Blog

n the last three years, the Supreme Court dealt critical blows to the supposed “administrative state”—the bureaucratic collection of over 400 federal agencies created by Congress.[1] In 2022, with the advent[2] of its “major questions doctrine,” which requires an agency to point to “clear congressional authorization” for actions that implicate a “major question,” the Court thwarted the Environmental Protection Agency’s attempt to cap carbon dioxide emissions.[3] The following year, the Court applied the infant doctrine to stop the Secretary of Education’s student loan forgiveness plan.[4] In both instances, members of the majority opinion drew upon Justice Antonin Scalia’s famous maxim that Congress “does not… hide elephants in mouseholes”[5] to find it unlikely that Congress’s vague delegation of broad regulatory power entailed the authority to make such highly consequential decisions.[6]

TikTok, a social media platform that allows users to share short videos,[1] is currently the subject of a unique paradox: the 2024 presidential candidates are utilizing TikTok to reach younger target audiences,[2] while several states have filed lawsuits against the app because of its harmful effects on young users.[3] TikTok users are challenged with balancing TikTok’s negative impacts on their mental health with its informational benefits.[4] Despite concerns about TikTok’s harmfulness to young users (and, of course, the impending TikTok ban due to national security concerns),[5] TikTok’s role in this election is crucial – and potentially a game-changer.

Earlier this year, the United States Supreme Court in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo overruled the Chevron doctrine ,[1] sending shockwaves through the legal community. While all federal agencies will be impacted, this decision could have a substantial impact on how interpretive regulations are issued by the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) and the Internal Revenue Service (I.R.S.) under the general authority statute in I.R.C. § 7805(a) (Section 7805(a)). Almost ten years ago, courts faced a similar situation where the accepted standard to review interpretive regulations issued by the I.R.S. and Treasury in National Muffler Dealers Association v. U.S.[2] was scrapped in favor of the test outlined in Chevron.[3] This became known as the beginning of the end of tax exceptionalism,[4] but with Chevron overruled, where does that leave them now?

Each year, Americans pay an estimated “$100 billion in real estate commissions” to make arguably the most important purchase of their life: their home.[1] For the past several decades, the National Association of Realtors (NAR) has set the guidelines “governing realtors’ client relationships and home sales across the United States.”[2] This year, Moehrl v. National Association of Realtors resulted in a settlement of $418 million, which changed the rules regarding how real estate transactions are done.[3]

On a foggy August morning in 2006, Comair Flight 5191 crashed while attempting to take off from the Lexington Bluegrass Airport.[1] Among the 49 killed in the crash was the mother of Adam Theodore.[2] Theodore, who was intellectually disabled and wholly dependent on his mother for support, asserted a claim for loss of parental consortium in federal court against the airline and aircraft manufacturer.[3] The initial suit was dismissed[4] and a subsequent petition to reconsider was denied.[5] Why? Because Theodore, who was eighteen years old at the time of the accident, was considered by the Commonwealth of Kentucky to be an adult and thereby ineligible to claim loss of consortium for the wrongful death of his parent.[6] 

In 2023, Louisiana became the first state to enact a law requiring adult websites to verify users’ ages before granting access to explicit materials.[1] This marked the start of a major trend amongst state legislatures across the country, as eighteen other states have passed similar bills within the past two years.[2] Kentucky enacted its own age verification law on July 3, 2024, adding six new sections to KRS Chapter 436.[3] Under the new law, anyone attempting to access an adult website must provide a state-issued ID, proving they are at least 21 years of age, to the website provider.[4] The law also established a civil cause of action upon which plaintiffs may recover “. . . ten thousand dollars ($10,000) per instance that the covered platform failed to perform age verification to restrict the minor’s access to matter harmful to minors.”[5]

It’s no secret that horseracing and bourbon attract tourism in Kentucky, but unlike other tourist destinations, Kentucky does not have a famous walkable mixed-zoning area. Since individuals who travel on foot spend 65 percent more  on shopping and dining than those driving, a beautiful, walkable area is precisely what Kentucky needs to increase its tourism profits.[1] Additionally, new construction projects to build these areas and businesses can provide countless new jobs for the state. Finally, the quality of life will improve for residents. By providing zoning initiatives for local governments and tax breaks for investors and builders, the Kentucky General Assembly can meet these needs.

On the ballot of every voting Kentuckian this November will be a proposed constitutional amendment asking if the voter is in favor of allowing the Kentucky General Assembly to allocate educational funds to students attending a non-public school in the Commonwealth of Kentucky.[1] As it stands, the Kentucky Constitution has seven separate sections that specify only public schools should be funded by public dollars,[2] meaning lawmakers need the approval of the public to amend the Constitution before enacting this change.[3] The practical effect of the ratification of Amendment 2 would be the General Assembly “[subsidizing] private schools using public funds” through a system of vouchers that parents can use on a private education.[4]

Kentucky has long served as a trailblazer and trendsetter for the rest of the country in its use of risk assessment tools in the criminal justice system to determine issues like monetary bail, pretrial release, and sentencing.[1] Since 1976, Kentucky has utilized some type of risk assessment tool.[2] Modern risk assessment tools are an  AI  algorithm which analyzes various inputs, such as education level, employment, past convictions and prior sentences and provides a score, often in terms of “low risk” “moderate risk” or “high risk.”[3] Typically, it is up to the judge to decide whether to accept or reject the tool’s recommendation. In 2017 Kentucky began using the risk assessment algorithm to release criminal defendants that are considered “low risk,” without the involvement of a judge.[4] Prior to the PSA risk assessment tool, Kentucky utilized a few different forward-thinking algorithms.

In an opinion piece for the New York Times, the CEO of Palantir Technologies analogized the advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AI) to the creation of nuclear weapons stating: “We have now arrived at a similar crossroad in the science of computing, a crossroad that connects engineering and ethics, where we will again have to choose whether to proceed with the development of a technology whose power and potential we do not yet fully apprehend.”[1]

Just under twelve years ago, the Supreme Court handed down a decision in Arizona v. United States[1] that would become the preeminent case on federal preemption of state law.[2] On March 18th, 2024, the Supreme Court entered an order that, on its face, seemed to virtually eviscerate Arizona without a written opinion of the Court.[3]

The goal to crack down on crime has stood as a foundational principle guiding the evolution of legal frameworks and societal norms across the world, and to effectuate this goal, states often pass new criminal laws. However, these new criminal laws are often met with criticism. Lawmakers in the Commonwealth have recently proposed a legislative package known as the “Safer Kentucky Act,” aiming to address crime and public safety in the state.[1] The legislation has moved to the Governor’s desk as it recently passed the House on March 28, 2024.[2] Led by Representatives Jason Nemes and Jared Bauman, the Act introduces a variety of measures including the reinstatement of Kentucky’s "Three Strikes Law," heightened penalties for substance-related offenses, mandatory sentencing provisions, and a ban on homeless behavior.[3] While advocates tout the Act as a crucial step towards enhancing safety within the Commonwealth, critics argue that its punitive approach may exacerbate existing issues within Kentucky’s justice system.[4]

Following the 2022 Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization in which the court held that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion,[1] some states have enacted their own legislation regulating one’s ability to access abortion procedures. Recently, these controversial abortion laws have given rise to confusion surrounding regulation of the unborn as it relates to alternative fertilization procedures such as In Vitro Fertilization.[2]

 In 2021 the Sixth Circuit became one of the first circuit courts to navigate the waters of free expression and gender identity with its keystone decision, Meriwether v. Hartop.[1] Here, the Court upheld the speech rights of a philosophy professor at Shawnee State University who was charged with misconduct after refusing to use the preferred pronouns of a student in his class.

Far removed from the days of Moses and the reeds,[1] most adoptions today are open adoptions.[2] The particularities of open adoption agreements vary according to their individual terms but frequently include post-adoption visitation between the birth parent(s) and child.[3]  Because Kentucky law is silent regarding the enforceability of open adoption agreements, these agreements are in effect unenforceable.[4]  It is time for Kentucky’s laws to reflect what is known and practiced by other states[5] — that closed adoption no longer fulfills its intended purposes, and open adoption agreements often serve the best interests of the child, adoptive parents, and birth parents.

Environmental, Social, and Governance (“ESG”) principles were forged in the 2004 UN Global Compact Report titled “Who Cares Wins: Connecting Financial Markets to a Changing World.”[1] This report served as a promotional piece for the incorporation of ESG criteria into the investment process and identified various strategies for investors, fiduciaries, and market regulators. Within the report, a key assertion is:

“Both investors and asset managers should develop and communicate proxy voting strategies on ESG issues as this will support analysts and managers in producing relevant research and services.”[2]

During and in the years following the COVID-19 pandemic, social media and the internet were a vital part of the daily lives of Americans. It is where we went to learn more about what was going on around us, and connect with others in unprecedented times. The increase in use also lead to an increase in misinformation, and of the federal government’s actions to stop its spread. In this blog, KLJ Vol. 112 Staff Editor Abigail Vicars discusses Biden v. Missouri, and its implications as case law on this topic continues to develop.

Pursuant to the Supreme Court’s ruling in National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Alston, NCAA student athletes now have the ability to profit off of their name, image, and likeness without losing their collegiate eligibility. However, the restrictions on accepting prize money earned in professional competitions remain in place. In this blog, KLJ Vol. 112 Staff Editor Tate Craft argues that the Court’s holding in Alston may also destabilized the NCAA’s amateurism rules, allowing student athletes to accept performance payouts earned in professional competitions.

Imagine that you are in the business of commercial real estate. You own a number of office buildings that you lease to businesses. This is normally profitable, but declining property values, the rise of remote work, and economic uncertainty have cut into your profits.[1] Worse, imagine now that a state regulator brings a consumer protection lawsuit against one of your largest tenants.[2]  The state regulator hauls your tenant in front of a judge. The lawyers for the state make a motion for court to place the tenant’s business in a receivership,[3] arguing that the appointment of a receiver is the only way to protect the tenant’s assets which could later be used to pay consumer damages and state penalties. Alternatively, the court could — on its own motion — appoint a receiver if the “facts justify the appointment and to preserve and protect property in litigation.”[4]

On January 9, 2024, the same day the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) published the Final Rule for Employee or Independent Contractor Classification under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”),[1] the DOL’s Wage and Hour Division announced their recovery of over $127,000 in wages from Lucero Aerospace Staffing Solutions, LLC for misclassifying workers as independent contractors.[2] The aviation maintenance workers were paid “straight-time rates for all hours” and were not paid the “half-time rate required” for overtime.[3] Investigators further reported that the Alabama staffing agency also violated the FLSA by failing to pay at least one worker minimum wage.[4]