University of Baltimore Law Review

What the Memphis Seven Decision Means for Starbucks Workers

*Violet Sovine

Starbucks Workers United[1] and the Starbucks Corporation announced in February 2024 that they would hold collective bargaining sessions after failing to begin negotiations for a little over three years.[2] Starbucks has previously shown extreme hostility to the unionization of its stores, causing Starbucks Workers United to file 700 unfair labor practice (ULP) charges over three years with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).[3] Averaging around 230 unfair labor practice charges per year, filings against Starbucks constituted one percent of all cases filed with the NLRB in 2023.[4] In 2023, the NLRB “also reported a 36 percent increase in its backlog of pending cases at the end of the year.”[5] One of the 700 charges related to seven union organizers terminated by a Starbucks location in Memphis, Tennessee.[6]

Bones of Contention: Reassessing Consumer Expectations in Food Liability Cases

*Shekinah Tony-Oyeleye

I. Introduction

A recent Ohio Supreme Court decision threatens to upend the landscape of food liability law.[1] The court’s ruling, that a restaurant was not negligent for serving a bone in a “boneless” chicken wing, highlights the tension between consumer expectations and the realities of food preparation and service.[2] The ruling raises crucial questions about the future of food liability law and its implications for both consumers and the food industry. Should consumers bear the burden of anticipating potential hazards in their food, even when product labeling suggests otherwise? Or should food producers be held to a higher standard of care, particularly in an era of increased food processing and marketing?[3]

Circuits Split on Interpreting Second Amendment’s History and Tradition Standard

*Jacob Rabinovich

I. Introduction

On June 21, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that alleged domestic abusers may be disarmed if the court considers them a credible threat against another person’s physical safety.[1] The Supreme Court’s ruling affirmed the federal government’s authority to restrict firearm possession under the Bruen standard that all firearm regulations must be consistent with the United States’ history and tradition of firearm regulation.[2] The 2024 decision opened the door for the federal circuits to begin interpreting Second Amendment regulations as they see fit, with particular regard to whether nonviolent felons could possess firearms.[3]

Statute of Limitation or Statute of Repose: Will All Survivors of Child Sexual Abuse Be Able to File Suit Against the Archdioceses of Washington and Baltimore?

*Manna Alexander

I. Introduction

Numerous plaintiffs filed suit against the Archdioceses of Washington and Baltimore following the effective date of Maryland’s Child Victims Act (CVA) in October of 2023.[1] The CVA allows survivors of child sexual abuse to bring suit against non-perpetrator defendants at any point in a defendant’s life.[2] In doing so, the CVA amends 2017 legislation that set the statute of limitations for such claims at twenty years after a claimant reaches the age of majority.[3]

The change in legislation was prompted by the release of the 2023 Attorney General’s Report on child sexual abuse that occurred under the Archdiocese of Baltimore.[4] The Attorney General’s nearly 500-page report detailed over a hundred instances when authority figures in churches, schools, and other institutions under the Archdiocese of Baltimore abused their power against children.[5] Although records detailing instances of child sexual abuse in the Archdiocese of Baltimore date back to the 1940s, the Attorney General found the Archdiocese of Baltimore had never taken substantial steps toward preventing or eliminating abuse.[6] Rather, the report asserts the Archdiocese swept abuse under the rug by denial and simple removal of the abusers from the parishes or schools and did not act to rectify the situation for the survivors.[7]

Fishing, Forum Shopping, and Forgetting Chevron

*Lauren Evers

I. Introduction

Under the Chevron doctrine, courts were required to uphold a federal agency’s interpretation of law under a two-step framework.[1] First, the context of a statute was examined to see if Congress expressed clear intent in creating the statute.[2] If the statute’s intent was clear, the agency was obligated to follow the law according to congressional intent.[3] However, if Congress’ intent for a statute was ambiguous, a reviewing court was required to defer to the agency’s choice in how to carry out the law.[4] With thousands of cases citing Chevron,[5]this framework was an analytical beacon to the administrative law community for decades.[6] The Supreme Court of the United States faced an opportunity to reconsider Chevron deference in Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo.[7]