Keeping the Faith: How Recent RLUIPA Decisions Are Reshaping Religious Freedom for Incarcerated Individuals By Nick Reaves* Introduction The freedom to practice one’s faith while incarcerated is on the upswing. One could even argue that the Supreme Court’s current interpretation of the legal standard set forth in the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) is more protective of incarcerated individuals’ religious freedom than free exercise law has been at any other time in […]

Textualism, the Gun Control Act, and ATF’s Redefinition of “Firearm” Stephen P. Halbrook* The Supreme Court has granted the Attorney General’s petition for a writ of certiorari in a case concerning agency authority to adopt regulations that expand the definitions found in the Gun Control Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. § 921 et seq. (“the GCA”).  In VanDerStok v. Garland, the Fifth Circuit decided that the regulations unlawfully expanded the reach of the GCA’s criminal

Problems with Rulemaking by District Court Enforcement Action: the SEC’s Improper Cryptocurrency Regulation Eric Wessan and Phil Pillari* Introduction Cryptocurrencies have become a vibrant part of the global economy. Unsurprisingly, the United States is the global leader in developing and advancing cryptocurrency and blockchain technology. But as with any new technology, the rise and prominence of cryptocurrencies create both opportunities and challenges. Some of those challenges are regulatory in nature. As States, the federal government,

Jarkesy And Gravitational Pull: The Supreme Court’s Approach To Precedent And Its Implications Michael Showalter* Introduction In a June 2024 concurring opinion, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh argued that text and history should exert a “gravitational pull” on the interpretation of precedent.  The majority opinion he joined in SEC v. Jarkesy, decided a week later, provides an illustration. Jarkesy was a battle of text and history versus mixed precedent. The question presented was whether

Proxies, Quorum, and Legislative Immunity  Kimo Gandall* On March 13, 2020, President Trump declared a nationwide emergency in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.[1] Two days later, on March 15th, public shutdowns began, and the government began to institute mandatory quarantines.[2] Two months later, the House of Representatives approved House Resolution 965, which authorized a process under which House Members could both cast votes and establish presence via proxy, allowing the House to meet quorum even

Water and Federalism in Texas v. New Mexico Frances Williamson* Drought plagues the western United States.[1] California, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas, among others, rely heavily on the dwindling flow of two major rivers: the Colorado River and the Rio Grande River. These rivers provide millions with drinking water and support hundreds of thousands of acres of agriculture. As the water disappears, states, tribes, and communities are left wondering what the future holds in

If You’re Worried About Lina Khan, Then Support Specific Authority Bills Joel Thayer* The adverse impact large tech firms have on children’s mental health and free markets are undeniable.[1] In that vein, Congress has proffered several proposals to address those issues, such as the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA)[2] and the Open Apps Market Act (OAMA)[3]. KOSA imposes a duty of care on social media companies to protect children from those platforms’ addictive, behavioral functions.

Much Ado About Nothing: Rahimi  Reinforces Bruen  and Heller Mark W. Smith* On June 21, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated decision in United States v. Rahimi.[1] In that case, the Fifth Circuit had declared that a federal criminal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), which prohibits persons subject to domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms, violated the Second Amendment. From the day that the Supreme Court granted certiorari, Rahimi was the talk of the

What We Did and Did Not Argue in United States v. Trump Seth Barrett Tillman* Josh Blackman** Editor’s Note: This essay had already been submitted to the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy before United States v. Trump was decided by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on July 15, 2024. The authors have decided to publish this essay without regard to the District Court’s decision, and they will

The Judicial Appointment Process By Michael A. Fragoso* “What do you call a judicial nominee who only got 51 votes?” “Your Honor.” The judicial appointment process ranks among the most contentious and consequential functions of the federal government. Given the federal courts’ exclusive constitutional role in resolving cases and controversies—including those involving controversial constitutional questions—judicial appointments command considerable attention from the White House, the Senate, and the media. This essay presents a comprehensive summary of