Juror Contact in the Digital Age: The LinkedIn Problem

By: Drew Thornley This Article examines an evolving dispute in professional responsibility: whether a lawyer makes a prohibited communication when viewing a juror’s LinkedIn account. When one LinkedIn user views another’s profile, the platform automatically notifies the profile owner and may include the viewer’s identity. Ethics rules are currently divided on whether or not this notification would count as a prohibited juror communication. On one hand, the ABA and some state bar associations explicitly allow attorneys to view social-media profiles of jurors even when the lawyer’s identity is revealed. On the other hand, some bar associations and courts believe these automatic notifications violate ethical rules, primarily, the juror-contact rule. Drawing on a survey of ethics opinions and the purpose of juror-contact rules, this article argues against a strict interpretation of what prohibited juror contact means in the digital age. This article argues that, with respect to the juror-contact rule, a communication requires that the attorney have a purpose to convey information. Since there is no purpose to convey information through these automated notifications, there is no communication. During voir dire, lawyers have an obligation to understand the people who will be deciding their client’s case. This interest needs to be

Falling Flat: Why AI Cannot Free Melodies from Copyright Protection with “All the Music” as an Example

By: Hayley Huber As artificial intelligence (AI) continues to surprise us with its humanlike abilities, it raises the question of whether AI-created music can or should be afforded legal protection. Particularly, how should copyright law treat melodies produced by an AI designed to algorithmically generate every possible melody? This article seeks to answer that question, ultimately concluding that AI-produced melodies are not copyrightable and that melodies are not merely facts undeserving of copyright protection, but something valuable to mankind and worth protecting by law. The article explores Damien Riehl’s All the Music project (ATM) and his arguments for why ATM’s outputs should be protected as a case study that AI-produced music is uncopyrightable and that melodies are more than uncopyrightable facts. The article shows that U.S. copyright law does not recognize machines as “authors” for copyright purposes, that reducing melodies to “just math” conflicts with mainstream legal and musicological understandings of melody, and that even if ATM’s outputs were copyrightable, most of its “melodies” would fail for lack of originality. Projects like ATM neither free existing melodies from copyright protection nor meaningfully reduce the risk of infringement litigation for musicians. Download Full Article (PDF) Cite: 26 Duke L. & Tech.

Scaling Sustainable Propellants to Address Rocket Emissions: Lessons From the U.S. Aviation Industry

By: Zhizhou (Josie) Liu The rapid growth of the U.S. commercial space industry has exposed a profound regulatory gap in addressing rocket emissions. By releasing greenhouse gases and particulates like black carbon, alumina, and water vapor, rocket launches not only contribute to climate change but also accelerate stratospheric ozone depletion. The U.S. aviation industry encountered similar environmental challenges decades ago, which eventually prompted legal and policy frameworks to curtail aviation emission through sustainable fuel technologies. Unlike aviation, however, the space industry now operates in a legal vacuum, with no binding international environmental standards or domestic regulations targeting rocket atmospheric pollution. As rocket emissions penetrate into every layer of the atmosphere, their environmental risks are even more intensified and distinct from aviation emissions. This Note argues that sustainable rocket technologies, such as green propellants and green non-chemical propulsion systems, offer an effective pathway to contain rocket emissions. Drawing lessons from the U.S. aviation industry’s gradual regulatory evolution, the Note proposes that a proactive regulatory framework, including industry-specific emission standards, incentive programs, and international collaboration, is critical for the U.S. space industry to avoid replicating aviation’s delayed response and to ensure that the new space era proceeds within environmentally sustainable bounds. Download

Revisiting Eli Lilly v. Canada: Judicial Interpretation of IP Law and Exposure to Investor-State Disputes

By: Yumu Chen Eli Lilly v. Canada was an investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) case widely noted for signaling a regime shift in intellectual property (IP) protection from the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) to ISDS. Its true yet often overlooked significance, however, lies in being a case of first impression on whether judicial interpretation of IP law may serve as a basis for state responsibility independent of denial of justice. To bridge that gap, this Note undertakes a close reading of the novel doctrinal discussion in Eli Lilly and related precedents, drawing implications for the broader theory of state responsibility arising from substantive judicial acts. It then applies those implications to domestic IP regimes through a comparative lens, with particular attention to common law jurisdictions, where judicial interpretation plays a central role in developing IP law. This Note argues that Eli Lilly suggests judicial lawmaking may be reviewable by ISDS tribunals as a basis for state responsibility, akin to legislative or executive acts, thereby exposing common law IP regimes to heightened risk of investor-state disputes. Nevertheless, the “regulatory chill” of which scholars have warned as a result of Eli Lilly may be overstated. Any reading of

It’s Not So Simple: An Examination of How the Internal Revenue Code Fails to Contemplate the Economic Realities of Individuals With Disabilities and Their Families

By: Garret Hoff Families with disabled students face extra costs associated with providing their child with the same education that other students get for free. Even though these costs are spent with the explicit purpose of supporting their child’s disability-informed care and are not incurred but for their disability (“but-for costs”), some of these costs are not deductible and others are subject to unnecessary ambiguity when it comes to their deductibility. Families with disabled students are forced to reckon with arbitrary distinctions if they want to receive any favorable tax treatment on but-for costs. This is because the relevant provision in the Internal Revenue Code, Section 213, was written and consequentially interpreted during a time when disabled people were not viewed as being worth public money to educate. This status quo is unacceptable. As a starting point, the IRS should revise Treasury Regulation 1.213-1(e)(1)(v)(a) to unambiguously recognize a broader interpretation of Section 213. This revision would remove a dated regulatory distinction that pushes families towards medical institutions and away from the rest of the world to support their children’s disability-informed education. A more substantial solution would be for Congress to amend Section 529A, the section of the tax code created

To Infinity and Beyond (And Beyond): The Legal and Ethical Imperative for Rocket Reusability

By: Matthew Lumia Although the Space Shuttle’s first flight was in the 1980s, reusable rocket technology did not achieve mainstream viability until SpaceX’s reusable Falcon 9 rocket revolutionized access to space. This note argues that transitioning to reusable rocket technology is not only a practical and economic advancement, but also a legal and ethical imperative. By analyzing reusable rockets through the “due regard” framework of the Outer Space Treaty, this note demonstrates how reusable rockets mitigate space debris, expand access to space, and can reduce environmental harm. Additionally, reusable rockets address critical ethical concerns by lowering barriers to space exploration, allowing the benefits of space exploration to be shared by more nations, and conserving resources which can be redirected to other pressing needs on Earth. As the global launch cadence continues to rise, widespread adoption of reusable rocket technology is essential to ensuring the long-term sustainability of space exploration while fulfilling international legal obligations and inherent ethical responsibilities. Download Full Article (PDF) Cite: 25 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 262

Playing to Win: The Use of Export Controls to Address Non-military Strategic Competition

By: Joshua Angelo Technology and national security have been intimately related throughout American history. Over the past eighty-five years, the United States has increasingly made use of export controls to prevent adversarial countries from using the fruits of its technological advancement to strengthen their militaries and harm American interests. Today, strategic competition with the People’s Republic of China involves a myriad of technologies which present risks outside of, as well as within, the military context. Chinese exports of technologies, including artificial intelligence, quantum computing, and 5G communications, can promote the country’s authoritarian model abroad, enable economic coercion, and help to enrich the regime. The Belt and Road and “Made in China 2025” initiatives illustrate China’s use of novel technologies to further its global ambitions. Export controls may help to confront these threats. This note asks whether the Bureau of Industry and Security (a government body tasked with implementing export controls) can regulate exports of novel technologies for purposes of non-military strategic competition. Through examination of the statutes authorizing export controls and of the deference traditionally afforded to the Executive in administrative and foreign affairs matters, this note concludes that such export controls are authorized. Download Full Article (PDF) Cite: 25

Determinants of Socially Responsible AI Governance

By: Daryl Lim The signing of the first international AI treaty by the United States, European Union, and other nations marks a pivotal step in establishing a global framework for AI governance, ensuring that AI systems respect human rights, democracy, and the rule of law. This article advances the concepts of justice, equity, and the rule of law as yardsticks of socially responsible AI—from development through deployment—to ensure that AI technologies do not exacerbate existing inequalities but actively promote fairness and inclusivity. Part I explores AI’s potential to improve access to justice for marginalized communities and small and medium-sized law firms while scrutinizing AI-related risks judges, lawyers, and the communities they serve face. Part II examines the structural biases in AI systems, focusing on how biased data and coding practices can entrench inequity and how intellectual property protections like trade secrets can limit transparency and undermine accountability in AI governance. Part III evaluates the normative impact of AI on traditional legal frameworks, offering a comparative analysis of governance models: the U.S. market-driven approach, the EU’s rights-based model, China’s command economy, and Singapore’s soft law framework. The analysis highlights how different systems balance innovation with safeguards, emphasizing that successful AI governance

Fine-Tuning LLMs: Structural Fluency and Augmentation for the Great and Powerful Wizard of AI

By: Verónica C. Gonzales The civil legal tradition carries assumptions, biases, and attitudes rooted in racism and ideologies intended to protect the (im)balance of power. This moment in history offers new versions of the same challenges with the integration of artificial intelligence (“AI”) and large language models (“LLMs”) into legal frameworks, and those critiques are being addressed in the legal discourse. Building on these perspectives, this moment also offers civil legal professionals a chance to engage in machine learning frameworks informed by social justice principles and accountable to measures of “equal justice for all.” The perception of fairness in the use of these tools is critical to protecting the integrity of and trust in the civil justice system. Although the features of LLMs may not be able to replace legal analysis just yet, developers anticipate that that is where these tools are headed sooner than one might think. Without intentional approaches to machine learning, LLMs will create a civil legal system twilight zone where machines propose new outcomes based on the ineffective patterns of the past, a never-ending feedback loop that traps litigants and stifles social progress. LLMs, and the AI tools which use them, offer a new reality in

Something Is Rotten in the State of Healthcare: Accountability, Affordability, and the Court of Public Opinion

By: Isabelle Breier Many countries worldwide recognize a right to health and provide legal recourse for securing that right. By contrast, for many Americans, there is no legal right or remedy that enables them to access healthcare if they cannot afford it. While there are some statutes and measures in place, such as the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) and Medicaid, coverage remains piecemeal and access to healthcare is not guaranteed. Conditioning people’s access to healthcare upon their ability to pay violates the foundational bioethical principle of justice. In the United States, individuals and advocates use social media to fill this vacuum, raising awareness and funds through platforms like GoFundMe and X.com (formerly Twitter). In the absence of government-provided healthcare or a right to health, the American public sometimes functions as a healthcare access mechanism via social media. However, this insufficient and inequitable stopgap cannot replace effective governance. The public is filling a vital and unmet need through social media advocacy, but there are many drawbacks to effectively delegating this authority to the public instead of the government, including the public’s capriciousness and lack of legal accountability. The government should take proactive steps to ensure that healthcare