Bill,” signed into law by Florida governor Ron DeSantis to limit discussion of gender and sexual orientation in elementary classrooms, has ramifications for a variety of actors — businesses, students, and educators, to name a few — and may be indicative of a worrying trend in recent legislation. Its creation has sparked discourse over the role of corporations’ response after the Walt Disney company saw mixed reactions to its initial silence and later statements of support. And while the impact on children and educators is immediately unclear, the likelihood of mental health concerns and decreased inclusivity paves the way for future harm. Much of the uncertainty stems from vagueness in the bill’s language, which may conflict with precedents about the accessibility of legal statutes. While it seems likely some states will adopt a similar bill, the increased adoption of anti-LGBTQIA+ legislation emphasizes a crucial need for critical consideration and reform.

This article concerns the slap that millions of people watched transpire on TV during the 2022 Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences Awards. I discuss the events that occurred and then explore whether the violence committed against Chris Rock by Will Smith should warrant a criminal charge. According to California law, I find that Will Smith has committed Battery, and what he did constitutes a crime punishable by a maximum sentence of 6 months in jail and a fine up to $2000. But given his celebrity status, Smith is unlikely to face prosecution.

The First Amendment of the Constitution states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” What, however, is constituted as “the free exercise thereof?” In particular, what happens when religious expression contrasts with the laws set for inmates on death row? The Supreme Court is set to come out with an official ruling on the religious rights and rituals allowed for inmates receiving the death penalty in June 2022. I can only hope that the court chooses to respect the human dignity and religious comfort that all people deserve, if they so choose, even when on death row. Otherwise, the Court risks impeding on religious rights. Moreover, in doing so, the Court is selectively choosing who deserves the right to express religion.

The emerging incorporation of ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) within companies has a bi-directional relationship with corporate law. Federal law may dictate how companies disclose their ESG metrics. Simultaneously, as ESG rises, federal law will undoubtedly be affected by an accelerating trend toward ESG dominance.