PRECISE OPERATIONS, IMPRECISE LAWS: HOW NEBULOUS LAWS WREAK HAVOC IN OUTER SPACE

As space operations advance with unprecedented precision, the laws governing these activities remain outdated, vague, and incapable of addressing contemporary challenges. The Outer Space Treaty (OST) and the Liability Convention, drafted in the Cold War era, fail to adequately define fundamental terms such as damage, fault, and compensation. This lack of legal precision creates significant liability gaps, particularly as space debris, mega-constellations, and private-sector actors reshape the space landscape. This article explores how these ambiguities hinder legal predictability and fair compensation for victims of space-related harm. By analyzing real-world space incidents, including the Cosmos 954 reentry, the Iridium-Cosmos collision, and the Fengyun-1C ASAT test, the paper highlights how the current legal framework is ill-equipped to address modern disputes. Using principles of treaty interpretation under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, this article argues for an expansive yet practical interpretation of damage under the Liability Convention to ensure equitable outcomes for states and commercial actors alike. As commercial space activities surge and military operations in orbit expand, legal clarity is imperative. This paper proposes concrete reforms to the space liability regime, advocating for clearer treaty language, enhanced dispute resolution mechanisms, and international cooperation to adapt legal frameworks to 21st-century space realities

Involuntary: How a Lack of Analysis of Age Under the Fifth Amendment Highlights the Intersectionality of Age and Race

In the wake of Miller v. Alabama and its progeny, there has been a wider acceptance that juvenile’s need more protections in our judicial system. This is a result of a growing body of research stating that young people’s brains do not fully develop until the age of twenty-five. States across the country are trying to implement this science to protect juvenile rights, especially when it comes to sentencing. However, it has yet to be incorporated in other respects, such as juveniles relinquishing their Fifth Amendment rights. Little attention has been paid to whether a juvenile’s statement in police custody was given voluntarily under the Fifth Amendment. Looking at six different jurisdictions’ analysis of juveniles relinquishing their Fifth Amendment rights (and the voluntariness of their statements), any protections that have been added vary in their effectiveness. Further examination of states with a legislative approach and the cases that result from those jurisdictions indicate courts have less meaningful consideration of youth. Such lack of consideration has left juveniles in these jurisdictions more susceptible to adultification as compared to jurisdictions that consider youth within the body of law, such as within a Miller analysis or within the totality of the circumstances analysis. This Comment proposes that states like Washington that have delegated this analysis to the legislature should incorporate a Miller analysis in court enforcement to prevent further adultification of young people by meaningfully grappling with the characteristics of youth

Washington\u27s Implementation of Legalized Cannabis: A Model for Other States and the Federal Government

This Article examines the process and outcomes of cannabis legalization in Washington State, offering insights for other states and potential federal legalization schemes. It begins with an overview of the campaign that led to the passage of Initiative 502 (I-502), detailing the initiative’s structure, which draws from liquor licensing laws. The Article then explores the establishment of a recreational cannabis market from scratch, focusing on agency structure, federal responses such as the Cole Memorandum, and the state’s regulatory framework aimed at preventing adverse outcomes. Additionally, this Article highlights Washington’s efforts to promote social equity, emphasizing that I-502 was framed as a criminal justice reform measure. It also discusses the influence of Washington’s model on broader nationwide legalization efforts, addressing key aspects such as vertical integration, residency requirements, and the merging of medical and recreational markets. Through this comprehensive analysis, the Article provides a roadmap for policymakers considering cannabis legalization at both state and federal levels

FIGHTING THE HYPOTHETICAL: WHY LAW FIRMS SHOULD RETHINK THE BILLABLE HOUR IN THE GENERATIVE AI ERA

“Fighting the Hypothetical: Why Law Firms Should Rethink the Billable Hour in the Generative AI Era” analyzes how the emergence and adoption of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) will fundamentally disrupt the traditional billable hour model that has dominated the industry since the 1960s. Professor Rapoport and Mr. Tiano contend that GenAI’s ability to perform routine legal tasks quickly and accurately will force law firms to shift away from billing structures based primarily on time spent (or inputs) and toward models that better reflect client value (or outputs). The authors interviewed law firm leaders to gain an “in the trenches” view of emerging trends in this regard. Based on this primary research, there’s no doubt that GenAI is already transforming legal practice by automating tasks traditionally performed by junior associates and paralegals and causing leaders to think about how their firms will make money in the future. The authors discuss how GenAI threatens the pyramid-shaped staffing model that has supported firm profitability and predicts that firms must evolve toward new organizational structures—potentially “rocket,” “diamond,” “starfish,” or “cylinder” models—that rely less on large numbers of junior attorneys and more on technology-enabled senior lawyers providing high-value advice. Professor Rapoport and Mr. Tiano also discuss how the billable-hour economic model is fraught with inefficiency and poor scalability, talent retention challenges, disincentives to innovate, and ethical concerns around reasonable billing. Despite the shortcomings, the authors observe that law firms haven’t moved away from the billable hour for three primary reasons: (1) there has been no external factor that has had the muscle to catalyze change; (2) clients haven’t had the collective fortitude to effectuate a change; and (3) despite their recognition of the shortcomings, law firms have not changed the model because it is making them wealthy. The authors predict that this situation will soon change due to the seismic force of GenAI. GenAI will change the legacy economic model as widespread adoption of GenAI as a legal service delivery tool now occurs. When GenAI tools are used to deliver legal services, all frailties in the billable hour economic model are exposed. Most important, when routine work moves from humans to technology, the bottom tier of the pyramid will fail to generate the rich results that law firm partners want