Liberty University Law Review

The Liberty University Law Review is pleased to welcome our 2L candidates and reveal its masthead for Volume 19. We look forward to all the Lord has in store for us for the 2024-2025 academic year. #libertyuniversity #lawreview #congratscandidates

We are calling all 1Ls! Join us for the LUSOL Law Review interest meeting. You can be a part of the next generation of legal scholars who will shape the future of law and spread the love of Christ. See below for details. We can't wait to see you there! #Libertylawreview #lawreview

Concluding Volume 18, Issue 1, author Hannah Eppling discusses how warrantless pole camera home surveillance allows the government to invade the security of the home in "Arbitrary Government Intrusion of the Home: Warrantless Pole Camera Home Surveillance Survives 𝘒𝘢𝘵𝘻 but Violates the Fourth Amendment." The Supreme Court has recognized that comprehensive surveillance of the person, including tracking devices and cell phone location data, is unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment 𝘒𝘢𝘵𝘻 test. However, application of the same 𝘒𝘢𝘵𝘻 test to discern whether a search occurs in the context of non-trespassory technological intrusions has led circuit courts to almost always conclude that the Fourth Amendment does not protect the home from warrantless pole camera surveillance. Mrs. Eppling suggests that the Supreme Court take up a pole camera home surveillance case and make two clarifications: (1) the 𝘒𝘢𝘵𝘻 test is inapplicable in the context of pole camera home surveillance, and (2) this search method without a warrant constitutes an unreasonable search, thus violating the Fourth Amendment. Liberty University Law Review is pleased to have published Mrs. Eppling's Comment in Volume 18, Issue 1. Hannah Eppling is the Student Development Editor for LULR Vol. 18. She is passionate about the objective and timeless truth that is the foundation of the Constitution and the law. She is thankful for the opportunity to have served on the Liberty University Law Review and for all the investments her professors have made in their students at LUSOL. 𝘚𝘰𝘭𝘪 𝘋𝘦𝘰 𝘨𝘭𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘢! Read Hannah's Comment here: https://lnkd.in/eYvFwEd7 #law #lawreview #FourthAmendment

Liberty University Law Review is pleased to announce the upcoming Editorial Board and Senior Staff for Volume 19, which will be published during the 2024–2025 academic year. Please join us in congratulating LULR's incoming leadership on their dedication and hard work. We are thankful for each and every member of LULR and can't wait to see them all continue to excel as part of Volume 19! #lawreview

In "Hypothetically Punished: Why the Court Should Heed Justice Thomas's Call in 𝘜𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘴 𝘷. 𝘛𝘢𝘺𝘭𝘰𝘳 to end its "Journey Through the Looking Glass," author Arielle Leake discusses how the federal judiciary's categorical approach to statutory interpretation has resulted in illogical outcomes. The Supreme Court began this journey by applying the categorical approach by using it to interpret the sentencing enhancement in 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). Since then, the approach has been used to interpret other subsections of § 924 and sentencing enhancements in other statutes. When a court is determining whether a sentencing enhancement is applicable, the categorical approach requires courts to refrain from looking at the defendant's conduct and instead look only to the statutory elements of the offense. The result is that a criminal defendant's sentence could be decades lighter depending on where he commits the crime and how that state defines the elements of the crime. Building upon the problems with the categorical approach articulated by Justice Thomas, Ms. Leake's Comment identifies three reasons why the Court must reconsider the categorical approach—beginning with its application to § 924(c). Liberty University Law Review is pleased to have published Ms. Leake's Comment in Volume 18, Issue 1. Arielle Leake is the Articles and Book Reviews Editor for LULR Vol. 18. Arielle also serves on the Moot Court Board. Most recently, she and her teammate were the runners-up and won the award for Best Petitioner's Brief at the Billings, Exum & Frye National Moot Court Competition. Following her graduation, she will begin working as an Associate for PLDR Law in the litigation division. Read Arielle's Comment here: https://lnkd.in/eFVUM8cV #law #lawreview #sentencing

In "A Matter of Principle: Why the Ministerial Exception Categorically Bars Ministers from Bringing Hostile Work Environment Claims Against Their Religious Employers," author Joshua Davis argues that the employment relationship between ministers is covered by the church autonomy doctrine and, therefore, the First Amendment's ministerial exception. His Comment reviews the split in decisions regarding the ministerial exception and ultimately maintains that the purpose of the exception is to prevent secular courts from making impermissible determinations of faith and doctrine. Allowing courts to make these determinations upon hostile work environment claims would unconstitutionally require a religious institution (the employer) to justify its internal processes and decisions as "reasonable." Mr. Davis suggests that ministers who are subjected to harassment have alternative remedies if the conduct arises to the level of an actionable tort. However, the ministerial exception must categorically bar hostile work environment claims because the primary mission of ministers is defined by the religious institution itself. Liberty University Law Review is pleased to have published Mr. Davis's Comment in Volume 18, Issue 1. Joshua Davis is the Editor-in-Chief for LULR Vol. 18. Joshua also serves on the Moot Court Board and won runner-up and the award for petitioner's best brief at the Billings, Exum & Frye National Moot Court Competition in 2023. Josh will be working as a judicial clerk for Justice Stephen R. McCullough on the Supreme Court of Virginia after graduating law school this year. Read Mr. Davis's Comment here: https://lnkd.in/ekBcA9Di #law #lawreview #firstamendment