Sep. 1, 2026
The Rule of Lenity in Name Only: Pulsifer and the Modern Expansion of Criminal Punishment
If a circuit split, competing interpretations of a criminal statute, and disagreement among members of the Supreme Court are insufficient to trigger the rule of lenity, then what amount of ambiguity is sufficient to do so? The Supreme Court’s decision in Pulsifer v. United States answered this question by rejecting the application of lenity in a case involving genuine disagreement over the meaning of a federal sentencing statute. The rule of lenity is a longstanding principle of statutory interpretation requiring courts to resolve genuine ambiguity in criminal statutes in favor of the defendant. The federal safety valve, by contrast, allows certain defendants convicted of drug offenses to avoid otherwise applicable mandatory minimum sentences if they satisfy specified statutory requirements. Although Pulsifer resolved a dispute over eligibility for safety valve relief, the decision also reflects a shift in how modern courts approach the rule of lenity.
Sep. 1, 2026
Is the War Powers Resolution Constitutional? Commentary on a Unique and Controversial Piece of Legislation
The War Powers Resolution is a one-of-a-kind Congressional enactment. The infamous legislation was enacted in 1973. The Resolution requires the President of the United States to abide by certain requirements imposed by Congress when taking military action. Since its enactment, presidents have abided by some of its requirements and blatantly ignored others. Some view it as a toothless document. Others argue that it provides a necessary check on the otherwise unbridled power of the president to wage war. This article argues that for better or for worse, Congress likely does not have the power to prevent the president—in his executive authority—from conducting foreign military operations, making the War Powers Resolution a document that is only worth the paper it is printed on.
March 23, 2026
Finding the Lightning: Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic and the Search for Rights-Creating Language in Spending Power Legislation
Mark Twain once observed that “the difference between the almost right word and the right word is really a large matter—’tis the difference between the lightning-bug and the lightning.” Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic is a case about exactly that difference, finding that Congress must use explicit rights-creating language to confer enforceable rights. In a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court held that Medicaid beneficiaries cannot sue state officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to enforce the statute’s “any-qualified-provider” provision. The decision was immediately controversial: critics warned that the ruling left vulnerable beneficiaries without any meaningful enforcement mechanism. This Note argues that Medina provided necessary clarification of the standards governing § 1983 enforcement of spending-power statutes.
March 23, 2026
State Power, Private Rules: The NCAA’s Unaccountable Judiciary
The National Collegiate Athletic Association infractions process has long been criticized as a kangaroo court. A recent and quiet revolution in the NCAA’s internal operating procedures seems to have moved the goalposts from difficult to challenge to nearly impossible to overturn. Effective January 1, 2023, the NCAA Division I membership codified a “no reasonable person” standard of review for all infractions appeals. This article argues that by adopting an ultra-deferential standard of review while simultaneously hiding behind the “state action” shield of NCAA v. Tarkanian, the NCAA has created a vacuum of accountability that leaves institutions and their athletes without meaningful recourse.
March 23, 2026
Barking Up the Wrong Tree: The Case Against Breed-Specific Legislation in Missouri
Sergeant Stubby, once the “most famous animal in the United States,” was the first dog to receive an army rank and is the most decorated dog in U.S. military history. When thinking of this all-American, beloved dog, what breed comes to mind? Consistent American favorites like the Labrador or golden retriever? Or the German shepherd, popularized as police dogs in the 1950s? No, Sgt. Stubby was a pit bull mix, a breed now banned from private housing on “all major military bases” and in many U.S. communities. If Sgt. Stubby were to have come home to the U.S. in 2026, there would be several areas in Missouri where he could not reside or where he would be subject to restrictions. Missouri should join the growing number of jurisdictions that have recognized the failures of BSL and move toward an evidence‑based, breed‑neutral framework.
Aug. 23, 2025
Trump v. Wilcox and the Supreme Court’s Retreat from Administrative Independence
On May 22, 2025, the 6-3 supermajority of the Supreme Court granted an emergency application for a stay, a procedural maneuver that effectively enabled President Donald Trump to dismiss National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) Member Gwynne Wilcox despite statutory protections against removal without cause. This immediate action left the NLRB without a quorum, thereby halting crucial federal labor law proceedings. The Court’s utilization of its emergency docket suggests that it views the unitary executive theory not merely as a preferred interpretation, but as an urgent constitutional imperative, justifying the circumvention of traditional deliberative processes and established norms of judicial review.
Aug. 20, 2025
Minor Marriage: A Major Problem for States
This year, Missouri joined the (surprisingly short) list of fifteen states to completely ban child marriage. This legislation marks an update from the 2018 amendments to Missouri law, which allowed children between sixteen and eighteen years old to marry with parental consent. Prior to 2018, many considered Missouri a “destination” state for child marriage, with individuals coming from both coasts to marry fifteen-year-old girls. This Note explores the history and attitudes behind child marriage and the fairly recent wave of states to adopt full child marriage bans while also considering the implications of child marriage on parental rights, especially for divorced parents.
Aug. 19, 2025
Paved with Good Intentions: Missouri’s Prosecutor-Initiated Relief Statute and the Perils of Criminal Justice Innovation
The road to hell is paved with good intentions, especially when it comes to criminal justice reform. Section 547.031 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri allows circuit attorneys to file motions vacating convictions based on innocence evidence—an ambitious reform that In re Circuit Attorney, 22nd Judicial Circuit ex rel. Christopher Dunn reveals as fundamentally flawed. This Note argues that Missouri’s prosecutor-initiated relief statute creates more problems than it solves, resulting in a framework that is more complex, less efficient, and potentially less effective than the traditional post-conviction mechanisms it was meant to supplement.
April 29, 2025
Banning Harm Without Harming Speech: Alternatives to Broad Professional Speech Regulation
In a significant case testing the boundaries of free speech and professional regulation, licensed counselor Kaley Chiles challenged Colorado's ban on conversion therapy for minors, arguing it violated her First Amendment rights.
April 29, 2025
Pre-Empting the People: Missouri’s Legislative Response to the Voter-Approved Paid Sick Leave Mandate
In November 2024, with nearly 1.7 million “Yes” votes, Missouri voters decisively approved Proposition A, which established paid sick leave requirements for employers across the state. But, after this clear expression of voter will, the Missouri legislature has moved to dismantle these protections through House Bill No. 567 (HB 567), which sought to repeal the law before it could take effect.