Digital Commons Network^™

Social Media On Trial: How The Supreme Court Could Permanently Alter The Future Of The Internet By Limiting Section 230'S Broad Immunity Shield, J. Tyler Wampler

Tennessee Law Review

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act has allowed the internet to develop and flourish at an unprecedent pace. The law has been interpreted broadly to grant immunity to interactive computer services like social media platforms from liability for content posted by users. Wielding this immunity, internet platforms are empowered to act innovatively without fear of frivolous lawsuits. However, there are ongoing concerns that this broad interpretation shields modern tech companies from liability for actions that were never intended to be protected.

Two companion cases interpreting Section 230 are currently before the U.S. Supreme Court, where the Court is being …

Dobbs V. Jackson Women's Health Organization, Anna Grace Cole

Tennessee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Federal Election Commission V. Cruz, Myles A. Roth

Tennessee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Ford Motor Company V. Montana Eighth Judicial District, Maddie Rudge

Tennessee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Goldman Sachs Group, Inc V. Arkansas Teacher Retirement System, Davis Capps

Tennessee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Hughes V. Northwestern University, Nicole S. Roth

Tennessee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Google Llc V. Oracle America, Inc., Elizabeth Spica

Tennessee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Mississippi V. Tennessee, Jackson W. Welsh

Tennessee Law Review

The Supreme Court's decision in Mississippi v. Tennessee quietly marked a potential turning point for the once antiquated doctrine of equitable apportionment. This doctrine provides a framework for resolving disputes over the allocation of resources, usually water, that cross state boundaries, and has done so since the early 20th century. In this article, we will delve into the history of equitable apportionment, examining its evolution from 1907 to the present day. We explore the key cases that have slowly broadened the doctrine, with a particular focus on Mississippi v. Tennessee and its implications for the future of equitable apportionment. Through …

Ncaa V. Alston (Case Notes), Carson Blakely

Tennessee Law Review

In August 2013, I was a thirteen-year-old immersed in the world of NCAA Football 14, a popular video game by Electronic Arts (EA). Through my digital replicas and the actual Tennessee Volunteer football players, my friends and I led the Vols to three consecutive BCS National Championships. My fictional character, a top running back, won three Heisman Trophies, which remains my greatest athletic accomplishment to date. Then, EA announced the discontinuation of the NCAA Football franchise, leaving millions of digital coaches, including myself, perplexed.1 Little did I know that the issue at hand was the complex legal realm of Name, …

Ncaa V. Alston, Emma S. Fowler

Tennessee Law Review

No abstract provided.

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association V. Bruen, T.C. Lisle Whitman Ii

Tennessee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Perez V. Sturgis Public Schools, Adriana A. Snedaker

Tennessee Law Review

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act' ("IDEA") is a law that requires all students with disabilities to be provided with a free and appropriate education. 2 More specifically, IDEA "governs how states and public agencies provide early intervention, special education, and related services to" disabled youth. 3 However, the remedies available under IDEA are limited. Common remedies for violations of IDEA include tuition reimbursement, compensatory education, and attorney's fees. 4 Because monetary compensation is not available under IDEA, disabled students often have to bring a claim under other federal statutes, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") in order …

Vega V. Tekoh, Elizabeth M. Hudson

Tennessee Law Review

No abstract provided.

West Virginia V. Epa, Troy C. Book

Tennessee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Legal Philosophy For Lawyers In The Age Of A Political Supreme Court, Patrick J. Borchers

Tennessee Law Review

Legal Philosophy has long been concerned with the question of what brands a norm as legal, as opposed to a non-legal norm of justice or morality. This central question has occupied the attention of philosophers and lawyers for centuries. Roughly speaking, the Naturalist school contends that legal norms are inextricably intertwined with norms of morality and justice (and in its strongest form contends that law-like pronouncements that are immoral or unjust are not fully laws), while the Positivist school argues that a social construct (often called the Rule of Recognition) brands selected norms as legal, and thus legal norms may …

The World The Fire Wrought: A Tribute To Fran Ansley - Part 1, Jennifer Gordon

Tennessee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Professor Muneer Ahmad's Comments - Panel 2, Muneer Ahmad

Tennessee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Professor Sherley Cruz's Comments - Panel 2, Sherley Cruz

Tennessee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Cecilia Prado's Comments - Phase 2, Cecilia Prado

Tennessee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Dr. Meghan Conley's Comments - Panel 2, Meghan Conley

Tennessee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Jj Rosenbaum's Comments - Panel 2, Jj Rosenbaum

Tennessee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Reconstructing The Past And Our Reconstruction Present: The Long Struggle To Teach Divisive Concepts - Panel 3, Robert D. Bland

Tennessee Law Review

"In our present moment, as we see just as many signs of a Third 'Redemption,' as we see of a Third Reconstruction, it is important to remember the previous struggles over history and memory ..."

Histories For Our Present And Future Struggles - Panel 3, Jessica Wilkerson

Tennessee Law Review

"Working out how to build democratic movements and institutions in the South and beyond requires understanding the impact of oppressive systems on people, from those people ..."

Van Turner's Comments - Panel 3, Van D. Turner Jr.

Tennessee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Remembering The Bottom: The Street And Feets Exhibit - Panel 3, Enkeshi El-Amin

Tennessee Law Review

'Almost seventy years after a neighborhood is destroyed, how is it remembered? ... What I learned in trying to answer this question is that with public memory being a site of contestation, it depends on who you ask ..."

Fran Ansley's Tennessee Posse For Peace And Justice, Charles Lawrence Iii

Tennessee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Afterword

Tennessee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Opioid Accountability, Daniel G. Aaron

Tennessee Law Review

The opioid crisis has steadily killed Americans for twenty years. In total, we have lost more than 500,000 American lives since the 1990s, and countless more suffer from chronic addiction.

After years of piecemeal efforts to address this massive loss of life and health, the opioid litigation, largely centralized in Ohio federal district court, has brought significant hope for change. But there is a notable divide between the popular sense of the litigation and its reality. A full 57% of Americans believe that opioid companies should be held accountable for precipitating a public health crisis. However, the litigation, has been …

Antitrust's Ai Revolution, Daryl Lim

Tennessee Law Review

Antitrust law operates like an algorithm. Its lodestar, the rule of reason, is a black box. Unlike most other areas of the law, judges, not Congress, write the rules and sometimes in surprisingly capricious ways. These rules govern everything from Google and Facebook's "killer acquisitions" to vaccine development agreements during a pandemic. Injecting artificial intelligence (AI) into antitrust analysis seems prosaic, but in fact, it is revolutionary.

Courts routinely lean on ideology as a heuristic when they must interpret the rule of reason in light of economic theory and evidence. Chicago School conservatism reined in some excesses of earlier populist …

Bostock: An Inevitable Guarantee Of Heightened Scrutiny For Sexual Orientation And Transgender Classifications, Kaleb Byars

Tennessee Law Review

In June 2020, the Supreme Court decided Bostock v. Clayton County. In Bostock, the Court held that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and transgender status per se constitutes discrimination "because of sex" for purposes of Title VIL But Bostock inspires the question of whether its holding and reasoning apply in other contexts, including the Equal Protection Clause context. While the Supreme Court has held intermediate scrutiny applies to sex classifications analyzed under the Equal Protection Clause, the Court has yet to elucidate the level of scrutiny that applies to LGBTQ classifications. Meanwhile, state and federal courts have developed …