The newest justice on the United States Supreme Court, Justice Kentaji Brown Jackson, stated during her confirmation hearing that she planned to recuse herself from two consolidated affirmative action cases scheduled for the Supreme Court’s upcoming term. The cases involved constitutional and statutory challenges to admissions policies at Harvard and the University of North Carolina. Justice Jackson served on Harvard’s Board of Overseers for six years prior to her confirmation. This essay uses the framework of the affirmative action litigation to introduce and preliminarily explore the concept of “partial recusal” at the Court. Part I briefly introduces judicial recusal, including the unique features of recusal at the Supreme Court. Part II addresses the idea of partial recusal, which has been generally undertheorized and effectively overlooked with respect to the justices’ recusal practices. It then distinguishes between two types of partial recusal—horizontal and vertical—and makes a case for why each could be useful for the Court.

Minimum competence and protecting the profession are the objectives that supporters of the bar exam say it accomplishes. However, there is little to no credible evidence that support these claims. In fact, overwhelming evidence shows that the bar exam fails to meet these objectives. First, supporters of the bar exam have failed to provide a reasonable definition of minimum competence. Thus claiming that the bar exam attains this is a baseless assertion. Second, the bar exam only tests a narrow range of skills and cannot purport to ensure minimum competence when it overlooks so many important aspects of competent lawyering. Third, the bar exam is unnecessarily broad and forces hopeful attorneys to spend innumerable hours studying subjects that they will never use in practice. Fourth, it fails to take into account and incorporate current competency issues afflicting the legal profession, which only bolsters these underlying issues. Lastly, the bar exam perpetuates prejudice against minorities attempting to enter the legal profession and consequently works against establishing equal opportunity and diversity in the profession.

The United States has few safeguards in place to ensure exonerees can get back on their feet following their release. Inmates on parole are provided support through reentry programs, but similar networks are unavailable to exonerees. Thirty-seven states and the District of Columbia have compensation statutes, but the remaining thirteen have nothing at all. This paper explores the psychological challenges faced by wrongfully convicted people and provides an analysis of how compensation statutes can be improved to better meet the needs of wrongfully convicted people.

The Constitution demands a wall of separation between Church and State: No other phrase has so deeply perverted our Nation’s history, ignored our traditions, and denigrated the role that religion plays in promoting the Common Good. Unmoored from its original meaning, this phrase has been transformed into a justification to discriminate against religious adherents, and it has found safe harbor in today’s culture amongst those who would expel religion to the outer edges of society.

Just imagine the possibilities a driver could experience with the arrival of autonomous vehicles. The assistance drivers will get by “driving” cars equipped with autonomous vehicle technology are so appealing that it will become a pleasure rather than a burden to drive. Indeed, the advantages are highly appealing, but unfortunately, there are concerns over technological vulnerabilities that may arise as autonomous vehicles become more prominent. Eventually, vehicles will become fully autonomous. These cars will use built-in sensors that detect and monitor other vehicles and receive input regarding its surroundings. Moreover, autonomous vehicles will also share data with each other and “learn” from each other. Nevertheless, system outages because of misconfiguration, ransomware attacks, and threats are important risks that need to be addressed. Otherwise, the technology will do more harm to the public than good. Therefore, this essay will address the vulnerabilities arising from potential ransomware attacks and the susceptibility of misconfiguration.

The authors began writing this essay in the summer of 2021, following the killing of six women of Asian descent in Atlanta on March 16, 2021 and a rise in anti-Asian violence fueled by racist fearmongering related to COVID-19. In 2021, the authors also witnessed the most sustained and prominent recognitions of the need to prevent and stop anti-Asian violence that they had seen in their lifetimes, including prevalent use of the hashtags #StopAAPIHate and #StopAsianHate. Asian American communities coalesced and became increasingly vocal in response. Before 2021, supportive spaces in legal academia to share about the challenges and experiences from the Asian American perspective, especially the Asian American woman’s, were extremely rare. This essay represents an effort to create more space. The authors reflect on the heavy lift left for the legal academy to raise the voices, work, and presence of Asian American faculty—particularly women. It provides a brief overview of the history, stereotypes, and myths about Asian Americans and the Asian American existence in legal academia. Ultimately, it proposes an approach for supporting and advancing law professors of Asian heritage and offers a 12-question self-assessment for law schools.

United States’ sellers and exporters of genetically modified agricultural products face an increased risk of trade bans by the importing country due to health and safety concerns. These trade bans, such as China’s recent ban of a genetically modified trait in corn, can be highly disruptive and cause substantial losses to U.S. exporters. Some buyers asserted that China’s recent trade ban made acceptance of the goods impossible due to force majeure. In light of the exponential growth of U.S. biotechnology agricultural products, this Article explains how U.S. sellers can draft sales contracts to avoid the effects of trade bans and defenses based on force majeure.

A gun misfires. A vault is too heavy to carry. The drugs never make it across the border. All these are examples of when a crime comes precipitously close to occurring, but for whatever reason, the offender fails to complete the crime. In the United States, even though these offenders were unsuccessful, they can still be charged with an attempt. While determining what is considered an attempt by the criminal law remains hotly contested, a vital question persists, why do we even choose to punish individuals who commit attempts?

The United States is currently in what could be considered a new “Cold War,” in the realm of cybersecurity. Individuals, organizations, and national state actors are testing the limits with much more minor attacks than what they are ultimately capable of, disrupting the lives of many. Cybersecurity is one of the greatest challenges to the legal field today, exacerbated by lackluster cybersecurity laws and regulations, as well as minimal legal protocols. This new “Cold War” era is demonstrating that critical infrastructure deserves a stronger look from the legal field and government. Weak cyber laws and fragile critical infrastructure is creating a serious risk to public health.

Life tenure, which is implicitly granted through Article III, is one of the most unique features of the Constitution. However, some commentators, including judges themselves, have found that many of the problems associated with Article III judges can be attributed to age and the brain’s susceptibility to cognitive related diseases. As more Article III judges stay on the bench into extreme old age, the natural result of mental decline becomes more prevalent and is increasingly difficult to avoid due to an Article III judge’s right to life tenure.

Over the years, Congress and the judiciary have attempted to confront problems associated with aging Article III judges by providing judges with enticing retirement incentives. Nevertheless, as one Justice noted, “[w]ith the size of the federal judiciary steadily on the rise, and with advances in medical technology making it possible to survive disabilities that would have been fatal in earlier days, the delicate question of whether a judge has (or in the past had) the mental capacity to sit will become increasingly troublesome.”

The Olympic Games originated in Greece nearly 3,000 years ago. Since the first modern Olympics in 1896, the Games have undergone massive changes and become a spotlight for international success in athletics. Beginning in 1994, the Winter Games and Summer Games were held separately. While the decision to separate the Games marked a significant milestone and signaled the wide expanse of events athletes could participate in, the separation also opened the opportunity for greater corruption in the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and nations seeking the glory of hosting the Games. This paper explores corruption in the IOC and the Olympic bidding process for hosting the Olympic Games and touches on the anti-corruption efforts made in the last several years as well as the benchmark case of U.S. v. Welch. The paper then makes a modest proposal to amend the bidding process via an Olympic charter amendment that would require candidate countries to enact legislation to create a cause of action against bad actors in the bidding process.

The law is not ready for self-driving cars. While most of the anticipated legislation is concerned with questions of safety or privacy, the introduction and proliferation of autonomous cars will present novel legal questions in negligence and product liability cases, especially challenging the framework for agency. Although these are important issues for civil cases, the implications for criminal justice are the most urgent. Constitutional cases relating to automotive stops form the procedures and frameworks which protect our Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights.

One of the first items of business on every new administration’s list of things to do (and to do early while there is still political capital to spend) is tax reform. Such a phenomenon is not unexpected or unreasonable. The tax regime is one of the foremost means by which a political movement implements its conception of social justice. Determining the appropriate level of taxation and the raising or lowering of tax rates as a consequence thereof is part and parcel of that process.