“In Privacy as Property: An Antitrust Approach to Data Governance, Ela Guo examines the economy of user data and identifies the fundamental shortcomings of the consumer welfare standard as a tool against modern data monopolies. Edited and supported by Joe Su, Skandha Gopinath, and Sofia Meinardus, this piece argues that consumer privacy must be understood as a saleable commodity, and that the compelled surrender of personal information as a prerequisite to access an online service constitutes a distinct ‘price’ subject to antitrust legislation. This piece argues for expanding the consumer welfare framework to protect user privacy, positing that antitrust enforcement provides a more immediate and effective solution to data monopolization than traditional data governance policies.” – Skandha Gopinath, Managing Editor

“In An Age of Censorship and Prior Restraint in Indian Cinema: How the Constitution Has Abdicated to ‘Cultural Morality,’ Trisha Das contends that the pre-censorship of films conducted by India’s Central Board of Film Certification violates free speech protections in Article 19 of India’s constitution. Edited and supported by Staff Editor Pranav Belkale and Managing Editor Colin Hollingsead, this piece analyzes the history of relevant legal precedent regarding free speech and censorship to clearly illustrate the inconsistencies between court rulings and constitutional free speech protections caused by vagueness in the Cinematograph Act of 1952. Das argues that, as films are important forms of expression and can massively shape culture, reforms that preserve creative expression and regulate speech using the least restrictive means possible are needed to ensure films are no longer arbitrarily and unconstitutionally censored in India.” – Colin Hollingsead, Managing Editor

“In A Neo-Brandesian Analysis of the Beef Packing Industry Michael ‘Knox’ Crain examines the concentration of market power within the U.S. beef packing industry through a Neo-Brandesian antitrust framework. The paper argues that current antitrust law’s focus has allowed excessive consolidation among the court dominant firms in the industry which has contributed to higher consumer prices and reduced competition. Analyzing historical antitrust precedents and the Sherman and Clayton acts, the paper contends that courts should adopt a more structural approach to enforcement which includes divestitures and breakups of concentrated firms. All in all, it advocates for a renewed focus on market competition, supplier protections, and limits of corporate concentration. Edited by Braydan Leal, Gabriel Hentschel, and Sofia Meinardus.” – Gabriel Hentschel, Managing Editor

“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

“In her article Republican Judicial Appointments: The Fracture and Restructure of Federalism, Samantha Forrester examines how Republican presidents from 1969 to 2005 attempted to reshape the Supreme Court's federalism jurisprudence through judicial appointments. Edited by Editor in Chief Sudipta Rout, the article draws on archival materials from the Library of Congress, including internal memoranda and draft opinions from justices such as Harry Blackmun, Lewis Powell, and Sandra Day O'Connor, to trace the rise and eventual collapse of the Rehnquist Court's federalism revival. Forrester argues that the strategic and selective deployment of federalism doctrine did not merely constrain the project but actively produced the internal contradictions that led to its fragmentation, demonstrating that presidential influence over constitutional doctrine remains limited by judicial independence and the unpredictable evolution of justices once confirmed.” – Sudipta Rout, Editor in Chief

“In The First Amendment on an Uncertain Stage: Texas S.B. 12 and Burden on Live Performance, Loan Tran analyzes the constitutional implications of Texas Senate Bill 12 and how it impacts live performances. Edited by Anya Bhandari, Gabriel Hentschel, and Sofia Meinardus, Tran argues that the bill creates legal uncertainty through borrowing language from the obscenity doctrine without incorporating the constitutional safeguards that traditionally limit its application. Through an analysis of First Amendment doctrines, which include vagueness, overbreadth, and content-based regulation, the paper argues that the statute places undue burdens on performers, venues, and institutions, which lead to self-censorship before judicial review can occur. Ultimately, it advocates for replacing the bull with a narrower, conduct-based framework that protects minors while preserving lawful artistic, educational, and theatrical expression.” – Gabriel Hentschel, Managing Editor

“In Borderless Medicine, Bordered Law: State-Based Telehealth Licensure’s Dormant Commerce Clause Implications, Sean Sudalaimani criticizes the New Jersey District Court’s formalist and textualist approach to Pike balancing in MacDonald v. Sabando (2025) and its direct consequences. With the assistance of faculty advisor Professor Daniel Karnuta and Editor-in-Chief Sudipta Rout, Sudalaimani contends that while telehealth increasingly clashes with a fragmented, state-based regulatory framework, cases like Sabando use fig leaf legitimacy to shield restrictive state laws from Dormant Commerce Clause challenges; a trend that ultimately constrains widespread telehealth adoption and threatens patient access to care. In response, as Sabando appeals to the Third Circuit, Sudalaimani advocates for a functionalist recognition of telehealth’s practical realities, offering a modest, incremental shift that simply requires more robust, fact-based state justifications in line with Third Circuit precedent. Finally, Sudalaimani discusses the potential application of driver's-license-style reciprocity in physician licensing as an alternative means of decoupling modern medical expertise from geographic borders.” – Sean Sudalaimani, Managing Editor

“In Separating Procedure from Justice: Racialized Enforcement in Vasquez Perdomo v. Noem, Mia Files exposes the constitutional blind spots that arise from the Supreme Court's compartmentalization of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments in its recent decision in Vasquez Perdomo v. Noem. Edited and supported by Staff Editor Carys Farrar, Managing Editor Sean Sudalaimani, and Executive Editor Sudipta Rout, this article thoroughly reveals the tensions between procedural safety and equal protection that are at play amidst the framework of constitutional law. Files argues that the application of formalism and constitutional minimalism present in Vasquez allows for enforcement practices that, while lawful on paper, continue to perpetuate racial bias and inequities that undermine equal protection.” – Sean Sudalaimani, Managing Editor

“In Toward Uniformity and Justice: A Federal Solution for Juvenile Sentencing Reform, Fatema Jackwala contends that the existing patchwork of juvenile sentencing laws in the United States inadequately protects youth from disproportionate punishment. Edited and supported by Managing Editor Mashal Natha and Staff Editor Samra Khan, the piece draws on legal doctrine, developmental science, and empirical research to advocate for a federal rehabilitative standard that would promote fair, proportionate, and individualized treatment for all juveniles.” – Mashal Natha, Managing Editor

“In Diluting Futures: At-Large Voting, Minority Representation and Section 2 Remedies in Texas ISDs, Nathan Banh considers at-large voting districts for Texas Independent School Districts (ISDs) and their relationship to minority vote dilution. Edited and supported by Managing Editor Ananya Sankaran and Staff Editor Brayden Wiese, this piece considers the merits and drawbacks of different electoral systems. Banh argues that single-member districts emerge as the most constitutionally sound remedy for minority vote dilution in Texas ISDs.” – Ananya Sankaran, Managing Editor

“In A Prescribed Identity Crisis: Resolving Medical Residents’ Ambiguous Legal Classification, Andrea Nguyen dissects the inconsistencies and implications surrounding the legal status of resident physicians. Edited and supported by Staff Editor Priya Melepat, Managing Editor Sean Sudalaimani, and Executive Editor Sudipta Rout, this article analyzes whether resident physicians should be interpreted by the law as students or employees, exposing the underlying conflict between formalism and functionalism that has perpetuated this ambiguity. Finally, Nguyen outlines judicial and administrative solutions that would reinforce a universal classification of residents as employees and mitigate the negative consequences residents face from their unclear status.” – Sean Sudalaimani, Managing Editor

“In A System Based on Geography: Reconsidering Fear, Conduct, and PRO Eligibility, Arzoo Daredia examines differences in how requests for permanent restraining orders (PROs) are assessed in different jurisdictions, with an emphasis on how inconsistent standards for determining emotional stress lead to substandard protections for victims of domestic violence. Edited and supported by Managing Editor Skandha Gopinath, the piece provides an overview of how anti-stalking legislation and precedent vary from state to state. Daredia argues in favor of a consistent federal standard based on existing precedent that eliminates discrepancies between states and focuses on mitigating risk to potential victims of domestic violence.” – Skandha Gopinath, Managing Editor

“In ‘Knowing, Voluntary, and Intelligent’ for Whom? Language Access and Plea Bargains in Federal Court, Loan Tran examines how language barriers can lead limited English proficiency (LEP) defendants to enter uninformed plea deals, which threatens due process. Edited and supported by Managing Editor Gabriel Hentschel, the piece argues for certified interpreters at plea hearings and audio recordings to verify accuracy. This article makes the case that meaningful comprehension is a prerequisite for justice.” – Gabriel Hentschel, Managing Editor

“In The Best Interest of the Child: An Empty Standard in the U.S. Immigration System, Melody Nguyen examines the structural exclusion of the “best interests of the child” standard from U.S. immigration law, demonstrating how unaccompanied minors in removal proceedings are left without meaningful welfare safeguards. Edited and supported by Managing Editor Mashal Natha and Staff Editor Anthony Jesse Hembree, this piece contends that this omission reflects a broader inconsistency within the nation’s child-protection framework.” – Mashal Natha, Managing Editor

“In her article Child Marriage Law in India and Its Failure to Protect Victims: The Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, Trisha Das analyzes the flaws in the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act (PCMA) that have allowed child marriages to legally continue in India. Supported and edited by managing editor Colin Hollingsead, the article discusses how existing case precedent, international norms, and enforcement mechanisms can be used to reform the PCMA and render all child marriages in India void. Das argues that rendering all child marriages in India void from the start would protect current victims of the exploitative practice while upholding legal Precedent.” - Colin Hollingsead, Managing Editor

“In A Whale of a Problem: When Wildlife Conservation Statutes Become as Endangered as the Species They Protect, Sean Sudalaimani traces exactly how the North Atlantic right whale’s survival is being threatened not only by human activity, but by the slow weakening of the very laws meant to protect it. Edited and supported by Managing Editor Skandha Gopinath and Executive Editor Rohith Raman, the paper explains how economic pressure from lobster and crab fisheries, alongside external variables like agency delay, judicial policies, and legislative intervention-based setbacks and other smaller distant variables, have broken up the enforcement of the Endangered Species Act and Marine Mammal Protection Act. The article then offers a very realistic path forward. Firstly, this involves ensuring a tighter judicial scrutiny of agency inaction through TRAC v. FCC, and secondly calls for better evidence-based agency reasoning that can earn weight under Skidmore after recent shifts in administrative law.” – Rohith Raman, Executive Editor

“In Prescribing the Truth: A Formal Defense of the Supreme Court Ruling in Sorrell V. IMS Health, Fadilah Mohiuddin revisits a vital case in commercial speech law that has, in recent literature, largely been controversial and seen as expanding commercial speech rights beyond reasonable limits. Edited and supported by Editor-in-Chief Sudipta Rout and Managing Editor Sean Sudalaimani, this note contends that Sorrell was rightly decided by revisiting the Court’s rationale, defending it against dissents and scholarly critiques, and considering the case’s impact on the future of commercial speech doctrine.” – Sudipta Rout, Editor-in-Chief

“In her article From Disclosure to Accountability: Corporate Responsibility in Labor Trafficking, Sumedha Srilakshmidaran outlines how current U.S. law allows businesses to profit from the exploitation of labor trafficking in their supply chains. Supported and edited by managing editor Colin Hollingsead, the article covers existing domestic and international statutes that outlaw labor trafficking and illustrates how current U.S law fails to hold businesses profiting from labor trafficking sufficiently accountable. Srilakshmidaran argues that U.S labor trafficking law needs to be reformed to increase accountability and that switching to a proactive legal approach, rather than the legal system’s more reactive approach, is necessary to root labor trafficking out of American supply chains.” – Colin Hollingsead, Managing Editor