The Sexual Violence Epidemic vs. the Uniform Code of Military Justice & Feres Doctrine

Less than 0.009% of reported assaults result in a conviction for a sex offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, raising serious concerns about the epidemic of sexual violence in the military. Despite this, more than 99% of allegations of sexual assault in the military are verified. The Uniform Code of Military Justice has been modified by recent congressional legislation but these modifications fall short of providing justice due to the prosecutorial discretion afforded to non-lawyer commanders. Moreover, service members are unable to bring claims of sexual violence to civilian courts when the military fails them due to the Supreme Court\u27s unwillingness to reverse the horror that has been caused by the Feres doctrine. This Article proposes that a combined approach must be utilized, removing sexual harassment from commanders\u27 discretion and amending the Federal Tort Claims Act to allow sexual violence claims to proceed on the merits without analysis under Feres

In Support of Free Speech on Food Production

In May 2024, Florida and Alabama became the first states to ban the production and sale of lab-grown meat. Driven by a desire to protect the traditional agriculture industry, these new laws impose severe penalties on anyone found to have even stored lab-grown meat products in their home. The legislation follows in the footsteps of other laws aimed at offering the traditional agriculture industry additional protections. Florida, Alabama, and eleven other states already have “food disparagement laws” that make it easier to punish critics of traditional agriculture companies. Additionally, six states, including Alabama, currently have laws aimed at stifling undercover investigations into agricultural practices on farms and plants. When bans on lab-grown meat co-exist with other laws designed to protect the traditional agricultural industry from criticism and accountability, the public loses the ability and willingness to freely engage in discourse aimed at discerning whether the bans are beneficial. Under current legal frameworks, the potential benefits of lab-grown meat, which may include lowering greenhouse gas emissions and reducing food contamination from pathogens like E. coli, cannot be properly weighed against the potential downsides, such as profit losses for traditional agribusinesses and new health risks. This Article examines how the traditional agriculture industry has used legal tools to silence discussion on matters that could lead to significant innovation and improvement in human health and safety. Through the lens of these new bans on lab-grown meat, this Article considers the ways in which the public loses out on being able to make well-informed decisions about their food consumption due to restrictions on speech within the agricultural context. As a society, it is imperative that we scrutinize these regulations, advocating for policies that both ensure food safety and protect access to information regarding agricultural practices. The future of food production may or may not include lab-grown meat, but the decision of whether to change our diets should rest with a well-informed public

One Hundred & Thirty-Ninth Spring Commencement (2025)

https://scholarship.law.campbell.edu/commencement/1102/thumbnail.jp

Public Trials and Plain Error

Courts are divided on the question of how Sixth Amendment public trial violations should be evaluated on appeal when a criminal defendant fails to object at trial to a courtroom closure. Typically, failing to object triggers plain error review on appeal, which demands a higher threshold of harm to obtain reversal compared to when an objection has been made at trial. Should this type of review also apply in its usual form to public trial errors? The article concludes that it should, despite the fact that public trial violations are considered “structural,” and, when properly preserved, do not require a showing of harm arising from the violation