Skip to content

De Novo Archive

De Novo is the newest addition to the Minnesota Law Review family. The blog serves as a forum through which the staff, editors, and alumni of the Minnesota Law Review can contribute to legal thought and academic debate.

THOMAS ON TRIAL: HOW SUPREME COURT JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS HAS INFLUENCED THE CURRENT AFFIRMATIVE ACTION CASES BEFORE THE COURT

By: Dahlia Wilson, Volume 107 Staff Member I. INTRODUCTION In the 2022–23 term, the Supreme Court is faced with two seminal cases regarding universities’ uses of “affirmative action”—a.k.a. the consideration of race—in their admissions practices. Both Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina[1] and Students for Fair Admissions v. President & Fellows of…

Continue Reading

READING TO BECOME A DIFFERENT TYPE OF “PRACTICE-READY” LAWYER: WHAT NO MORE POLICE CAN TEACH LAW STUDENTS ABOUT THEIR ROLE IN THE MOVEMENT FOR PRISON-INDUSTRIAL-COMPLEX ABOLITION

By: Lucy Chin, Volume 107 Staff Member A small minority of the 1.3 million lawyers in the country engage in work that explicitly concerns community-based advocacy and movement lawyering.[1] And yet, our profession—like most in the past few years—has been unable to avoid confronting fundamental questions about our role in social justice movements.[2] In the…

Continue Reading

NOVEL REGULATIONS AND HISTORICAL ANALOGUES: A SAN JOSÉ ORDINANCE TESTS THE BOUNDARIES OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT

By: Toph Beach, Volume 107 Staff Member On June 23, 2022, the Supreme Court decided New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, striking down a New York firearm restriction and pioneering a new test for Second Amendment cases.[1] Under Bruen, gun regulations must be “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”[2]…

Continue Reading

COVERED BY CANNABIS?: MINNESOTA SUPREME COURT RULES THAT WORKERS’ COMPENSATION WILL NOT COVER MEDICAL MARIJUANA

By: Chelsea M. Trudgeon, Volume 107 Staff Member I. MINNESOTA SUPREME COURT RULINGS In October 2021, the Minnesota Supreme Court issued decisions in Musta v. Mendota Heights Dental Center[1] and Bierbach v. Digger’s Polaris[2] addressing reimbursement of medical marijuana under workers’ compensation claims.[3] Under the Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Act, an employer is liable for an…

Continue Reading

THE TRY GUYS TRY RESPONDING TO A RELATIONSHIP AT WORK: THE LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF CONSENSUAL WORKPLACE RELATIONSHIPS

By: Mollie Clark Ahsan, Volume 107 Staff Member Over the past few months, famous YouTube creators The Try Guys have navigated a worldwide scandal surrounding one of the co-owners of their media company.[1] The scandal highlights the legal ambiguity that exists when workplace relationships take place between a supervisor and subordinate, even when relationships are…

Continue Reading

BACK FOR SECONDS: PREDICTING THE OUTCOME OF UNITED STATES v. TEXAS BASED ON BIDEN v. TEXAS

By: Maya Wells Hermerding, Volume 107 Staff Member In its second major immigration-related case of the term, the Supreme Court will weigh the executive branch’s authority to regulate immigration policy as conservative states contend that the Biden administration’s policies put them at a disadvantage.[1] In July 2022, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in United States…

Continue Reading

HOLLOW STATEMENT OR EMPTY PROMISE: OREGON’S “RIGHT TO HEALTHCARE” AMENDMENT IS NOT EQUIPPED TO ACHIEVE ITS GOALS, WHATEVER THEY ARE

By: Patrick Ebeling, Volume 107 Staff Member In the November 8, 2022, election, Oregon voters narrowly approved Senate Joint Resolution 12 (SJR 12), the Right to Healthcare Amendment.[1] SJR 12 amends the Oregon state constitution to read: (1) It is the obligation of the state to ensure that every resident of Oregon has access to…

Continue Reading

READY FOR LANDING: AFTER CONCLUDING “PILOT PROGRAM,” MINNESOTA’S ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY BOARD DELIBERATES LONG AWAITED ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW CLIMATE CONSIDERATION REQUIREMENTS

By: Giuseppe Tumminello, Volume 107 Staff Member On October 19, 2022, the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) hosted a public Environmental Review Implementation Subcommittee (ERIS) meeting. The ERIS reviewed the results from a Pilot Program it organized in order to incorporate climate change considerations on an updated EQB’s Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) form.[1] Long in…

Continue Reading

HOW COMPELLING DOES COMPELLING HAVE TO BE?: A MISSED OPPORTUNITY TO REFRAME A COMPELLING GOVERNMENTAL INTEREST IN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IN THE STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS CASES

By: Chad Nowlan, Volume 107 Staff Member This fall the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two cases brought by Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA), a self-described “nonprofit membership group of . . . students, parents, and others who believe that racial classifications and preferences in college admissions are unfair, unnecessary, and unconstitutional.”[1] The two…

Continue Reading