CREEPING ON THE CONSTITUTION: FIRST AMENDMENT IMPLICATIONS OF THE 2016 CLOWN CRAZE By: Bethany Davidson, Volume 101 Staff Member On August 24, 2016, the property manager of an apartment complex in Greenville, South Carolina posted a concerning letter on residents’ doors.[1] The letter addressed multiple reports that were made to the complex’s office as well…

IS AUER DEFERENCE ON THE WAY OUT? By: Trevor Matthews, Volume 101 Staff Member In Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand, later reaffirmed in Auer v. Robbins, the Supreme Court announced a deferential standard of review for agency rules which interpret binding notice and comment regulations.[1] The standard, now commonly called Auer deference, instructs courts…

HELPING OTHERS DIE: COMPARING POLICIES IN BELGIUM TO THOSE IN THE U.S. By: Ellie Bastian, Volume 101 Staff Member In the opening scenes of the Italian film Miele a woman makes her monthly journey from Europe to a Mexican pharmacy to buy Lamputin, a drug meant to end a pet’s life.[1] She brings two doses…

FROM “LET US PRAY” TO “LET US RECONSIDER”: THE FOURTH CIRCUIT GRANTS EN BANC REVIEW IN LUND V. ROWAN COUNTY By: Rachel Leitschuck, Volume 101 Staff Member “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . .”[1] This language is known as the Establishment Clause…

MINNESOTA SUPREME COURT ELECTIONS: CONSIDERING CONCERNS AND CRITICISMS By: Sara Lewenstein, Volume 101 Staff Member On, Tuesday, August 9, 2016, 173,884 voters turned out for primary elections in Minnesota.[1] In some districts, the only item on the ballot was a statewide election for a seat on the Minnesota Supreme Court. The candidates included the following:…

IT TAKES TURNER: HOW STORIES SHAPE US By: Maisie Baldwin, Volume 101 Staff Member Anyone who’s been on any form of social media since early 2015 has likely read Brock Turner’s name. His name has come up in a variety of contexts: evidence of the continued existence of white privilege,[1] outrage regarding rape culture,[2] discussion…

WHOLE WOMAN’S HEALTH V. HELLERSTEDT: A REAFFIRMATION OF REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS By: Payton George, Volume 101 Staff Member On June 27, 2016, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in the case of Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt.[1] In an opinion heralded by pro-choice supporters,[2] Justice Breyer, joined by Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, Kennedy, and Ginsburg (who issued…

DOES MOTHER NATURE GET A VOTE? OUR NEXT PRESIDENT COULD IMPACT AMERICA’S INVOLVEMENT IN THE PARIS AGREEMENT ON CLIMATE CHANGE By: Taylor Mayhall, Volume 101 Staff Member Last December, representatives from 195 countries assembled in Paris to converse about a subject which they all felt was worthy of attention on a global scale: climate change.[1]…

DAN’S [F]LAW: STATUTORY FAILURE TO ENFORCE ETHICAL BEHAVIOR IN CLINICAL DRUG TRIALS By: Noah Lewellen,* Volume 99 Articles Submission Editor I. INTRODUCTION Paul, a sophomore at the University of Minnesota, bursts into a lecture hall, loudly claims to see monsters sitting in the seats, and offers his services in slaying them. The police are called,…

EVERY DOG CAN HAVE HIS DAY IN COURT: THE USE OF ANIMALS AS DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS By: Kyle R. Kroll, Volume 100 Online Managing Editor In Bhogaita v. Altamonte, the Eleventh Circuit recently decided whether to allow a dog in the courtroom as a demonstrative exhibit.[1] Although the case presented many serious issues regarding the Fair…