University of Tulsa College of Law

Tulsa Law Review Volume 60 Number 3 Spring 2025 Copyright Page Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr  Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Copyright Page, 60 Tulsa L. Rev. iii-Copyright page (2025). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr/vol60/iss3/3 This Front Matter is brought to you for free and open access by TU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Tulsa Law Review by an authorized editor of TU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact megan-donald@utulsa.edu.  iii  The Tulsa Law Review (ISSN 1538-9979 USPS 66-9050) is published three times per academic year by students of the University of Tulsa College of Law. The Tulsa Law Review can be contacted at: Tulsa Law Review, The University of Tulsa College of Law, 3120 East Fourth Place, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 74104 or tlr@utulsa.edu. Text and citations in the Law Review conform to the Bluebook 21st edition. The Tulsa Law Review also employs the Chicago Manual of Style (18th ed.). The Tulsa Law Review is printed by Knowledge Works Global, Ltd. Periodicals postage paid at Tulsa, Oklahoma, and additional mailing offices.    SUBSCRIPTIONS: A one-year subscription is $30.00 ($35.00 foreign) payable in advance. Single issues are $15.00 payable in advance. Remittance must be made by U.S. Dollar drafts payable at a U.S. bank. Inquire for multi-volume prepaid rates and agency rates. Subscription requests that are received mid-volume may be subject to an additional postage and handling charge. All subscriptions are for the volume year and will be renewed automatically unless the subscriber provides timely notice of cancellation. Changes of address or notices of cancellation should be sent to: Business Manager, Tulsa Law Review, The University of Tulsa College of Law, 3120 East Fourth Place, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 74104 or tlr@utulsa.edu.   BACK ISSUES: Back issues of Volumes 42–59 can be purchased for $10.00 payable in advance. For back issues of Volumes 42–59, contact: Business Manager, Tulsa Law Review, The University of Tulsa College of Law, 3120 East Fourth Place, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 74104 or tlr@utulsa.edu. For back issues of Volumes 1–41, contact: William S. Hein and Company, Inc., 2350 North Forest Road, Getzville, New York, 14068, (800) 828-7571, or http://www.wshein.com. Back issues are available in PDF format at HeinOnline, http://heinonline.org.    MANUSCRIPTS: The Tulsa Law Review invites submission of unsolicited articles, essays, and book reviews from September 1 through April 30 each year. Manuscripts may be submitted to: Editor-in-Chief, Tulsa Law Review, The University of Tulsa College of Law, 3120 East Fourth Place, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 74104 or tlr@utulsa.edu. Manuscripts will not be returned.    COPYRIGHT: Unless otherwise indicated, the Tulsa Law Review has granted permission for copies of each article in this volume to be made for classroom use in a nationally accredited law school, provided that (1) copies are distributed at or below cost, (2) author and journal are identified on each copy, (3) proper notice of copyright is affixed to each copy, and (4) the Tulsa Law Review is informed of each use.    For additional information about the Tulsa Law Review, please visit our website at http://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/journals.html.   Copyright © 2025 by the University of Tulsa.  

English

Copyright Page

Isanga, Joseph M.

Ukraine-Russia Armed Conflict: Holding the U.N. Security Council Veto-Wielding and Nuclear-Armed Russia Accountable and Upholding International Rule of Law

Wallace, Jordan

A Precedential Grand Slam: The Timely Opportunity Before the Supreme Court to Clarify and Reform Obscenity Law

Tulsa Law Review Volume 60 Numbers 1 & 2 Volume 60 Number 1 Fall 2025 Faculty List Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr  Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Faculty List, 60 Tulsa L. Rev. v-Faculty List (2024). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr/vol60/iss1/4 This Front Matter is brought to you for free and open access by TU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Tulsa Law Review by an authorized editor of TU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact megan-donald@utulsa.edu.  v  THE UNIVERSITY OF TULSA COLLEGE OF LAW  FACULTY  OREN GRIFFIN, BS, MA, PhD, JD, Dean of the College of Law CHARLES W. ADAMS, BA, MA, MBA, JD, Professor of Law BARBARA K. BUCHOLTZ, BA, JD, LLM, Professor of Legal Writing RUSSELL CHRISTOPHER, BA, JD, Professor of Law LYN ENTZEROTH, BA, JD, Professor of Law ALEXANDRA FAY, BA, JD, Assistant Professor of Law STEPHEN R. GALOOB, BA, MA, PhD, JD, Professor of Law ALEXANDER GAVERN, BA, JD, Assistant Clinical Professor of Law JANNA GAU, BA, JD, Visiting Assistant Clinical Professor of Law KAREN GRUNDY, BA, JD, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs & Professor of Legal Writing HENRY ISHITANI, BA, JD, Postdoctoral Fellow MATT LAMKIN, AB, MA, JD, Associate Professor of Law, Director of Study Abroad Program JANET K. LEVIT, AB, MA, JD, Professor of Law JOHNNY PARKER, BA, JD, LLM, Professor of Law MARC L. ROARK, BA, JD, LLM, Professor of Law, Associate Dean for Faculty Development GWENDOLYN SAVITZ, BA, JD, LLM, Associate Professor of Law MARGO E. SHIPLEY, BA, JD, Assistant Professor of Legal Writing CHRISTY SMITH, BBA, MLIS, JD, Director, Mabee Legal Information Center LORI TWOMEY, BS, JD, Director of Legal Writing & Professor of Legal Writing LESLIE WEEKS, BS, JD, Assistant Professor of Legal Writing  EMERITUS  GARY D. ALLISON, BS, JD, LLM, Professor Emeritus of Law M. THOMAS ARNOLD, AB, MA, JD, Professor Emeritus of Law CHRISTEN R. BLAIR, BA, JD, LLM, Professor Emeritus of Law D. MARIANNE BLAIR, BA, JD, Professor Emerita of Law ROBERT A. BUTKIN, BA, JD, Professor Emeritus of Law MARGUERITE A. CHAPMAN, BA, JD, LLM, Professor Emerita of Law MARTIN A. FREY, BS, ME, JD, LLM, Professor Emeritus of Law JOHN HICKS, BA, JD, LLM, Professor Emeritus of Law WILLIAM G. HOLLINGSWORTH, BD, JD, LLM, Professor Emeritus of Law  ORLEY R. LILLY, JR., BA, JD, LLM, Professor Emeritus of Law VICKI J. LIMAS, BA, MA, JD, Professor Emerita of Law MARLA E. MANSFIELD, BA, MA, JD, Professor Emerita of Law TAMARA R. PIETY, BA, JD, LLM, Professor Emerita of Law JUDITH V. ROYSTER, BA, MALS, JD, Professor Emerita of Law RAYMOND YASSER, BA, JD, Professor Emeritus of Law REX ZEDALIS, BA, JD, LLM, SJD, Professor Emeritus of Law 

Faculty List

Chrismer, Blake A.

In Defense of Appropriation Art: An Analysis of Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith

Tulsa Law Review Volume 60 Number 3 Spring 2025 Table of Contents Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr  Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Table of Contents, 60 Tulsa L. Rev. i-Table of Cont (2025). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr/vol60/iss3/1 This Front Matter is brought to you for free and open access by TU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Tulsa Law Review by an authorized editor of TU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact megan-donald@utulsa.edu.     i  Volume 60 Spring 2025 Number 3 ARTICLES  Building Grantor Trusts Back Better    Eric Reis  275        The Face of Ageism, the Reach of Ageism:               Janet L. Dolgin  311 Law, Medicine, and Society    Illuminating the Iceberg: Brain Science                      Catherine J. Cameron             351 and Punitive Damages in Libel Cases  Ukraine-Russia Armed Conflict: Holding     Joseph M. Isanga  377 the U.N. Security Council Veto-Wielding and Nuclear-Armed Russia Accountable  and Upholding International Rule of Law       LGBTQ Wedding Party: Conscientious                     Ioanna Tourkochoriti  421 Objections to the Enforcement of Anti-Discrimination Law  COMMENTS  Labor of Love, or Profit?: How the                           Stephanie A. Smith Charney 487 Parental Rights Argument Threatens to                      Upend Child Labor Regulation in America  Physicians Need Absolutes:                                       Cassidy Monroe  513 Why Healthcare Fraud Should Not Be  Subjective Under the False Claims Act     A Precedential Grand Slam:                                       Jordan Wallace  541 The Timely Opportunity Before the  Supreme Court to Clarify and Reform Obscenity Law 

Wald, Eli

Cannabis Law Practice: Lessons for the Legal Profession in the Twenty-First Century

Stoa, Ryan

The Next Wave of Legal Drug Production: What the Psychedelics Legalization Movement Can Learn from a Decade of Cannabis Regulation

Galoob, Stephen

Tulsa Law Review Volume 60 Numbers 1 & 2 Volume 60 Number 1 Fall 2025 Symposium Foreward Stephen Galoob Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr  Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Stephen Galoob, Symposium Foreward, 60 Tulsa L. Rev. vi-Foreward (2024). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr/vol60/iss1/5 This Front Matter is brought to you for free and open access by TU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Tulsa Law Review by an authorized editor of TU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact megan-donald@utulsa.edu. X6 GALOOB FINAL.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE) 1/29/25 11:35 AM  vi SYMPOSIUM FOREWARD Stephen Galoob* The 2024 TULSA LAW REVIEW symposium, Contemporary Cannabis, explored the past, present, and future of cannabis reform. The location of this symposium was fitting, given Oklahoma’s place at the forefront of the commercial cannabis industry in the United States. Symposium participants included important voices in cannabis law and policy, as exemplified by the authors of each of the articles published in this issue of TULSA LAW REVIEW.  Professor Robert Mikos is one of the most important voices in drug policy in the United States. His scholarship has introduced important questions regarding federalism and cannabis policy,1 and his casebook2 helped shape and define the entire field of canna-bis law. Professor Mikos’s contribution to this symposium, The False Promise of Resched-uling,3 examines the robustness and limits of the effort to reschedule marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act. He predicts that, even if rescheduling efforts survive a transi-tion in presidential administrations, they will not provide the kind of wholesale changes that are needed to address the regulatory obstacles facing the contemporary cannabis in-dustry. Ultimately, he contends, efforts at marijuana reform should be aimed at the politi-cal process, rather than the administrative process.  Professor Ryan Stoa’s contribution, The Next Wave of Legal Drug Production,4 syn-thesizes the important lessons of the incipient transition from cannabis regulation with an eye toward advising (even-more-nascent) efforts to alter the legal status of psychedelic therapeutics. Extending his own prior research on the topic,5 Professor Stoa identifies a         *Professor of Law, University of Tulsa College of Law. Although I did not participate in the symposium, I would like to offer kudos to Chad Thurman and Cameron Skinner, who, as symposium editors for TULSA LAW REVIEW, convened a strong group of participants; Hillary Hurst and Stephanie Smith, the editors-in-chief of TULSA LAW REVIEW who helped organize the symposium and arranged publication of these proceedings, re-spectively; Professor Gwen Savitz, the faculty advisor for TULSA LAW REVIEW who shepherded the symposium from its earliest stages; and the Office of the Provost of the University of Tulsa, which provided critical financial support for the event.   1. See, e.g., Robert A. Mikos, On the Limits of Supremacy: Medical Marijuana and the States’ Overlooked Power to Legalize Federal Crime, 62 VAND. L. REV. 1419 (2009); Robert A. Mikos, Preemption Under the Controlled Substances Act, 16 J. HEALTH CARE L. & POL’Y 5 (2013).   2.  Robert A. Mikos, MARIJUANA LAW, POLICY, AND AUTHORITY (2017).   3.  Robert A. Mikos, The False Promise of Rescheduling, 60 TULSA L. REV. 1 (2025).  4.  Ryan Stoa, The Next Wave of Legal Drug Production: What the Psychedelics Legalization Movement Can Learn from a Decade of Cannabis Regulation, 60 TULSA L. REV. 25 (2025).   5. See, e.g., Ryan Stoa, Equity in Cannabis Agriculture, 101 B.U. L. REV. 1135, 1148 (2021); Ryan Stoa, Emerging Issues in Cannabis Law: 2022 and Beyond, 46 SETON HALL LEGISL. J. 469, 473 (2022). X6 GALOOB FINAL.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE) 1/29/25  11:35 AM   vii series of successes in cannabis regulation that advocates for psychedelics should seek to follow, as well as a series of missteps that should be avoided.  Professor Eli Wald’s Cannabis Law Practice: Lessons for the Legal Profession in the Twenty-First Century6 builds on insights from his prior scholarship regarding cannabis law practice7 and the sociology of law firm practice8 to analyze how prominent American law firms are (tepidly) entering cannabis practice. While marijuana law practice was ini-tially “dominated” by “criminal defense lawyers and marijuana activists,” the field has “now become of interest to large law firms and their corporate hemisphere lawyers.”9 Pro-fessor Wald notes that the dynamics of the cannabis industry (which is limited to specific states, given federal prohibition) “limits the… synergies common, and often essential to, the practice of large law firms”10 and “dampen[s] the economies of scale” that “tradition-ally give[] Big Law an advantage in the corporate legal services market.”11 That large law firms are willing “to enter the field of cannabis law before the rise of big entity clients and the materialization of big money” indicates a “possible sea-change in the profession, one in which competitive forces, client service, and maximization of profits-per-equity-part-ners drive out old, traditional notions of professionalism and respectability.”12       6.  Eli Wald, Cannabis Law Practice: Lessons for the Legal Profession in the Twenty-First Century, 60 TULSA L. REV. 51 (2025).   7. See, e.g., Sam Kamin & Eli Wald, Marijuana Lawyers: Outlaws or Crusaders, 91 OR. L. REV. 869 (2013); Eli Wald et al., Representing Clients in the Marijuana Industry: Navigating State and Federal Rules, 44(8) COLO. LAW. 61 (2015).  8. See, e.g., Eli Wald, The Rise and Fall of the WASP and Jewish Law Firms, 60 STAN. L. REV. 1803 (2008); Eli Wald, The Rise of the Jewish Law Firm or Is the Jewish Law Firm Generic? 76 UMKC L. REV. 885, 914–18 (2008); Eli Wald, Formation Without Identity: Avoiding a Wrong Turn in the Professionalism Movement, 89 UMKC L. REV. 685 (2021); Eli Wald, Getting In and Out of the House: The Worlds of In-House Counsel, Big Law, and Emerging Career Trajectories of In-House Lawyers, 88 FORDHAM L. REV. 1765 (2020); Eli Wald, Glass Ceilings and Dead Ends: Professional Ideologies, Gender Stereotypes, and the Future of Women Lawyers at Large Law Firms, 78 FORDHAM L. REV. 2245 (2010); Russell G. Pearce & Eli Wald, The Relational Infra-structure of Law Firm Regulation: Is the Death of Big Law Greatly Exaggerated?, 42 HOFSTRA L. REV. 109 (2013).  9. Wald, supra note 6, at 53.  10. Id. at 72.   11.  Id. at 73.   12.  Id. at 84.  

Symposium Foreward

Savitz, Gwendolyn

Adjudication Hiding in Plain Sight: Rethinking Standing in Rulemaking Petition Cases

University of Tulsa

Not a member yet