THE IMPACT OF COUNTERMAN V. COLORADO ON STALKING PROSECUTIONS IN IDAHO

This Note reflects on the recent United States Supreme Court decision in Counterman v. Colorado, which held that in order to find liability for true threat crimes the state or plaintiff must prove the defendant’s subjective intent to threaten the recipient. The holding creates a new, additional burden on the movant to prove intent, where before, the majority of state and circuit courts only required an objective, reasonable person standard to prove intent in true threat cases. Idaho, being one of the states that previously used a reasonable person standard in prosecuting true threats, is affected by this holding in that the state in stalking prosecutions must now prove beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant’s subjective intent in threatening the recipient. Accordingly, this Note evaluates the impact of the Counterman holding on Idaho stalking statutes and the effects this will have for future prosecutions in the state

Episode 25: Michael Allen (U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims) Talks About Teaching, Judging, & Being a Law Nerd

Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims Michael Allen joins us to talk about teaching, becoming a judge, and being a law nerd

Immigration Federalism in the Second Trump Administration

This Article explores the ongoing transformation of state and local engagement in immigration-related rulemaking in the United States during the Second Trump Administration. The Article examines the myriad ways in which federal executive actions and state responses to those actions, alongside independent state actions and the federal government’s responses to those actions, are upending longestablished immigration law doctrines and shifting the borders of American federalism. The Article discusses legal scholars’ previous understanding of immigration federalism, embodied in United States v. Arizona, and the prior distinctions between permissible “alienage” laws and impermissible “immigration” laws, which could not be introduced by state and local governments. It then turns to the resurgence of lawmaking in the immigration arena during the first few months of the Trump Administration, which could be categorized as “cooperative” and/or “uncooperative” federalism. The Article analyzes the doctrinal, constitutional and practical implications of these recent developments, and proposes that increasingly punitive state legislation, coupled with the federal government’s aggressive enforcement operational mandate, poses a significant challenge to both individual immigrants’ fundamental rights and freedoms, and, of equal import, to the structural guarantees of our federal system and to our continued adherence to the rule of law

HUMAN TRAFFICKING IN IDAHO: A GROWING ISSUE AND HOW IDAHO LAW CAN BE MORE EFFECTIVE

Human trafficking has been a national problem since the beginning of the nation’s history and has created millions of victims and threatened the safety and freedom of our country. Since 2000, when the first comprehensive federal law to address human trafficking was passed, states have followed suit and passed their own versions of trafficking statutes. Many states have also recognized the growth of the problem and reformed their legislation to respond and provide resources for victims more effectively. This article discusses the importance of state legislation against human trafficking and analyzes Idaho’s own statute in comparison to other states. The article concludes that Idaho legislation has many areas which need to be improved to more successfully bring justice for victims of human trafficking within the state. This article recognizes recent advances that have been made and suggests recommendations for future improvement

CHILD RAPE AND THE DEATH PENALTY

The act of rape on an eight-year-old body is a matter of the needle giving because the camel can’t. The child gives, because the body can, and the mind of the violator cannot. - Maya Angelou In May 2023, Florida authorized the death penalty for the sexual battery of a child under twelve. This policy quickly sparked a wave of similar legislation. Tennessee capitalized child rape in May 2024, followed by Idaho in March 2025. These laws—passed with strong bipartisan support in each state—challenge the Supreme Court to overrule Kennedy v. Louisiana, a controversial 2008 decision holding that the Eighth Amendment prohibits capital punishment for the rape of a child. This surge of legislative interest in capitalizing child rape heralds the reemergence of an old frontier in Eighth Amendment jurisprudence. It also highlights a deeper dysfunction in the way that we criminalize child sexual abuse. There is a need to reexamine Kennedy in this light and, more broadly, to interrogate the paradoxical role that sex crimes against children occupy in American law and culture. This Article provides that analysis and makes three scholarly contributions. First, the Article provides a thick descriptive account of the dissonance in the criminal system’s response to child sexual abuse—a blend of apathy and outrage, horror and indifference. Second, the Article uses the emotion of disgust to reconcile these seemingly contradictory narratives. Though most often associated with food and bodily waste, disgust can attach equally to social violations. Scholars have employed disgust to explain anti-sodomy laws, incest prohibitions, and domestic violence judgments, and this Article extends the analysis to sex crimes against children. Third, the Article links this analysis to the concept of epistemic violence and uses that framework to illuminate the constitutional infirmities of capital child rape laws. Ultimately, the Article proposes that capitalizing child rape acts as a symbol of revulsion at the expense of the broader system of punishment, an expression of our own unsettled view of the crime