Loyola University Chicago Law Journal

We are thrilled to announce our Volume 56 Journal Staff! Congratulations to all our new and returning members. We are looking forward to working with this team as we embrace our joint commitment to legal scholarship.

Issue 4 Author Spotlight 📣 Introducing Jason Cieslik, J.D. Professor Jason Cieslik exposes a recent trend—particularly in Illinois—of county sheriffs declaring legislation unconstitutional and refusing to enforce the law. The problem, Professor Cieslik explains, is that a county sheriff’s constitutional and statutory duties do not include declaring a law unconstitutional. Professor Cieslik examines how acting outside the scope of their authority might permit an elected sheriff to be removed absent voter approval. Read the full article here: https://lnkd.in/gGdhX4yt

Issue 4 Author Spotlight 📣 Introducing Justice Gerard Hogan of the Irish Supreme Court! Justice Hogan explores the reputation of Supreme Court justices. First, comparing Justices Oliver Wendell Holmes and John M. Harlan I—discussing why Holmes’ reputation has somewhat cast a shadow on the achievements of his colleague Harlan. Second, focusing on Justices Frankfurter and John M. Harlan III—contending that Frankfurter stood in the way of his potential and success, allowing Harlan to distinguish himself as one of the great Justices of the post-World War II era. Read the full article on our website: https://lnkd.in/ghiCmQXQ

Jessica Kowalski, one of our Journal Members, has been published in our Online Issue! Her article is up on our site and one you want to check out. Kowalski discusses the significant clarification that the dormant Commerce Clause doctrine saw in the recent Supreme Court case, National Pork Producers Council v. Ross. Upholding a California law against the sale of pork produced in cruel conditions, the Court emphasized that in-state moral benefits do not equate to discrimination against interstate commerce. This decision could reshape regulations across various industries. Kowalski's comment explores the historical development, case details, and potential impacts of this ruling. Read the full article here: https://lnkd.in/gCkSXTMU

Issue 4 Author Spotlight 📣 Introducing Nancy Jack and Karl Muth! Assistant Attorney General Nancy Jack and Professor Karl Muth examine People v. Timmsen, a recent traffic stop case in Illinois. Professors Jack and Muth rejected the Illinois Supreme Court decision that held that Timmsen’s wholly legal conduct created the basis for a roadside interaction. The potential effects of this decision prompt Jack and Muth to propose an alternative vantage point from which to review policy revision in this area. Read the full article on our website: https://lnkd.in/g3Uy_TVv

We are excited to announce Issue 4 of Vol. 55 has been published and uploaded on our website. Issue 4 focuses on important and relevant legal developments that affect Illinois. The first remark, authored by The Honourable Mr. Justice Gerard Hogan of the Irish Supreme Court, explores the reputation of Supreme Court justices. First, Judge Hogan juxtaposed with Justices Oliver Wendell Holmes and John M. Harlan I—discussing why Holmes’ reputation has somewhat cast a shadow on the achievements of his colleague Harlan. Second, Judge Hogan elucidates on Justices Frankfurter and Justice John M. Harlan II—contending that Frankfurter stood in the way of his potential and success, allowing Harlan to distinguish himself as one of the great Justices of the post-World War II era. Assistant Attorney General Nancy Jack and Professor Karl Muth, who wrote the first article, examine People v. Timmsen, a recent traffic stop case in Illinois. Professors Jack and Muth rejected the Illinois Supreme Court decision that held that Timmsen’s wholly legal conduct created the basis for a roadside interaction. The potential effects of this decision prompt Jack and Muth to propose an alternative vantage point from which to review policy revision in this area. In the following article, Professor Jason Cieslik, J.D. exposes a recent trend—particularly in Illinois—of county sheriffs declaring legislation unconstitutional and refusing to enforce the law. The problem, Professor Cieslik explains, is that a county sheriff’s constitutional and statutory duties do not include declaring a law unconstitutional. Professor Cieslik examines how acting outside the scope of their authority might permit an elected sheriff to be removed absent voter approval. Professor Charles Murdock and Michael Huiras Jr. track Illinois corporate-law jurisprudence, which finds that the Illinois Supreme Court has taken a technical approach to fiduciary duties, resulting in wrongdoers getting away with unconscionable conduct. After examining two recent Illinois Supreme Court decisions, Professor Murdock concludes with resolutions courts and lawyers can take when facing Illinois courts’ jurisprudence covering anti-reliance clauses in fraud in the inducement claims. Finally, we are thrilled to present a student comment authored by Kellie Kleitsch. The comment reflects on the legislative action Illinois took following the 2022 Highland Park Fourth of July terror attack—become the ninth state to enact a ban on assault weapons within the border. Kleitsch concludes that under the Court’s contemporary interpretation of the Second Amendment, the Illinois assault weapon ban is constitutional. Kleitsch dedicates this comment to the victims and survivors of the Highland Park shooting, and every victim and survivor of gun violence. Read the full articles here: https://lnkd.in/gcW7jeVg

Issue 3 Author Spotlight 📣 Introducing Rachel Dudley! We are proud to present a note by Loyola student and Law Journal member, Rachel Dudley. Following the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Allen v. Mulligan—where the Court protected Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act when it held that Alabama’s redistricting map diluted minority voters’ voting rights—Dudley identifies a crucial issue that the Court did not address: whether computers can play a role in redistricting, and specifically whether they can adequately consider race. In her note, using a historical review of the Voting Rights Act and its accompanying caselaw, she argues that the Court must limit the role that computers play in lawsuits.  To best honor the Voting Rights Act, we cannot put all our trust in computer technology—instead, courts should require a multifaceted analysis of facts and circumstances, which computers do not adequately perform. Read her full article here: https://lnkd.in/gwccKEvA

Issue 3 Author Spotlight 📣 Introducing Professor Larissa Bowman! Professor Larissa Bowman evaluates today’s eviction crisis and equates it to mass incarceration. She exposes its disparate impact on single, Black, women with children and argues that although a civil legal processing, it can be conceptualized as on the “carceral continuum.” As such, in line with opponents of mass incarceration, Bowman argues that eviction should be abolished.  Eviction, like mass incarceration, cannot be reformed and academics and activists alike must engage with the project of eviction abolition as a critical facet of the reimagination of the state as responsible for the lives of Black women rather than the profits of white men. Read the full article here: https://lnkd.in/ggzWKNPm

Issue 3 Author Spotlight 📣 Introducing Professor Daniel McConkie! Professor Daniel McConkie critiques our state-centered, professionalized, and adversarial criminal justice system. By excluding victims, offenders, and other important community stakeholders, the current system is not responsive to those most affected by it. As such, McConkie argues restorative justice, especially where it is centered in community courts, is an ideal reform to strengthen criminal justice citizenship and, therefore, democracy itself. In his in-depth and extensive argument, he argues restorative justice will increase collective action to address issues in a community, foster deliberation among the stakeholders, and strengthen membership in our democracy. Read the full article here: https://lnkd.in/ga8Ueu8r

Issue 3 Author Spotlight 📣 Introducing Professor Michael Wetmore! In his note, Professor Michael C. Wetmore examines the recent Supreme Court decision, Hemphill v. New York. In this case, the Court held a criminal defendant may not “open the door” to evidence that is otherwise inadmissible because of his Sixth Amendment right to confront adversarial witnesses. However, the Court was silent on whether this new rule applied retroactively to those currently incarcerated. Using a well-established framework, Wetmore argues the Hemphill rule is a watershed rule of criminal procedure that is essential to the fundamental fairness of a criminal trial.  Read his note here: https://lnkd.in/gwxGCJhg