The Public Utility Regulation of Dollar General

As food insecurity persists across the country, few solutions have been proposed to address the lack of access to healthy food in rural regions. This Note explores whether public utilities regulation is a theoretical avenue for addressing rural food deserts. The contribution of this Note is to encourage the recognition of healthy food as a critical public good through a modern public utility lens and build solutions to inadequate food access in rural regions by considering the qualities unique to rural populations. One solution proposed herein is to apply a modern public utility framework to dollar stores, ensuring reliable and affordable access to quality goods. The Note begins by defining rural food deserts through three key characteristics: (1) low-income households; (2) inadequate access to transportation; and (3) limited healthy food retailers. It then illustrates rural food deserts in a West Virginia case study, which further discusses the consequences of unaddressed food insecurity. Next, it examines existing legislation and initiatives addressing rural and urban food deserts. It then goes on to expose urbanormative thinking trends that contribute to the lack of conversations surrounding food deserts in rural communities and their persistence. Finally, it introduces a public utility framework as a new solution to treating rural food deserts, specifically proposing a modern public utility application to dollar stores in West Virginia. It further explores potential challenges to this framework

The Hidden Cost of State Income Tax Repeal: A Case Study of the West Virginia Neighborhood Investment Program Credit

In March 2023, West Virginia significantly cut its personal income tax rates and paved a path toward the full repeal of the personal income tax. This repeal would directly impact West Virginia’s nonprofit sector and reduce charitable giving because it would render West Virginia’s Neighborhood Investment Program (“NIP”) tax credit ineffective. NIP tax credits have been the primary charitable tax incentive in the state’s income tax code and have been widely supported by nonprofits. This Article argues that if the NIP credit program incentivizes charitable giving, then state income tax repeal comes with a hidden cost—the cost of lost revenues to private charities increasingly tasked with providing vital social services. Following the introduction in Part I, Part II looks at West Virginia’s state personal income tax repeal and similar repeal proposals under consideration in other states. Part III reviews state level charitable giving incentives and their interplay with the Federal charitable deduction, using the NIP credit in West Virginia as a case study. Part IV introduces Professor Paul McDaniel’s federal charitable matching grant proposal, first introduced in 1972, which was developed in response to changes in the federal charitable income tax deduction and a growing concern about the role of tax expenditures. The Article proposes that Professor McDaniel’s federal matching grant program could be adapted by those states that have repealed (or are considering repealing) their personal income tax but still wish to incentivize charitable giving on the state level. Part V specifically demonstrates how Professor McDaniel’s grant program overlaps considerably with the structure of West Virginia’s NIP tax credit and could be easily amended to replace the credit in the event of full personal income tax repeal. The Article concludes by urging West Virginia to be a leader among the states considering income tax repeal by demonstrating the manner in which a matching grants program could replace charitable tax incentives

Theorizing the Point-of-Order Interpretive Canons

In Law Within Congress, Jonathan Gould suggested that rulings of the House or Senate chair under the advice of their respective parliamentarians might inform statutory interpretation. This Article fleshes out the theoretical foundations of that approach. While such approach is much narrower than the broad reliance on Congress’s rules by other theorists of the “process-based” school, it also comes with strong theoretical justifications and advantages that set it apart. Part I illustrates the broad appeal of “process-based” theories by showing that even textualists have strong theoretical reasons to endorse them. Part II then surveys the theoretical advantages specific to the point-of-order interpretive canons compared to broader approaches in the “process-based” school, such as notice to lawmakers and avoidance of the “rule-flouting” problem. Part III illustrates three basic point-of-order canons, as well as the various theoretical imports of chair rulings and appeals. Part IV explores how the point-of-order interpretive canons might be applied in practice using the Supreme Court case Bankamerica Corp. v. United States, a hypothetical analysis of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s funding, and some miscellaneous examples drawn from congressional records

Privatized Medicaid: An Incentivized System of Constant Denials

The Medicaid Program was created to fill the gap of what private insurance would not do—provide vulnerable populations with meaningful access to quality health care—but now it has been thrown into the pitfalls of private insurance. Over the last two decades, there has been a significant rise in states contracting with private Managed Care Organizations (“MCOs”) to provide services to a percentage of their Medicaid enrollees. MCOs now make decisions each year to approve or deny millions of requests for Medicaid coverage of health care services using prior authorization. Until now, the criticisms and fears surrounding privatized Medicaid have largely been theoretical. However, the Office of Inspector General’s recent report brought the issue of Medicaid managed care denials to a larger audience than it has ever seen before. This Note argues that Medicaid managed care plans are setting up a system of constant denials by using narrow coverage standards, like medical necessity, as rationing tools. First, this Note examines the ways that this cost-cutting system incentivizes MCOs to arbitrarily deny requests for coverage of medically necessary services. Second, this Note analyzes how the insufficiency of the current regulations and government oversight of MCOs facilitates leeway for arbitrary denials. This Note proposes potential policy solutions and legal remedies as approaches to protecting Medicaid enrollees from arbitrary denials. To ensure that the Medicaid Program remains true to its purpose of serving the public interest, it is imperative that we begin mandating comprehensive reporting of denial rates, records, and prior authorization standards by states and MCOs to the federal government. These reports should be publicly accessible as they concern the accountability for and administration of a publicly funded program. Further, when state Medicaid agencies exceed the bounds of their authority by adopting unreasonable review standards or failing to provide required services, aggrieved Medicaid enrollees may have recourse in court

The Myth of the Best Interest of the Child

One of the basic tenets of Family Law as applied to children is consideration of “best interest of the child” in making decisions. Standards for custody, termination, adoption, and all other matters affecting children are overlaid with consideration of best interest. Unfortunately, the promise of best interest is lost in the actual mechanics of making these critical decisions involving children. This Article explores the disconnect between the ideal of using the best interest of the child as a key factor in legal decisions affecting children and the practicalities of competing interests. The Article first explores the common concern of the indeterminacy of a best interest standard. One of the problems with best interest criterion is that almost anything that affects the child can be considered, and the weight to be given is not contained within the standard. Then, I look at the continuous elevation of parental rights over those of children in the areas of custody, the possibility of more than two parents, termination of parental rights, consent to medical care, and non-parent visitation. Next, I look at instances where societal interests are prioritized over the individual child interests—the Indian Child Welfare Act “ICWA”) and the issues surrounding gender affirming care. I also consider the international perspective, looking at the Convention on the Rights of the Child (“CRC”). My conclusion is that children should be independently represented by counsel in complex, high conflict, or high stakes (for the child) cases

Generative Artificial Intelligence in Hollywood: The Turbulent Future that Lies Ahead

Since the dawn of time, the human race has used some form of technology to assist their unwavering dedication to push society forward. From the first stone tool to the first computer, some sort of regulation controlled their usage, ranging from government regulations to industry standards. When artificial intelligence (“AI”) entered the arena of technology, regulatory bodies froze at the daunting task of controlling such a powerful tool. Across almost every industry, artificial intelligence has found its home in various work functions. Generative artificial intelligence has furthered the complexity that stems from regulating a new, and never before seen technology. As generative artificial intelligence spread across the world as a fun application to use at home, some industries quickly began experimenting with implementing it into job functions. Hollywood quickly latched on to the artificial intelligence movement, finding different ways to implement generative AI into script writing and, more recently, creating movie scenes and fake characters. However, a crippling court decision holding that AI does not get copyright protection has put the brakes on the Hollywood AI movement for now. If the United States legal system decides that AI work product can hold copyrights, the future of Hollywood may be changed forever

Accelerating biosimilar market access: the case for allowing earlier standing

Biosimilars, which are affordable alternatives to biologic medicines, face delays in market entry due to the current patent litigation framework under the Biologic Price Competition and Innovation Act. Currently, biosimilar manufacturers can only initiate patent litigation to attempt to clear weak and invalid patents after submitting their Biologic License Application to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which happens after completing extensive, and costly clinical trials. By contrast, generic drug manufacturers can start litigation earlier due to shorter development times and less stringent clinical requirements, allowing them to launch immediately after the primary patent expires. We propose allowing biosimilars to begin patent litigation at the start of phase 3 clinical trials, the final stage of biosimilar development, where the product and manufacturing process and product profile are largely finalized. This change would enable biosimilar firms to resolve patent issues well before the brand biologic\u27s primary patent expiration date, potentially reducing market entry delays by about 1.8 years. This article examines the issues surrounding initiation of biosimilar litigation and suggests litigation reforms to expedite biosimilar market availability