The University of Texas at Dallas Undergraduate Law Review

“In The Harrowing Cost of Justice: How the Justice System Is Propelling Low-Income Individuals into Perpetual Debt, Fairooz Chowdhury examines how modern municipal fine systems continue to punish poverty despite longstanding constitutional protections against wealth-based discrimination. Edited and supported by Alex Chen, Mashal Natha, and Rohith Raman, this article argues that the problem lies not in the gaps within constitutional doctrine, but in the widespread failure to enforce existing safeguards established in Bearden v. Georgia, Tate v. Short, Williams v. Illinois, and Ward v. Village of Monroeville. Chowdhury also analyzes the revenue-driven courts, automated enforcement practices, and fine-to-incarceration mechanisms and further demonstrates how many jurisdictions undermine the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantees of due process and equal protection, while further contending that the historical meaning of the Excessive Fines Clause may require courts to consider whether financial penalties threaten an individual's basic livelihood.” – Mashal Natha, Managing Editor

“In Fractured Accountability: How Texas’s Fracking Legislation and Jurisprudence Privileges Private Enterprise, Makayla Tarango thoroughly dissects the underlying legal trends that have dictated the state’s reliance on hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, for fossil fuel extraction and its consequences. Edited and supported by Haadiyah Mohammed, Sean Sudalaimani, and Rohith Raman, Tarango’s legal analysis reveals that fracking’s environmental consequences in Texas have been greenlit by a regulatory regime that has eschewed consistent enforcement of statutory obligations and municipal home rule authority in favor of the interests of private enterprise. Finally, Tarango uses a comparative analysis of Texas’s industry-deferential property laws and North Dakota’s public-focused fracking jurisprudence to reveal the doctrinal foundations that dictate this trend and limit avenues for public-interest stewardship reform.” – Sean Sudalaimani, Managing Editor

“In Policing the Playing Field: A Transatlantic Divergence in Sports Antitrust Law, Amrita Singh examines the United States and the European Union’s contrasting approaches towards antitrust doctrine in the context of professional and collegiate athletics. Edited and supported by Chase Skender, Sean Sudalaimani, and Rohith Raman, Singh’s comparative analysis of the two jurisdictions reveals that the differences between their corresponding methods of jurisprudence are structural, resulting in the European Union being better equipped for handling the risks associated with concentrated market power in critical areas such as conflicts of interest, pro-competitive justifications, and monopolistic behavior. Singh then proposes a hybrid approach to antitrust litigation for U.S. courts to follow, allowing the U.S. to compete with the EU while retaining its distinct framework. This approach calls for stricter evidentiary standards and heightened scrutiny of discretionary gatekeeping in line with NCAA v. Alston, 594 US 69 (2021) to allow antitrust enforcement to more accurately reflect modern realities.” – Sean Sudalaimani, Managing Editor