The Center on Applied Feminism at the University of Baltimore School of Law seeks paper proposals for the Eleventh Feminist Legal Theory Conference. We hope you will join us for this exciting conference on Friday, April 12, 2019. The theme is the #MeToo movement. (more…)
PASPA’s Ban on Sports Betting is Misguided: Save Citizens the Financially and Morally Taxing Trip to Vegas by Allowing States to Legalize Sports Wagering.
Not all Americans realize it, but betting on sports is illegal in the United States. It is the classic American duality: morally proscribing only one type of gambling while sanctioning lotteries, slots, and online poker as legal; as though they are somehow different than or more morally acceptable than betting on sports. The Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1991 (“PASPA”) sought to stop the spread of state-sponsored sports gambling and maintain the integrity of professional and amateur sports by banning any wagering by government entities or individuals on “competitive games in which amateur or professional athletes participate.”
Download the full comment by clicking the following link Long Comment – Vol 44 Online – Final.
* Expected J.D. from the University of Baltimore School of Law in May 2015.
Here’s a look at Volume 44 Issue 1:
1) J.L.’s Time Bomb Still Ticking: How Navarette’s Narrow Holding Failed to Address Important Issues Regarding Anonymous Tips, by Andrew B. Kartchner, Law Clerk to the Hon. James A. Teilborg, U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona
2) The Free Labor Standards Act? A Look at the Ongoing Discussion Regarding Unpaid Legal Internships and Externships, by Lauren K. Knight, Director of the Career Development and Externship Office at Savannah Law School
3) The Courts and National Security: The Ordeal of the State Secrets Privilege, by David Rudenstine, Sheldon H. Solow Professor of Law, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University
4) Newborn Screening Programs and Privacy: Shifting Responsibility from the Parent to the Laboratory, by Michael D. Leeb, Staff Editor, University of Baltimore Law Review
5) The Security and Exchange Commission’s Proposed Regulations Under the CROWDFUND ACT Strike a Necessary Balance Between the Burden of Disclosure Placed on Issuers of Securities and Meaningful Protection for Unsophisticated Investors, by Stuart E. Smith, Technology Editor, University of Baltimore Law Review
PLESSY, BUCKLEY, AND LEFTY-LOOSEY: HISTORY DEMONSTRATES THAT THE SPIGOT SEPARATING MONEY AND CANDIDATES WILL CONTINUE TO ROTATE IN AN OMINOUS DIRECTION.
By Kyle S. Kushner*
“Money, like water, will always find an outlet.”
– Justices O’Connor and Stevens in McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93, 224 (2003), overruled by Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310, 366 (2010).
In 2012, the first presidential election cycle after the Supreme Court struck down the ban on independent corporate expenditures in Citizens United v. FEC, a mere 216 donors contributed 68% of the total funds raised by “super” political action committees. The 2012 elections also saw 646 individuals reach the maximum overall donation limit recently invalidated by the Court in McCutcheon v. FEC.
The lessons of history counsel that this influx of concentrated private donations into campaign coffers will continue unabated until the last vestiges of campaign finance regulation are eliminated.
Download the full comment by clicking the following link Kushner Comment – Vol44 Online – Final.
* Kyle S. Kushner is a third-year law student at the University of Baltimore School of Law, where he serves as a member of the Law Review’s Executive Board. Kyle graduated from the University of South Carolina in 2012 after participating on a campaign for South Carolina Attorney General.
He thanks Professor Christopher J. Peters for his guidance and support throughout the writing process.
MARYLAND’S REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS FOR DISABILITIES DUE TO PREGNANCY ACT: MEANING, INTERPRETATIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS
By Jennifer Harris*
In 2013, the Fourth Circuit decided Young v. UPS, a case that pushed Maryland legislators to draft Maryland’s Reasonable Accommodation for Disabilities Due to Pregnancy Act. This amendment to Maryland’s anti-discrimination law took effect on October 1, 2013, and requires employers with fifteen or more employees to explore reasonable accommodations with their pregnant employees. Maryland has now joined a few other states in expanding the rights of pregnant workers by categorizing pregnant workers in accordance with their ability or inability to work for purposes of discrimination law, and not by their sex.
Download the full comment by clicking the following link Harris Comment – Vol44 Online – Final.
* Jennifer Harris is a third-year law student at the University of Baltimore and currently serves as the Symposium Editor on the Volume 44 Executive Board. Jennifer graduated from the University of Maryland, College Park in 2012 and majored in Government and Politics. She is currently a law clerk at Pessin Katz Law, P.A. in Towson, Maryland and has held internships in the Baltimore City Circuit Court and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. She hopes to eventually practice civil litigation in Maryland.