University of Baltimore Law Review

Tolling the Statute of Limitations During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Did Former Chief Judge Barbera Overstep Her Authority or Soundly Act to Preserve the Courts’ Function?

*Sara Braniecki

I. Introduction

With COVID-19 uncertainty and safety concerns looming overhead, all Maryland courts closed their doors on March 17, 2020, and were limited to emergency operations.[1] On April 3, 2020, former Maryland Court of Appeals Chief Judge Mary Ellen Barbera signed an emergency administrative order: the “Administrative Order on Tolling or Suspension of Statutes of Limitations and Statutory and Rules Deadlines Related to the Initiation of Matters and Certain Statutory and Rules Deadlines in Pending Matters” (the “Order”).[2] The Order went into effect that day, suspending the statute of limitations for matters filed in Maryland state courts during the courts’ COVID-19 related closures.[3]

When Chief Judge Barbera signed the Order, it did not explicitly state how long the statute of limitations would toll. Instead, Chief Judge Barbera crafted the Order to allow the suspension to last for however long the courts were closed to the public.[4] This seemed reasonable, given the novelty of the COVID-19 pandemic, as no one knew exactly what to expect for the upcoming days, months, or even years.

Gross Income and Land Reparations: The Tax Implications for Bruce’s Beach

*Rebecca Odelius

I. Introduction

While the rest of America debated if and how reparations should be given for the injustices of slavery and segregation,[1] the state of California took legislative action to atone for the mistreatment of one Black couple whose land the state wrongfully took through eminent domain[2] in 1924.[3] In an unprecedented move, California’s legislators returned a large piece of land, known as “Bruce’s Beach,”[4] located in the prestigious Manhattan Beach, California, to the descendants of its rightful owners.[5] Because there is no statute in the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) specifically addressing land reparations,[6] the tax implications for Bruce’s Beach remain unclear.

II. The Story of Bruce’s Beach

In 1912, Willa and Charles Bruce purchased a California beachfront property and converted the land into “the first west coast resort for Black people.”[7] Despite forceful attempts by local Klan members to run the Bruces off Bruce’s Beach,[8] the resort remained popular and successful with other Black residents and visitors.[9] However, in 1924, “the Manhattan Beach Board of Trustees voted to condemn Bruce’s Beach and the surrounding land through the power of eminent domain under the ostensible purpose of building a park.”[10] The Board of Trustees tore down the resort and “enacted ordinances precluding the opening of any new beach resort in order to prevent the Bruces from relocating their business elsewhere in the city.”[11] Bruce’s Beach sat dormant until 1948, when the City Council transferred it to the state.[12] The state eventually transferred Bruce’s Beach to the county in 1995, but the transfer included strict limitations on further transfers and land use.[13]

Silence or Discrimination: Is the Ban on Critical Race Theory a Violation of Teachers’ Free Speech or Does it Discriminate Against Students?

*Meriam Mossad

I. Introduction

Critical Race Theory (CRT) is an academic movement that emerged in the mid-1970s. It was founded by civil-rights scholars and activists who sought to critically examine the intersection of race and the law, and to advocate for more radical approaches to the pursuit of racial justice.[1] The late Derrick Bell, a former civil rights lawyer and the first tenured Black professor at Harvard Law School, examined CRT in connection with American jurisprudence on racial issues that, even when seemingly liberal in principle, served to entrench racism.[2] Bell also argued that facially neutral laws continue to uphold white racial dominance, despite the decline of legal segregation and institutional discrimination.[3]

Recently, conservative lawmakers have sought to ban the teaching of CRT in schools.[4] As of January 2022, fourteen U.S. states have enacted bills that would restrict the teaching of CRT or limit how teachers discuss racism and sexism, and thirty-three other states are in the process of implementing such bans.[5]

Eroding Atkins v. Virginia: How the Courts Are Allowing Persons with Intellectual Disabilities to Be Sentenced to Death

*Alexandra K. Becnel

I. The Decision in Atkins Has Spared the Lives of People with Intellectual Disabilities

As of October 2021, there are 132 people on death row in Ohio alone.[1] Since the Supreme Court’s decision in Atkins v. Virginia,[2] more than 130 people awaiting execution have been spared because of their intellectual disability diagnoses.[3] Many people, like Danny Hill, are caught in an Eighth Amendment loophole and will face execution in the coming months.[4]

Danny Hill was born in 1967 to Vera Williams.[5] Vera was intellectually disabled, and illiterate, and dropped out of school before she entered high school.[6] As a child, doctors diagnosed Danny with multiple neurodevelopmental disorders.[7] He attended special education classes and had significant deficits in basic skills, such as hygiene.[8] Throughout his life, Danny received approximately ten intellectual disability diagnoses.[9] Danny’s three brothers were also intellectually disabled.[10]

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]