University of Baltimore Law Review

The First Amendment’s Second Look: Echoes of the 1960s Anti-War Movement in Today’s Israel-Palestine Protests

*Elle Johnson

I. Introduction

College campuses noticed a major uptick in student-led protests and demonstrations after the Israel-Palestine conflict escalated in October 2023.[1] In Spring 2024, law enforcement officers arrested thousands of student protesters in Spring 2024,[2] an eerie reminder to many Americans of a similar time in U.S. history: the 1960s Anti-War Movement.[3]

FTC’s Non-Compete Ban Faces Challenges: Chevron Deference Overturned and District Court Ruling Cast Doubts on Rule’s Validity

*William Cellitto

In 1914, Congress enacted the Federal Trade Commission Act (the Act).[1] The Act established the Federal Trade Commission (the FTC)[2] and vested the FTC with the power to prevent the use of “unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.”[3] On April 23, 2024, the FTC adopted a Non-Compete Rule (the Rule) that prohibits employers from entering into non-compete agreements with employees and requires them to rescind existing non-compete agreements by the Rule’s compliance date.[4]

High Prescription Drug Prices Are Slowly Gaining Attention From the Government. What is Being Done and Is It Enough?

*Billy Cadogan

I. Introduction

The United States began to spend significantly more on prescription drugs per capita compared to the rest of the world in the mid-1990s.[1] The increase in prices and the business practices within the prescription drug industry have gotten so out of hand that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed a lawsuit against the three biggest pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) for anticompetitive practices and market manipulation, alleging the PBMs steer patients toward more expensive drugs and exclude cheaper alternatives from their formularies.[2] The FTC filed suit against the three largest PBMs on September 20, 2024 for engaging in anticompetitive and unfair rebate practices which have led to artificially inflated prices and limited access to lower-priced alternatives.[3] The suit and FTC investigation have potential to bring transparency and fairness to the prescription drug market.[4]

Risking the Game: The Dangers of a Long-Lasting Title IX Injunction for Student Athletes.

*Alexa Thomas

I. Introduction

Team USA’s women athletes dominated the 2024 Paris Olympics, bringing home sixty-seven of the United States’ 126 total medals[1] Women’s Olympic participation has grown significantly since women first competed in the Olympics over a century ago,[2] finally reaching gender parity during the 2024 Paris Olympics.[3] Though more women around the world are participating in the Olympics,[4] Team USA’s women athletes consistently reign over the Olympic stage.[5] Team USA’s domination in women’s athletic events largely stems from Title IX, legislation that prohibits sex discrimination in federally funded education programs.[6] As the number of young athletes continues to rise,[7] a federal court’s recent enjoinment of the Department of Education’s amended Title IX regulations — an overbroad remedy that deprives many student athletes of vital anti-discrimination protections both on and off the field — threatens women athletes’ progress. [8]

A Broken Shield or a Double-Edged Sword?: The Fall of Nonconsensual Third-Party Releases

*John Osborne

I. Introduction

A 2024 Supreme Court decision in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P. sent shockwaves through the bankruptcy law community and the vast network of opioid crisis victims.[1] The Supreme Court heard Harrington to decide one important issue: whether the Bankruptcy Code authorizes a court to issue an order “extinguishing vast numbers of existing claims” against a non-debtor third party without the consent of some affected claimants.[2] Unraveling a hard-fought $4.3 billion settlement between Purdue Pharma L.P. (Purdue) and victims of the opioid crisis, as well as state, local, and tribal governments,[3] the Court found that the Bankruptcy Code did not authorize the lower court to issue nonconsensual release or extinguishment orders for non-debtor third parties.[4]