Certiorari and the Marriage Equality Cases

Carl Tobias*

4 U. Mich. J.L. Reform 28A (pdf)

Marriage equality has come to much of the nation. Over 2014, many district court rulings invalidated state proscriptions on same- sex marriage, while four appeals courts upheld these decisions. However, the Sixth Circuit reversed district judgments which struck down bans in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee. Because that appellate opinion created a patchwork of differing legal regimes across the country, this Paper urges the Supreme Court to clarify marriage equality by reviewing that determination this Term.

Continue reading

Miller v. Alabama: Something Unconstitutional Now Was Equally Unconstitutional Then

W. Patrick Conlon*

4 U. Mich. J.L. Reform 20A (pdf)

In June 2012, the United States Supreme Court found mandatory life-without-parole sentences against juvenile offenders unconstitutional in Miller v. Alabama.1 The Court determined that because children possess “immaturity, impetuosity, and [fail] to appreciate risks and consequences,” they are fundamentally different than adults.2 Although Miller invalidated every juvenile mandatory life-without-parole (JMLWOP) statute across the United States, there is no clear indication regarding whether Miller retroactively applies to juveniles sentenced to mandatory life-without-parole before the Court’s ruling.3 As a result, states are split on whether to apply Miller retroactively.4

Fifteen states have yet to decide whether Miller applies retroactively, while several other states have either (1) declined to give Miller a retroactive effect or (2) passed legislation that does not apply Miller retroactively or provide for resentencing for JMLWOP.5 This Comment evaluates why the States should apply Miller retroactively.

Continue reading

Sexting Prosecutions: Minors as a Protected Class From Child Pornography Charges

Sarah Thompson*

4 U. Mich. J.L. Reform 11A (pdf)

First love is only a little foolishness and a lot of curiosity.

-George Bernard Shaw

Teenagers will explore their sexuality; this is no new phenomenon. However, the ways that teens are exploring their curiosity is changing with technology. This trend has serious repercussions for teens, society, and the law. ‘Sexting’—defined as the act of sending sexually explicit photographs or messages via cell phone1—is one recently-developed means of sexual exploration. The practice overlaps with the production, distribution, and possession of child pornography that is banned by both state and federal law.2 Due to the overlap, minors have been prosecuted under child pornography statutes for producing or sending images of themselves or other minors.3 This is not the proper use of child pornography prosecution, nor is it a solution to the problem of minors sexting. This Comment argues that minors should be a protected class against which child pornography charges cannot be brought. The solution to the sexting problem does not lie in prosecution. Instead, states should incorporate sexting education into state sexual education and health curricula. Education will help ensure that minors are aware of the risks associated with sexting, without being harmed under a statute that is meant to protect them.

Continue reading

For the Love of the Game: The Case for State Bans on Youth Tackle Football

Adam Bulkley*

4 U. Mich. J.L. Reform 1A (pdf)

This football season, millions of Americans enjoying their favorite pastime might feel pangs of a guilty conscience. Years of scientific research into the long-term neurological effects of tackle football and a recent settlement between the National Football League (NFL) and thousands of retired NFL players1 have made football-related traumatic brain injuries (TBI) a topic of national conversation. Current and former NFL players2 and even President Obama3 have participated in the conversation, saying that they would hesitate to let their sons play the game for fear of possible brain injury. Because research has uncovered signs of permanent brain damage in players as young as eighteen-years-old, and has suggested that everyday subconcussive blows4 during football practice could be the cause of such brain damage,5 one scientist has called for a ban on tackle football at the youth level.6 In light of these findings, current state laws are inadequate to address the very real risks associated with youth tackle football. In general, these laws do not attempt to prevent concussions, but rather address treatment for concussions following the injury. Furthermore, state laws entirely fail to address the daily, subconcussive blows suffered by youth players. To fully protect their youngest football players from the devastating effects of football-related TBIs, state legislators should ban tackle football for children under fourteen-years-old.

Continue reading