University of Baltimore Law Review

Before the Truth Puts on Its Shoes: The Cost of Free Speech in the Age of AI-Manipulated Political Ads

*Chauncey Bellamy

I. Introduction

A shirtless, raptor-riding, pistol-brandishing potential future United States president has found a way to stand out among his fellow 2028 shadow presidential candidates.^[1] In August 2025, Tucker Carlson, Kid Rock, and an angelic Hulk Hogan gave him their blessing during a solemn prayer session.^[2] The next day, he stared sternly from his perch next to George Washington on Mount Rushmore.^[3] This is the social-media reality of California Governor Gavin Newsom.^[4] In a series of AI-generated X posts, Newsom and those inspired by him online have parodied President Trump’s social-media style in an attempt to redefine the role of the opposition.^[5] At the same time, Newsom and other politicians across the country have struggled to limit a more insidious use of AI in the realm of politics: deepfakes designed to trick voters into turning away from political candidates for saying or doing things the candidates did not say or do.^[6]

Highest Case Note from Write-On 2025: Westminster Mgmt., LLC v. Smith, 312 A.3d 741 (Md. 2024).

*Macy Hamlett

The Supreme Court of Maryland narrowed residential landlords’ power in summary ejection and defined a standard of review for multiple motions for class certification. Westminster Mgmt., LLC v. Smith, 312 A.3d 741 (Md. 2024).

Are Family Homes Really Private?: A Look into CPS Investigations and the 4th Amendment

*Christina Han

I. Introduction

In New York City, Ronisha Ferguson, mother of three, suddenly heard loud banging on her door while waiting for her two sons to return from school.[1] Having an intricate history of dealing with the Administration for Children’s Services (ACS), she knew that the ones knocking on her door were, once again, ACS caseworkers, investigating a tip that one of her sons was not regularly attending school and sported bruises and a black eye.[2] With a growing frustration against them for repeatedly putting her in a humiliating position in front of her children, she refused to grant them access to her home and to her children.[3] Around 4:30 A.M. the next morning, she awoke to loud banging not only from the ACS, but from the New York Police Department, demanding she hand over her children or face arrest.[4]

Gun Violence in Foreign Countries: Can U.S. Gun Manufacturers Be Held Liable?

Criminal assembling and purchasing firearm

*Mitchell Fair

Mexico’s strict gun laws make it virtually impossible for criminals to obtain legally sourced firearms within the country.[1] The sole gun store in Mexico, located on a military base in Mexico City, issues fewer than fifty gun permits a year.[2] Despite its strict regulations, Mexico still ranks third for the most gun-related deaths in the world.[3] Nevertheless, the Mexican drug war remains ongoing since 2006, with cartel members still engaging in gunfights with the police.[4]

Interpreting our Digital Hieroglyphs: Emojis on Trial

*Alexander Robinson

I. Introduction

In March 2021, a Canadian farmer discussed selling eighty-seven metric tons of flax with a grain buyer.[1] The farmer texted the buyer a photo of the written contract with the words “[p]lease confirm flax contract,” to which the buyer replied with the message “👍.”[2] The flax shipment never arrived and the buyer sued for breach of contract.[3] A Saskatchewan trial court ruled against the farmer, holding that the farmer was accustomed to the buyer’s brevity in accepting his offers.[4] In the pair’s prior contracts, the court explained, the buyer manifested his acceptances to the farmer’s offers through short texts like “ok” or “yup.”[5] Thus, the “thumbs up” emoji was effectively identical to those prior texts, a concise yet perfectly “valid way to convey . . . acceptance of the flax contract.”[6] This quaint Canadian case portends a serious legal trend. Emojis are a growing form of communication that, like any other crucial piece of evidence, is something our factfinders must interpret.[7]