Bowers, Lawrence and Obergefell: A Case-by-Case Analysis

What does Bowers v. Hardwick, Lawrence v. Texas, and Obergefell v. Hodges all have in common? Each of these Supreme Court cases chronicles the passage of time and advancement in LGBTQ+ rights in America. Not only, however, do they chronicle the rights that have been achieved for LGBTQ+ individuals, but they also chronicle the evolution of the Justices on the bench. These cases here help us understand the influences that encourage the Justice’s decision-making, whether it be the state of the law or the Court’s environment. By analyzing each case, we can understand not only how these cases were decided, but also how past cases would have been decided by our current Supreme Court bench

Marion Anita Gardner Interview, 01 July 2025

In this 2025 interview, Marion Anita Gardner discusses her early life in Cleveland, memories at Olivet Institutional Baptist Church, and her eventual move to the Mt. Pleasant neighborhood. Gardner describes her work as the founder and CEO the Concerned Citizens Community Council on Kinsman Road, her work as a machinist at TRW, and her early education. At the end of the interview, Gardner expresses her love for Cleveland and leaves a message for future generations

Her Bun + My Oven = Our Child: Protecting the Legal Parentage of LGBTQ+ Mothers and Their Children Conceived via Reciprocal In Vitro Fertilization in Ohio

This Note discusses legal parentage in Ohio for two-women couples who expand their families via reciprocal in vitro fertilization or egg-sharing, where one woman is the genetic parent and the other is the gestational parent. Currently, the gestational mother is guaranteed legal parentage at the time of the child’s birth, while the genetic mother must petition the court for a formal adoption to protect her legal rights. A thorough review of court precedent regarding same-sex marriage makes clear that the public policy of Ohio permits two women to share in the legal rights of parentage. Furthermore, Ohio courts have regularly held that legal parentage may be established through gestation and/or genetics and provides a mechanism for determining parentage in cases of surrogacy. This Note argues that the state legislature must expand Chapter 3111 to include a provision granting legal parentage to both women in cases of reciprocal in vitro fertilization, much like those covering artificial insemination and embryo adoption. Without this bright-line protection, the legal relationship between the child and mother(s) is at risk

Huey Haynes II interview, 21 January 2025

In this 2025 interview, Huey Haynes II, the owner of Haynes Firestone Tires on Miles Avenue, discusses his early life in the Glenville neighborhood in the 1960s. He describes the Haynes family history of owning gas and auto service stations across Cleveland and how he became the owner of Haynes Firestone Tires. He also describes the impact of his family on his life, why he became a business owner, and the changes that he has witnessed in Cleveland throughout his lifetime

Cannabis in the Clink: An Argument in Favor of Medical Marijuana for Disabled Inmates

In recent decades, medical marijuana programs have become commonplace, and most states in the United States of America are ready to accept marijuana as a natural alternative to treat symptoms of certain conditions such as chronic pain, cancer, mental illness, multiple sclerosis (MS), HIV/AIDS, and substance use disorder; as such, medical marijuana is readily accessible to those who have a qualifying diagnosis – the exception being those who are incarcerated. Although disability, substance abuse, and mental illness are prevalent among those under state supervision, these individuals are effectively prohibited from enjoying the benefits of medical marijuana. This Note will provide a comprehensive history of marijuana legislation in the United States, including a legal framework regarding the constitutionality of state medical marijuana programs, and an argument in favor of allowing qualifying inmates to access medical marijuana. This Note will also address counterarguments and will outline a logistical approach to administering medical marijuana to qualifying inmates

Courting Oblivion Part III: Enacting a Chelsea Manning Act of Oblivion and Amnesty

This is the third and final part of the three-part Courting Oblivion series on the legal concept of oblivion, meaning legal forgetfulness, letting go of the past, or forgiveness, usually to predicate a second chance, a restart, or even an era of reconstruction. This Article begins with an exposition of former President Donald J. Trump’s several indictments, including his indictment under the Espionage Act of 1917. It explains how, even while being charged for espionage, Trump and other nonwhistleblower suspects appear to unfairly benefit from a double standard. The Article gives an exposition of the origins of whistleblower protections in the United States tracing back to a 1778 statute that was enacted after Benjamin Franklin’s revolutionary act of whistleblowing. It also explores the “right to know” vindicated by John Adams during the revolution, before he betrayed his own views by signing the Alien & Sedition Acts into law. It discusses the enactment of the Espionage Act of 1917, certain whistleblower protection statutes, and relevant jurisprudence. Then, this Article puts the case against Chelsea Manning in legal-historical context. It explains Manning’s position as the first internet whistleblower, and how her case became the crowning achievement of Obama’s experimental “war against whistleblowers” that President Trump attempted to standardize in Reality Winner’s case as though these criminal cases legitimately arose from nonexistent strains of feudal scandalum magnatum precedent in the United States. Finally, it demonstrates why Manning’s trial was unjustly prosecuted, why Manning deserves oblivion and amnesty, and how Congress can extend oblivion and amnesty to her. This Article sets forth the terms and provisions that Congress should consider enacting in the Chelsea Manning Act of Oblivion and Amnesty. It especially explains how this act should either repeal or amend the Espionage Act in its entirety, by meaningfully distinguishing whistleblowers, irresponsible parties, and actual spies. Furthermore, it demonstrates how Congress can proactively initiate a third period of reconstruction in America through oblivion and amnesty. This Article concludes the Courting Oblivion series by honoring the contributions of queer, transgender, and intersex people, to the law framed by the writings of Flannery O’Connor. It honors especially those like Marsha P. Johnson, Pauli Murray, and Chelsea Manning, who reached across color lines to create opportunities for justice. It ultimately calls upon Congress to exemplify Joan Didion’s “singular power of self-respect” according to the superior grace of Eve Babitz’s works by finally doing right by whistleblowers, who deserve our forgiveness and our penance

When Colleges Drop out of the Economy

We explore the profound economic impact of small liberal arts colleges faltering and failing in various countries. These institutions have long been the backbone of their communities, providing stability and growth. However, due to declining birth rates, pandemic recovery, high costs, cultural shifts, and waning confidence, many are struggling. Our research investigates the economic consequences of this large-scale rightsizing of the university system across five continents, highlighting differences in higher education supply chains and interconnectedness. We\u27ll delve into the specifics of enrollment trends, closures, and financial challenges in the U.S., Chile, England, South Korea, and Egypt, and analyze the ripple effects on employment, GDP, and local economies

Pursuing Patent Protection in the U.S. via the PCT: Legal and Practical Implications for 371 and Bypass Routes

The Patent Cooperation Treaty (“PCT”) has emerged as a pivotal mechanism for inventors and companies seeking international patent protection. The PCT provides a unified application process accepted by member countries, simplifying, and standardizing the procedural aspects of filing for patent protection in multiple countries. For inventors pursuing patent protection in the United States via the PCT, inventors must submit their application with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) and choose between one of two primary routes: 1) entering the U.S. national stage under 35 U.S.C. §371 (“371 route”), or 2) filing a continuation or divisional of the PCT application, also known as the “bypass” route. The decision of which of the two routes to take is far from trivial. The selected route affects various aspects of the patenting process, including filing requirements, translation obligations, restriction practices, examination timelines, patent term adjustments, and overall prosecution strategy. Choosing the most suitable route requires careful consideration of the differences and implications of each approach. This article will explore the strategic considerations patent practitioners should weigh when deciding between the two routes. Furthermore, it will examine a real-world case study to highlight the potential consequences of choosing the “wrong” route, providing valuable lessons for practitioners aiming to align their strategies with their clients\u27 interests and objectives. Finally, I propose that USPTO identify its preferred national stage entry pathway and implement targeted benefits to encourage more applicants to choose this route

Making Criminal Penalties Collar-Blind on the Federal Level

This paper is intended to be the first in a series of papers that addresses whether lower income individuals suffer all of the following at much higher rates than their percentage of the population would suggest should be the case: (1) police stops for questioning; (2) arrests; (3) prosecutions; (4) convictions; and (5) lengthy post-conviction incarcerations. In particular, this first paper addresses the question of whether prison sentences imposed for “blue-collar crimes” are significantly longer than prison sentences imposed for “white-collar crimes.” In general, “blue-collar crimes” refer to crimes that are committed by individuals who possess blue-collar professions and “white-collar crimes” refer to crimes that are committed by individuals who possess white-collar possessions. I practiced as a criminal defense lawyer shortly after I graduated from law school. As a defense counsel, I represented an elderly, homeless, alcoholic man named George, who was facing 20 years in prison for having broken into a friend’s liquor store at night to steal a $10 bottle of rum. He had not brought a gun or other weapon to his friend’s store, no violence had occurred during his theft, and he had caused only minimal damage to his friend’s store. Then, in the run-up to the 2007-2008 mortgage crisis and near-global economic collapse a few years later, I had a special opportunity to learn about the massive fraud that Countrywide Mortgage was committing. At the time, Countrywide was directed by Angelo Mozilo, the CEO. Years later, Mozilo was forced to pay a penalty of$20.5 million to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for securities fraud, which amount, in turn, represented only 4% of the $521.5 million in total compensation that he had received from Countrywide in the relevant years of 2000-2008. Mozilo also paid$45 million to the SEC for insider trading, but Countrywide indemnified Mozilo for $20 million of that amount. Following Mozilo’s settlement with the SEC, the U.S. Department of Justice dropped its pending prosecution of Mozilo for criminal fraud, despite the fact that he was one of the main causes of the 2007-2008 mortgage crisis. In that crisis, in the U.S. alone, approximately ten million people lost their homes, approximately one million people became homeless, approximately nine million people lost their jobs, and approximately 9.8 trillion dollars in people’s wealth evaporated. The criminal justice system’s disparate treatment of George and Angelo has haunted me for years. In order to further investigate whether this disparity is merely anecdotal or endemic to our criminal justice system, several students at St. Thomas University Benjamin L. Crump College of Law and I reviewed all of the sentences imposed by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida for each blue-collar crime and each white-collar crime during the first quarter of 2019. Section I of this paper introduces the paper. Section II discusses the cases of George and Angelo, one a blue-collar defendant and the other a white-collar defendant. Section III discusses the history of sentencing for white-collar crimes in the U.S. in general. Section IV explains the methodology employed in the study of all prison sentences imposed by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida in the first quarter of 2019. Section V discusses the results of the study, which revealed that the federal judges in this court, during that time period, imposed significantly longer sentences for blue-collar crimes than for white-collar crimes. Section VI considers some of the possible explanations for the results of this study, and Section VII concludes. There are a number of possible explanations for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida’s disparate treatment of blue-collar crimes and white-collar crimes on the federal level. This disparity, however, appears to be based largely on the assumption of both the U.S. Congress and the U.S. Sentencing Commission that white-collar crimes are less serious than blue-collar crimes, which assumption is nonsensical for a number of reasons discussed in the paper. In any case, all possible explanations for the significant disparity in sentencing for blue-collar crimes and white-collar crimes by federal judges in general and by the judges of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida in particular should be rigorously investigated. Furthermore, this disparity in sentencing, if it is to be maintained, must be justified by one or more stronger rationale(s) than the nonsensical assumption that white-collar crimes as a group are less serious than blue-collar crimes as a group. Our U.S. system of justice deserves no less