In the last few years, YouTube has become a creative hub for artistic discussion and collaboration, allowing people to easily produce content that shares their opinions, criticism, or admiration of another’s work in a video format. The rise of YouTube and other creative platforms has been accompanied by the development of fair use laws, which protect creative or evaluative content from claims of copyright infringement. Unfortunately, in their attempts to accommodate rapidly changing digital platforms, these fair use Laws are often overly vague. As a result, YouTube frequently upholds bad faith copyright claims and fails to consistently support fair use laws. The vagueness of the wording exacerbates this issue, demonstrating the need for fair use Laws to be clarified to ensure they protect the rights of both copyright holders and their creative works.

Even as the investments of financial professionals, corporate executives, and other individuals with nonpublic information are severely regulated, members of Congress—the same individuals in charge of that very regulation—can still trade relatively freely with few consequences. There has been a growing bipartisan effort in recent years to curb congressional stock investments, culminating in results such as the TRUST in Congress Act (2023), which requires all members of Congress, as well as their spouses and dependents, to place their investments in qualified blind trusts that are controlled by independent third parties in order to prevent conflicts of interest. A primary issue with previous regulation has been difficulties with enforcement, a result of decades of legal debate about Constitutional protections, insider trading, and equality of information. Nevertheless, this article’s proposed framework for future regulations would theoretically mitigate these issues. By explicitly and specifically preventing members of Congress from investing in companies and sectors influenced by their legislative work, instituting strict disclosure standards and deadlines, and restricting the types and durations of stock investments, this proposed framework will address the issues of conflicts of interest and insider trading before they even occur. In this way, it will help alleviate the previous lack of enforcement and restore public faith in government.

Washtenaw County Prosecuting Attorney Eli Savit was elected in 2020 on a campaign platform of promising reforms to the criminal justice system. One of his many programs implemented since taking office is an expungement program, which assists eligible individuals with the expungement process free of charge under recent changes passed in Michigan. Savit discussed the importance of expungement and reform and his time in office in an interview with the Harvard Undergraduate Law Review.

Dr. Myisha S. Eatmon is an Assistant Professor in African and African American Studies and History at Harvard University. She is currently working on a book project, tentatively titled, Litigating in Black and White: Black Legal Culture, White Violence, Jim Crow, and Their Legacies, which explores how Black people challenged white violence during Jim Crow. Her scholarship notably sheds light on often overlooked aspects of “Black legal culture” during Jim Crow and how it played a critical role in the resistance to white violence. Professor Eatmon is also the recipient of various grants and fellowship awards, including the American Historical Association’s Littleton-Griswold Research in Legal History Research Grant and the Mellon/American Council for Learned Scholars Dissertation Completion Fellowship.

This essay assesses the theories of legal equality present within Plessy v. Ferguson, which enacted the infamous “separate but equal” doctrine, and Loving v. Virginia, the landmark case which legalized interracial marriage. Within the paper, I seek to assess the limitations of the law in creating equality and how we as the people of the United States should seek to make our society more equal. I also explore how Plessy justifies its racist rhetoric and how Loving strikes down the racial castes created by Plessy. The thesis is “the Plessy majority interprets equality as being generated by acknowledging differences, particularly racial characteristics; however, the Loving Court views equality as stemming from a firm refusal to place people into definitional boxes. Though these theories contrast with each other, the interaction of Plessy and Loving within this context reveals that the United States judicial system’s attempts to define people cannot create equality: they can only limit it.”

Litigation financing is the process through which third party financers support clients in the legal process. It has only recently taken hold in the United States, and the national response to both its legality and ethically is significantly ununified. With some states claiming the act is illegal entirely, and others having very few restrictions on the scope of litigation financing, it is important to understand its implications. Litigation financing can be used by large corporations as a means of generating personal profit. However, it is also a system through which people who do not have the financial resources to afford strong legal teams can have a much better chance of winning their case. As such, in order to make litigation financing better support the goals of fairness and justice upheld by the US legal system, litigation financing should only be used in instances where clients require financial assistance.

Child labor laws in the United States should deviate from their history and start to prioritize the well-being of children, specifically migrant children, through more fines, regulation of the agricultural industry, and precautions that lessen the need for employment for children.

In recent years, multiple states and school districts have implemented regulations that prohibit schools from the practice of outing, or the non-consensual disclosure of a student’s sexual or gender identity. These regulations have been met with intense opposition, with critics charging that they violate parental rights. This article examines these claims, focusing on whether outing protections are compatible with a parent’s right to direct the upbringing and education of their child, commonly referred to as the Meyer-Pierce right.

Much debate surrounds what constitutes a generation. The term was historically viewed as a way to attribute characteristics to an otherwise undefined group, yet interestingly, “Baby Boomers” are the only generation wherein a recognized beginning and end are demographically distinct via an increase in birth rate. In accordance with tradition, many have attempted to define subsequent generations, such as: “Generation X,” “Generation Y,” and now “Generation Z” (“Gen Z”). The former two generations are distinguished by defining traits; Generation X are often referred to as “Baby Busters” in reference to their chronology, while Generation Y are known as “Millennials” as they spent the majority of their adolescence prior to the turn of the millennium. Unlike the previous two generations, Gen Z maintains discourse over its defining moment. This essay proposes the following: Gen Z is the generation of mass shootings.

"When the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, they immediately recognized the necessity to enshrine the First Amendment into law. It is the most basic and fundamental right granted by the United States Constitution –– protecting free speech, freedom of the press, and the right to assemble. Tucked within the First Amendment exists the lesser-known Establishment Clause (EC), prohibiting Congress from establishing a religion. While straightforward, school districts and organizations have continually cited this clause to attack those who perform religious rituals, claiming a “breach of establishment on their grounds.”

Legal commentators have debated the theoretical transfer of Russian central bank reserves held in US banks into the possession of Ukraine ever since the Russian invasion, but President Biden has yet to sanction the move. Nevertheless, its palatability grows daily as the US electorate appears to be increasingly weary of the scale of their country’s economic assistance to Ukraine.

Announced in the spring of 2021, the European Super League (ESL) — officially The Super League — was a proposed competition for the top 20 teams in European football. With the goal of replacing the current top-flight European competition — the Champions League — the founders of the ESL hoped to increase the overall quality of European matches and increase overall revenue. However, after severe backlash from fans and leagues alike, nine of the 12 founding clubs withdrew from the organization, and many thought the idea to be dead. And yet, nearly 20 months after the original announcement of the ESL, legal debates over the ESL are still raging. At the crux of these debates is the apparent monopolistic power organizations like UEFA have over global football. Indeed, based on past rulings by the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) on the application of competition law to sport and the European Commission’s 2017 decision regarding the International Skating Union (ISU), those opposing UEFA have a strong case. While the ESL may not represent the ideal future for football, it has exposed UEFA’s dangerously powerful monopolistic position and demonstrates the need to more tightly regulate UEFA to ensure transparent competition without compromising sporting interests.

When it was uncovered that representative George Santos had fabricated much of his background and qualifications for electoral success, many felt that his actions constituted a crime. However, in his State of New York and much of the US, such fabrications are protected under free speech. This consensus is due in part to a 2012 Supreme Court decision, which concluded that it was not within the government’s purview to regulate or censor political dialogue.[1] Instead, dominant US legal thought espouses that it is the responsibility of the individual voter to determine for themselves whether what a candidate is saying is true or not. This strategy, however, has been largely ineffective at curbing political lying: as evidenced by the dozens of recent instances of political candidates altering their backgrounds to increase their chances of electoral success. In order to remedy this issue, I argue that legislation should be imposed that criminalizes the intentional fabrication of a political candidate’s background or qualification with the intention of increasing their chance of electoral success.

With the highly influential and internationally famous Korean music group BTS (방탄소년단) answering the call of South Korea's military draft, many Korean and international eyes turn to the government to see their response to the rising levels of discontent the public is exhibiting towards the Military Service Act. With complaints of the act being outdated, unequal, and targeting certain groups, it is only a matter of time before the government follows the wishes of its constituents and revises the law.

With the signing of multi-million dollar contracts at the high school level, it is fair to say that the introduction of Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) activities has transformed high school and collegiate athletics into a commercial playing field beyond what was ever thought possible. However, far from opening up opportunities for students to make a sum commensurate with what they contribute to the university, the expansion of NIL has only allowed profiteering companies and universities to expand their influence and transform college athletics into a quasi-pro league, complete with salaries, trade incentives, and signing bonuses. I argue that unless legislative reform that sets caps on deal size and corporate involvement occurs, and unless it occurs quickly, this hyper-commercialization of collegiate athletics is bound to metastasize, and forever transform the amateur nature of college sport into a quasi-professional marketspace for player talent.