Digital Commons Network^™

Full Issue

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Did Anderson V. Tiktok Get It Right? Holding Social Media Providers Accountable For Harm To Adolescents, Allison Mitton

BYU Law Review

When dangerous social media challenges go viral and cause harm to adolescents and young children, should the platform be held liable for pushing that content? As it currently stands, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1934 prevents this from happening. However, Anderson v. TikTok—a recent suit brought on behalf of a ten-year-old girl who died after asphyxiating herself while participating in the viral “Blackout Challenge”—seeks to change that.

The Third Circuit court in Anderson held that social media algorithms should be considered first-party speech, or the platform’s own expressive activity, rather than third-party speech, displaying its users’ expressive …

Standing In The Dark, Sharon Brett

BYU Law Review

Demonstrating standing for injunctive relief in § 1983 police misconduct cases is undisputedly difficult for civil rights plaintiffs. Under City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, plaintiffs seeking injunctions must present more than evidence of past misconduct; they must show a significant ongoing risk that they will experience the same misconduct again. Scholarly attention to Lyons has focused primarily on doctrinal errors in the Court’s legal analysis, and for good reason. But the case raises another important yet overlooked question: Can civil rights plaintiffs realistically demonstrate risk of future harm given (a) the limited data kept by law enforcement about their …

Clark Memorandum: Fall 2025, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Byu Law School Alumni Association, J. Reuben Clark Law Society

The Clark Memorandum

• Our Constitutional Anchor
• Divine Law
• The Courage of Our Convictions
• Our Call to Action

Trishna Paulson, Petitioner/ Appellant V. Christopher Paulson, Respondent/ Appellee : Reply Brief, Utah Court Of Appeals

Utah Court of Appeals Briefs (2020 –)

Appeal from the Fourth Judicial District Court, Utah County, Utah Honorable Christine S. Johnson, Presiding

Rodney R. Parker, Attorneys for Appellant

The Byu Advocate, J. Reuben Clark Law School

The BYU Advocate (& Annual Reports)

"BYU Law prioritizes the development of both capacity and character. As our mission statement declares, 'we seek to be and develop people of integrity who combine faith and intellect in lifelong service to God and neighbor.'"

– David H. Moore

Popular Originalism, Thomas G. Donnelly

BYU Law Review

Scholars are obsessed with the Roberts Court’s recent turn to history and tradition. But another source of authority has also emerged as an important feature of the Roberts Court’s approach to constitutional cases. In previous work, I have referred to this source of authority as popular meaning. While original meaning identifies the best reading of the Constitution’s text at the time of its ratification, popular meaning draws on sources of authority outside the courts to capture the constitutional views of the American people today. In this Article, I demonstrate how interpreters might draw on the Constitution’s popular meaning to help …

Full Issue

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Them’S Fightin’ Words—Maybe: Testing The Application And Boundaries Of The “Fighting Words” Doctrine Using A Randomized Survey Experiment, Erin Cranor, Dane Thorley

BYU Law Review

Advanced note to readers: The survey experiment in this Article depicts acts of verbal violence, including the use of raceand gender-based epithets. Some of the relevant caselaw also includes offensive or harmful language.

As one of only a handful of exceptions to the First Amendment’s bar on laws proscribing speech, “fighting words” are defined as “those personally abusive epithets which, when addressed to the ordinary citizen, are, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke violent reaction.”1 It is unclear, however, how this relatively old doctrine applies to contemporary speech. Additionally, the standard is itself potentially problematic in …

“Context In Context”: The Collapse Of Title Ix’S Substantial Control Requirement, Morgan Bronson

BYU Law Review

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX) plays a critical role in addressing sex discrimination in academic settings. Though the statute envisions robust administrative enforcement, courts have largely been responsible for shaping Title IX’s liability framework, including in cases involving student-on-student sexual harassment. In two early decisions, the Supreme Court introduced five conditions necessary to establish a federal funding recipient’s liability in such cases. Among them was a two-part “substantial control” requirement: the recipient must have exercised control over both the harasser and the context of the harassment. The Court, however, never clearly articulated these conditions, leading …

Wither, Religious Liberty, Amanda Harmon Cooley

BYU Law Review

During the oft-deemed Constitutional Revolution of 1937, the U.S. Supreme Court effected a significant sea-change in its substantive due process liberty analysis. In West Coast Hotel v. Parrish, the Court held that the Due Process Clause’s liberty provision does not protect absolute freedom of contract, signaling the demise of the Lochner era. Almost a century later, the current Supreme Court’s supermajority bloc is now infamous for its own seismic shift in liberty analysis. This Court’s incontrovertible Constitutional Revolution of 2022 was not limited to only substantive due process, which the Court shifted with its decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s …

The Social Psychology Of Religious Liberty Depolarization, Asma T. Uddin

BYU Law Review

This Article examines the U.S. Supreme Court's approach to cases involving religious liberty and LGBTQ+ rights through the lens of social psychology. As Americans increasingly sort into opposing “mega- identities” defined by political, racial, and religious traits, religious liberty has become a deeply polarized issue, with traditional Christians and LGBTQ+ advocates often positioned as adversaries in a zero-sum conflict. Against this backdrop, the Article argues that the Roberts Court has employed social psychological techniques—specifically “aporia” (acknowledging complexity) and “affirmation” (validating diverse viewpoints)—to de-escalate this cultural tension. By analyzing key decisions in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, Fulton v. …

Religious Freedom As Freedom, Helen M. Alvaré

BYU Law Review

In recent decades, the exercise of religious freedom is increasingly associated with oppression. This is not only due to the disagreement between religions and some governments concerning sexual expression matters—contraception, abortion, same-sex relations, and transgender identity—but is also due to diverging convictions about the substance and sources of freedom. This Article will examine a current and highly visible set of convictions about the contents of human freedom, which together suggest that a thriving religious witness threatens freedom itself. These convictions often surface in the context of laws touching upon sexual expression. It will then contrast these convictions with those found …

Agreeing To Disagree: Abortion Jurisprudence In Jewish And Islamic Law, Rabea Benhalim

BYU Law Review

This Article challenges the prevailing perception that religious people and religious legal traditions are anti-abortion. While this may be true within certain conservative Christian perspectives, this perception is an inaccurate representation of Jewish and Muslim Americans and their respective legal traditions. Both the Jewish and Islamic legal traditions offer a range of nuanced positions on abortion. Furthermore, diverse opinions of Jewish and Islamic abortion jurisprudence inform a variety of topics salient to the current legal debate in the United States. This range of opinions includes strict limitations on abortion, circumstantial legality, and general permissibility. Scholars from both traditions engaged in …

Full Issue

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Two Concepts Of Judicial Deference To Religious Claims, Chagai Schlesinger

BYU Law Review

Religious exemptions from general laws are everywhere. The U.S. Supreme Court is expanding its exemption doctrine, systemically preferring religious needs over conflicting considerations. This ignites an ongoing debate between those celebrating religious liberties and those fearing their societal costs. Assessing this judicial trend, as this Article highlights, requires noticing how it is facilitated by a broad deferential approach to religious claims, refraining from evaluating their content.

This Article argues that this broad expression of judicial deference is analytically flawed and normatively implausible. The problem lies in the failure to distinguish between two types of religious claims when deferring to them: …

For Every Right A Remedy: Providing A Private Right Of Action Under The Church Amendments, Brad Grisenti

BYU Law Review

In 1973, Congress responded to the U.S. Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision by passing legislation known as the “Church Amendments.” The Church Amendments were designed to protect healthcare workers from being compelled by their employers to perform or participate in abortion or sterilization procedures that conflict with their moral and religious beliefs. However, the Church Amendments suffer from an enforcement problem, largely due to Congress’s failure to explicitly provide a private right of action in the text of the statute. And thus far, courts have consistently refrained from interpreting it as containing an implied private right of action. Without …

State Of Utah, Plaintiff/ Appellee V. Daniel Macbeth, Defendant/ Appellant : Reply Brief, Utah Court Of Appeals

Utah Court of Appeals Briefs (2020 –)

On appeal from the Fourth Judicial District Court, Utah County, Honorable Robert C. Lunnen, District Court No. 211402124

REBECCA BARKER, DEREK E. BROWN, Counsel for Appellee

Freyja Johnson, Rachel Phillips Ainscough, Counsel for Appellant

Full Issue

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

“Absolute And Arbitrary”: How The Supreme Court’S Certiorari Power Violates The Nondelegation Doctrine, Dinis Cheian

BYU Law Review

The Exceptions Clause of Article III of the Constitution is clear that “Congress” “shall make” the rules prescribing the Court’s “appellate jurisdiction.” And so Congress did for almost 150 years. But in the twentieth century, Congress delegated its power to the Supreme Court in the form of—as Chief Justice Taft demanded—”absolute and arbitrary” discretion to pick its appellate cases. Today, under the resulting certiorari regime, the Court enjoys that unbridled discretion in selecting its cases.

Because Congress delegated its power to the Court without articulating “an intelligible principle,” certiorari jurisdiction violates the nondelegation doctrine and is unconstitutional. This Article is …

Ai And The Erosion Of Law’S Moral Authority, Joseph Avery

BYU Law Review

Over the past decade, artificial intelligence (AI) has begun to assist, augment, and influence judicial and legislative work. At the end of 2023, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts was “confident” that technological changes would continue to transform the common law and that judicial work would “be significantly affected by AI.”

In the legislative realm, there are AI tools devoted exclusively to drafting statutes, and the use of AI by members of the U.S. Congress is now officially sanctioned. These developments have led to a focus on technical and performance-related issues with AI, including those of accuracy and reliability, …

Purdue’S Side Effects: Using Due Process To Realign Mass Tort Bankruptcies, William A. Organek

BYU Law Review

In Harrington v. Purdue Pharma, the United States Supreme Court held that victims of the opioid crisis could not be forced to release their independent claims against the Sacklers, who owned and controlled Purdue, without the victims’ consent. Such releases had become a controversial mainstay of mass tort bankruptcy filings. Yet Purdue was decided on narrow, textualist grounds, leaving as a side effect many seemingly disparate and difficult questions unanswered. This Article argues that Purdue and its open issues should be analyzed through a broader due process lens in tension with some aspects of current bankruptcy practice but consistent with …

Valuation Procedure For Condemnation: A Fifty State Survey, David Griffiths

BYU Law Review

The Fifth Amendment requires statutorily authorized condemnors to provide just compensation to landowners for all takings. The procedural method used by states to determine just compensation varies widely among states and is often separate from the more standard procedures existing in traditional civil litigation. Regardless of their method, all fifty states and the District of Columbia each have their own unique procedure for determining just compensation. This Note distinctly classifies the procedural schemes currently used by states to initially value just compensation of condemned property into three general categories: (1) schemes that rely on commissioners to determine just compensation, (2) …

Not Her Fault: Ai Deepfakes, Nonconsensual Pornography, And Federal Law’S Current Failure To Protect Victims, Taylor Percival James

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Clark Memorandum: Spring 2025, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Byu Law School Alumni Association, J. Reuben Clark Law Society

The Clark Memorandum

• Primary and Professional Identity
• Never Only Two Sides
• In Defense of Zion and Her People
• The Pursuit of Happiness

Full Issue

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Codetermination’S Moment Of Truth: Overseas Workers, Jens Dammann

BYU Law Review

The idea that employees of large corporations should be entitled to representation on corporate boards, a concept known as codetermination, is gaining ground. Progressive politicians Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders have proposed codetermination regimes that would allow employees to elect between 40% and 45% of board members. Moreover, an increasing number of corporate law scholars are embracing the idea of giving employees a voice in corporate governance.

However, anyone endorsing codetermination must confront a critical dilemma: whether to limit representation to U.S.-based employees or whether to extend it to overseas workers as well. The question’s practical importance is obvious given …

The Emperor’S New Clothes And § 502(B)’S Unmatured Interest Rule, Jacob M. Hansen

BYU Law Review

When it comes to claims for unmatured interest—most notoriously make-whole provisions—the text of the Bankruptcy Code does not necessarily say what everyone says it does. The common interpretation is that the Code requires courts to disallow all claims for unmatured interest except those involving an oversecured creditor. This Note presents an alternative reading that resolves conflicts within the Code, moves away from unreliable legislative history, and reconciles circuit splits on the enforceability of make-whole provisions and unmatured interest claims in general. As discussed in this Note, this alternative reading is the more accurate one—especially from a textualist perspective.

Due to …

Innocence And Habeas Corpus: A Call For Equitable Reforms, Paige Skousen Nelson

BYU Law Review

Congress intended the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) to codify the Burger and Rehnquist Courts’ habeas corpus jurisprudence, which aimed to establish finality and innocence as gatekeepers to the “Great Writ.” But in practice, AEDPA hinders innocence claims, particularly claims of legal innocence.

This Note agrees that innocence should be one of the most important considerations in granting writs but argues that it is not as valued as Congress intended. This Note proposes two congressional reforms to reinstate innocence to its paramount role without compromising finality: first, amending the federal habeas petition rule to allow petitioners …

Papering Justices, Michael L. Smith

BYU Law Review

Supreme Court reform is a lively topic of discussion and debate, with scholars, commentators, and politicians debating a variety of proposed Court reforms, such as term limits, additional Justices, and jurisdiction stripping. This Article adds a new idea to the mix: papering Justices. Several states permit each side to a dispute to file one motion to automatically disqualify the judge overseeing their case. These requests are to be granted automatically without any showing of facts, hearings, or further briefing. This is known as “papering” the judge. Drawing from these practices, I propose that each side to a dispute before the …