Inception of a New Era: Are Companies Taking Advantage of Student-Athletes?

*Zachary Seidel

I. Introduction

For years, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and its universities have yielded huge revenues through their sports programs.[1] However, the student-athletes who generate this revenue with persistent and strenuous hard work make nothing.[2] Until July 1, 2021, college athletes never had the opportunity to monetarily profit from their name, image, and likeness (NIL).[3] In NCAA v. Alston, the Supreme Court upheld the district court’s injunction, enjoining the NCAA from limiting education-related benefits for student-athletes.[4] The district court noted that the “NCAA uses its monopsony power to cap artificially the compensation offered to recruits.”[5] Therefore, without “viable substitutes” in the market, the Court determined that the NCAA violated the antitrust principles of the Sherman Act as its restrictions were an improper restraint on trade that impeded the labor market from functioning.[6]

Continue reading “Inception of a New Era: Are Companies Taking Advantage of Student-Athletes?”

Elephant in the Mirror: One Elephant’s Legal Journey to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness

*Torra Hausmann

I. From Animal Welfare to Animal Rights

For more than two decades, the Nonhuman Rights Project (NhRP), a Florida-based animal rights group, has advocated for judicial recognition of legal personhood for nonhuman animals.[1] Although animal law traditionally focused on animal welfare and protection, NhRP has pushed animal law to expand and include a focus on legal rights for nonhuman animals.[2] NhRP’s advocacy efforts currently focus primarily on filing writs of habeas corpus, seeking to free animals from “imprisonment” within zoos and other forms of captivity.[3] NhRP’s most recent success in campaigning for animal personhood involved its habeas corpus petition for an elephant named Happy.[4]

Continue reading “Elephant in the Mirror: One Elephant’s Legal Journey to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”

“The New Hotness”: Jukebox Cops and Their DMCA Threat to the First Amendment

*Chase Hoffberger

I. “Record All You Want”

Sergeant David Shelby likely did not anticipate that a video of him queuing up a recording of a Taylor Swift song, during an otherwise unremarkable standoff with activists, would go viral on Twitter and YouTube, but that’s exactly how things played out.[1] Shelby, a sheriff’s deputy within California’s Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, was running crowd containment outside the county’s courthouse during a protest of another killing of a Black man by American police.[2] In the video, Shelby speaks with James Burch, the Anti Police-Terror Project policy director, ostensibly about the efforts Shelby and his colleagues were taking to keep activists from demonstrating where they wanted.[3]

Less than thirty seconds into the recording, Shelby redirects the conversation.[4] Buying some time, Shelby pulls his iPhone from his pocket and thumbs through it to find and begin playing Swift’s 2014 chart-topper “Blank Space.”[5] “Are we having a dance party now?” Burch asks as Swift slides into the hook.[6] “No, sir,” says Shelby.[7] The woman recording the conversation asks if Shelby is playing Swift to “drown out the conversation.”[8] “You can record all you want,” he tells the woman.[9] “I just know that it can’t be posted to YouTube.”[10]

Burch points a finger at Shelby, amused. “This is the new hotness, right here,” Burch says, suggesting that Shelby began playing the Swift song “so they can get a copyright strike.”[11]

Continue reading ““The New Hotness”: Jukebox Cops and Their DMCA Threat to the First Amendment”

For Whom the Bell Tolls: Challenges with Applying the Obstruction Statute to the Nonviolent Capitol Breach Defendants and Crafting Appropriate Sentences

*Bradley Rosen

I. The Attack on the Capitol

On January 6, 2021, a mob stormed the United States Capitol to stop Congress from “certifying the vote count of the Electoral College of the 2020 Presidential Election.”[1] Fortunately, the mob failed in its mission, but it nonetheless succeeded in delaying the vote by causing the Capitol to temporarily enter a lockdown until the building was secure.[2] The Justice Department described the criminal probe as the largest in American history, both in the number of defendants charged as well as in the nature and quantity of evidence gathered.[3] So far, more than 500 defendants have been charged in connection with the attack, with offenses ranging from misdemeanors to felonies.[4]

II. The Charges Against Defendants

Despite the violent efforts to stop the democratic process, rioters did not face charges of “treason” or “seditious conspiracy.”[5] Instead, allegations against the rioters include civil disorder, assaulting federal officers, disorderly conduct in a Capitol building, and parading in a Capitol building.[6] The difficulty for prosecutors, however, lies in levying appropriate charges against nonviolent defendants who entered the Capitol, but who are otherwise first‑time offenders who were swept into the mob mentality.[7]

Continue reading “For Whom the Bell Tolls: Challenges with Applying the Obstruction Statute to the Nonviolent Capitol Breach Defendants and Crafting Appropriate Sentences”

Eviction Moratoriums: Blurring the Lines Between Holdover Tenants and Squatters

*Alina Pargamanik

I. Introduction

Recent eviction moratoriums on the federal and state level have changed the landscape of landlord-tenant law, blurring the line between holdover tenants and squatters.[1] Existing state laws distinguishing between holdover tenants and squatters may influence the application of eviction moratoriums and relief available to renters and landlords alike. By addressing the distinctions between holdover tenants and squatters, states can prevent costly implications for landlords and tenants that arise as a result of these ambiguities in the law.

II. Federal Eviction Law in the Face of COVID-19

A. Eviction Moratorium

On August 3, 2021, the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Dr. Rochelle Walensky, issued a limited order (Order) extending the CDC’s June 2021 eviction moratorium until October 3, 2021, due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and rising Delta-variant cases.[2] The moratorium applied to areas experiencing “substantial and high levels of community transmission” and to two kinds of evictions: (1) failure to pay rent and (2) failure to pay late fees.[3]

Continue reading “Eviction Moratoriums: Blurring the Lines Between Holdover Tenants and Squatters”