Abstract: "To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity." – Nelson Mandela.

The dissents in Obergefell v. Hodges do precisely this, cloaking the denial of fundamental rights in the language of judicial restraint, democracy, and originalism. Rather than recognizing same-sex couples as full and equal participants in one of the most deeply personal and legally significant institutions — marriage — the dissenting justices seek to relegate them to a lesser status, dismissing their claims to dignity as a matter best left to political debate. But constitutional rights are not subject to popular vote, and the humanity of any group does not depend on the shifting tides of public opinion. By refusing to acknowledge the right to marry as one rooted in liberty and equality, the dissents not only deny same-sex couples the legal protections afforded to their heterosexual counterparts but also diminish the constitutional promise that all persons are entitled to equal dignity under the law.

The debate over whether collegiate athletes should be classified as employees has intensified due to the rise of Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) agreements. NIL allows student-athletes to profit from endorsements. While NIL has created new financial opportunities, it has also sparked legal disputes over whether student-athletes should receive employee status, specifically financial compensation, under federal labor laws. This article argues that student-athletes should continue to be classified as students instead of employees because reclassification would undermine the educational foundation of collegiate athletics, introduce significant financial and legal burdens on universities, jeopardize non-revenue sports, and likely lead to increased tuition costs for all students. This article analyzes legal precedent, financial implications, and the distinction between NIL and employment. This article concludes that while reforms in NIL regulation and athlete rights are necessary, employment classification is not a legally sound or economically sustainable solution.

The exclusion of public school teachers from federal collective bargaining protections has contributed to a fragmented legal landscape, undermining teachers’ workplace rights and economic self-determination. It has long been affirmed that education played the most important role in preserving American democracy and a democratic citizenry for generations, from America’s founding to recently in Brown v. Board of Education (1954). Through analysis of the National Labor Relations Act, Supreme Court precedent, and state legislative inconsistencies in conjunction with recognizing educators’ roles in fostering educated citizens, this article shows that disallowing public school teachers a guaranteed right to bargain collectively deprives them of the liberty of contract, violating substantive due process and disallowing economic self-determination. Federal legislation and protections of teachers’ collective bargaining are necessary to ensure a constitutional application of labor principles whilst ensuring teachers have an adequate avenue to advocate for the appropriate working conditions required to fulfill their public service.