Redistricting and the Origins of the Good Faith Presumption

Evidentiary and substantive presumptions are a well-established tool that courts employ when addressing a variety of legal problems. These presumptions streamline litigation, avoid debate over minor disputes, and ensure that the most important issues can be addressed. But these same presumptions just as frequently close the courthouse doors on meritorious claims and preemptively shut down litigation where a disputed issue exists. One area this occurs is redistricting. In the last fifty years, the Supreme Court of the United States has expanded its substantive presumptions in redistricting matters to permit facially discriminatory redistricting plans. By invoking the presumption of good faith, the Supreme Court insulates state legislators from their constitutional obligations on dubious grounds. Invoking a substantive presumption—especially in redistricting—lacks any constitutional, doctrinal, or historical basis. To draw this conclusion, this Article reviews the doctrine, history, and tradition of good faith in the Supreme Court of the United States. It explains how the Court’s understanding of good faith in redistricting matters reflects a significant departure from its good faith jurisprudence—and seems to have been created by accident. It then harmonizes the Court’s earlier good faith doctrines and explains how a substantive presumption for state-based redistricting contravenes the structure, context, and purpose of the Reconstruction Amendments and Constitution itself. To remedy this incongruous application, this Article examines the constitutional source of a substantive good faith presumption and where (and by whom) it may be properly invoked. By understanding good faith through these parameters, this Article explores the true constitutional interests that a presumption of good faith vindicates

Building Layered Defenses to Reduce Illegal Gun Violence

This article examines a multifaceted approach to reducing illegal gun violence in the United States through the implementation of layered defense strategies. While acknowledging the constitutional protections afforded by the Second Amendment, the author argues that targeted legislative and community-based interventions can effectively reduce gun violence without infringing on lawful gun ownership rights. The analysis explores several key defensive measures, including extreme risk laws (risk protection orders), which allow for temporary firearm removal from individuals posing credible threats to themselves or others—a practice recently upheld by the Supreme Court in United States v. Rahimi. The article further examines the constitutional framework for firearm regulation in sensitive places and for certain high-risk individuals, while advocating for bipartisan legislative solutions to strengthen existing defense mechanisms. By drawing parallels to layered security approaches in other contexts, this work provides a pragmatic framework for balancing individual rights with public safety concerns to prevent illegal gun violence through coordinated governmental and community action

The Effects Doctrine: The Simple Answer to the Absurd Results of Florida\u27s Judicial Interpretation of Law Enforcement Jurisdiction

Imagine the impotence a police officer must feel when watching a dangerous driver coming toward them but being unable to protect the public from harm until that driver crosses the invisible line of a city boundary. Even though hundreds of millions of Americans take preventive measures every day, Florida courts prohibit local law enforcement from doing the same; handcuffing officers by holding they may not take official action the moment they cross over the boundary lines of their city or county. A narrow set of prudential exceptions to this rule has been created, resulting in absurdly contradictory rulings. Imagine a world where the use of agency letterhead is considered official action while the use of police vehicles, sirens, emergency lights, and firearms is not. A world where local officers may make an arrest for conduct occurring outside of the nation but not across the street in another city. These are not outlandish hypotheticals; this is the absurd reality of Florida’s precedent for law enforcement jurisdiction. One of law enforcement’s primary purposes is to provide security to all members of the public, but the realities of modern life coupled with the absurd results of Florida’s current jurisdiction precedent prevent law enforcement from achieving this goal. Thankfully, a simple and common-sense solution is already codified in the Florida State Statutes, one that has been affirmed by Florida courts and the Supreme Court of the United States: the effects doctrine. The day-to-day lives of over twenty million Floridians, countless tourists, and criminals are not constrained by the invisible lines dividing cities and counties, and neither should the routine activities of law enforcement. It is time Florida courts apply the effects doctrine to remove the handcuffs and allow law enforcement to serve their communities fully and properly

Caught in a Mouse Trap: How Disney v. DeSantis Highlights the Difficulties of Bringing a First Amendment Retaliation Claim Against a State Government

The Disney v. DeSantis lawsuit is a product of the current times. Political tensions and animosity between Americans have reached an all-time high. Moreover, it is from these tumultuous times that massive changes can arise. The Disney v. DeSantis lawsuit has highlighted some of the difficulties and challenges modern-day courts face when resolving First Amendment issues in our current political climate. This Article attempts to provide an in-depth understanding of how this lawsuit began, what it is about, how it implicates core American values and ideals, and what new challenges courts might face in future First Amendment litigation. Part I of this Article will cover the background knowledge needed to understand this case, including how The Walt Disney Company (Disney) ended with such a unique special district; what special districts are and why they are helpful; what comments Disney made; how the Florida Governor acted against Disney; the dissolution of the Reedy Creek Improvement District (RCID); the filing of the lawsuit against the Governor; and finally the Complaint itself. Part II will focus on the legal basis for Disney’s Complaint, analyzing and explaining the different elements that entail a First Amendment retaliation claim and the difficulties Disney faces in order to bring a successful First Amendment retaliation claim. Part III will focus on the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and its legal basis, including the cases that complicate Disney’s case and how they might preclude Disney from bringing this claim. Part IV will focus on the District Court\u27s Opinion and why it ruled in favor of the Defendants. Part V will discuss whether the Court was correct in dismissing Disney’s Complaint and how it might have gotten it wrong. Finally, Part VI concludes the Article and explains why this case is essential and why it might be worthwhile for courts to tackle this contentious issue

The Good, The Bad, The A.I. . . . and Drake?

Artificial intelligence is an impressive technological innovation. There is great potential for artificial intelligence programs to aid individuals in their daily lives, including in the workplace. Artificial intelligence is becoming more prevalent in the lives of individuals around the world and is more easily accessible to both the general public and business professionals. This has expedited the process of completing many remedial and time-consuming tasks. Legal professionals have already begun using generative artificial intelligence to reduce the amount of time they must spend on research and drafting small motions. Artificial intelligence has also allowed users to create new forms of art through a collaboration with the artificial intelligence’s training and the human users’ creative input. However, various problems have surfaced regarding artificial intelligence platforms, specifically in their training because the artificial intelligence system learns from copyrighted materials. This comment will address how the user or the creator of the artificial intelligence platforms should be granted copyright protections over the output created by artificial intelligence. A critical point to determine ownership (and the subsequent liability) of the output is the definition of “authorship” which is applied to copyright in artificial intelligence cases. Without congressional action or a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, courts must interpret this unprecedented problem with no guidance or uniformity across jurisdictions. This comment proposes that either Congress or the Supreme Court of the United States should grant the users of artificial intelligence programs copyright protections of the output generated through artificial intelligence systems and minimize liability for artificial intelligence creators

Tightrope Walking: Balancing Theatre Teachers’ Academic Freedom of Expression with the Implementation of Florida’s Stop Woke Act and Don’t Say Gay Bill

Florida’s Individual Freedom Act (IFA) and Education Equality Act (EEA), better known as the Stop Woke Act and the Don’t Say Gay bill, respectively, are contentious topics in the United States today. One side argues that parents have the ultimate right to choose what their child learns and how a teacher should deliver that instruction while believing that lessons that address systemic racism divide children and make them feel uncomfortable. The other side argues that our students will be unprepared when they graduate high school to contribute to our multi-racial society and will suffer from a limited worldview. From the national news coverage about Florida’s refusal to include AP African American Studies as a course offered in high schools to the pictures of elementary school classroom libraries being covered up with rolls of blue paper, Florida has become the center of a national discussion about the role our teachers play in educating our young, the restraints which parents and school boards wish to place on the ideas expressed, and the way content is presented in the classroom