Spotlight

Founded in 1927, Temple Law Review is a student-edited, quarterly journal dedicated to providing a forum for the expression of new legal thought and scholarly commentary on important developments, trends, and issues in the law. 

comment
Colton Brown

This Comment analyzes this question, using the divergent decisions from the Fourth and Sixth Circuits to illustrate that an executive judgment ought not to override a judicial judgment. Concluding otherwise presents an insidious implication of the president’s pardon and commutation authority in that it may become an aggravation of punishment, even under circumstances where the […]

comment
David L. Teklits

It is settled law in Pennsylvania that contracts waiving a party’s right to recover for the other party’s own negligent acts are generally enforceable if they meet certain criteria that follow general principles familiar to most first-year law students. Until recently, however, Pennsylvania courts had not considered whether this liability waiver might also serve as […]

comment
Matthew Rubino

Deciding whether to play football is already a cost-benefit analysis. For future athletes and their parents, determining whether to play in light of new scientific evidence depends on the amount of reliable information to which they are exposed. This Comment first provides an overview of sports-related head traumas, the NCAA settlement agreement, and medical monitoring […]

comment
Heather Swadley

This Comment discusses the current circuit split regarding ascertainability in Rule 23(b)(3) class actions, as well as ascertainability’s proliferation into Rule 23(b)(2) class certification at the district court level. It argues that Rule 23(b)(2) suits structurally differ from the rule 23(b)(3) suits (in which ascertainability is generally a question). Rule 23(b)(2) suits do not involve […]

article
Michelle M. Kwon

This Article posits that opioid excise taxes are misguided if their purpose is to reduce consumption unless the taxes are reflected in consumers’ out-of-pocket expenses. Such taxes may also be an ineffective mechanism in the effort to cause drug makers to internalize the social costs of their products. Nonetheless, opioid excise taxes might generate much […]

article
Kathryn Kisska-Schulze & Rodney P. Mock

As a matter of astute policy, this Article advances that Congress should not impose a robot tax. This Article is the first to conduct a significant literature review of the current proposals to tax robots, ultimately taking a contrarian view. It examines mankind’s historical connection to labor amid fears of automation substitution and proposes that […]

article
Elizabeth Kukura

This Article provides a critical analysis of restrictive regulations that exclude midwives or prevent them from practicing to the full extent of their training. It offers a brief history of the relationship between midwives and physicians since colonial days, showing how interprofessional cooperation and respect waned as physicians became increasingly professionalized and sought to advance […]

comment
Cassidy C. Duckett

This Comment analyzes the circuit split regarding the ADA’s applicability to emerging technologies and proposes that the Supreme Court use similar reasoning to its decision in South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. to the extended ADA to intangible places of public accommodation. Section II discusses the circuit split, as well as the role of emerging technologies […]

comment
Haesun Burris Lee

This Comment concludes by arguing that in order to extend adequate protections to potential homeowners with limited access to credit—but not dismiss creative forms of investment or stifle the individual right to freely enter into contracts—courts must recognize the inherent unconscionability of most contracts for deed of sale. Further, state legislatures should treat these contracts […]

comment
Kaylin Hawkins

This Comment argues that the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) gives federal judges clear authority to “set aside agency action . . . [that is] arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” The public charge rule puts the Trump administration’s actions well within the meaning of “arbitrary and capricious” under […]