Recent Articles in Volume 78, Issue 1 (2025)
By Geoffrey S. Corn and Tyler R. Smotherman – This Article proposes a new paradigm in international humanitarian law (IHL) to help junior military leaders make ethical combat decisions that are both legally and tactically sound. Driven by the realities of modern maneuver warfare and inspired by the spirit of mission command—a concept that emphasizes quick, decentralized decisions—we propose a new philosophical framework for ethical decision making in ground combat. Specifically, we argue that the traditional balance between the IHL principles of military necessity and humanity is better suited to the detached targeting processes associated with indirect fires and air power than to the split-second decisions required in direct ground combat. By replacing the amorphous principle of humanity with an expanded version of Additional Protocol I’s constant care principle, junior combat leaders can be equipped with a more wieldable IHL framework that will enable them to accomplish their missions and consistently mitigate civilian risk even in the chaos of combat. []
By Josh Lens – Courts have long held that collegiate athletes’ athletics participation does not constitute a liberty or property interest afforded constitutional due process protection. Thus, universities, athletics departments, and coaches generally have not had to provide much process when suspending athletes from their teams for disciplinary reasons, for example. []
By W. C. Bunting and Tomer Stein – This Article uncovers the pervasive and significant impact of business law amicus lobbying, a strategic tactic whereby lobby groups have commandeered the amicus curiae filing process in state courts to shape business law according to their interests. []
By Michelle Benedetto Neitz – This Article is the first in legal academic literature to consider how the power shift generated by Congressional dysfunction and the Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo will affect emerging technology law. Power is moving toward the judicial branch of government— and away from the legislative and executive branches. As a result, federal courts will now take a leading role in the evolution of emerging technology law in the United States. []
By Karen E. Woody and Joshua L. Clardy – “Property,” in legal terms, carries significant weight. Once an object is heralded as “property,” that object becomes a step closer to being afforded the protections of the Constitution, offered equitable remedies at a court’s disposal, or even subjected to taxation by the state or federal government. Defining an object as “property” also puts it within the reach of the Title 18 property fraud statutes. Title 18’s fraud statutes have been often lauded by federal prosecutors for their “extraordinary utility.” In their current iteration, these statutes criminalize schemes to defraud “money,” “property,” and “the intangible right of honest services.” But what exactly constitutes “property”? As simple as the question may appear, it is not so easily answered by jurists, scholars, and practitioners. []