Tyler v. Hennepin County by Evan Kluth
The issue in this case is whether a government keeping excess proceeds from a tax foreclosure sale of a property is a taking under the Fifth Amendment. The Fifth Amendment Takings Clause says, “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”7 To state a claim for a taking, a citizen must show that the government took private property for public use without compensation. In this specific case, Ms. Tyler needed to show that she had property rights in the proceeds of a tax-foreclosure sale, and that the government took those proceeds (and thus the property rights) for public use.
National Pork Producers Council V. Ross by Ethan Rose
National Pork Producers v. Ross strengthened the ability of states to regulate their economies even when the regulations have extraterritorial effects. This is especially true for larger states that have a significant extraterritorial impact due simply to the size of their markets. They are free to attempt to craft regulations that choose between their preferred market operations and methods of operation so long as that preference is not “in-state businesses.” This also creates some risk that smaller states may be left behind if they try to enact regulations that are incompatible with regulations adopted by larger states. This decision empowers the states, and thus the people, to regulate what kind of goods can be sold in their markets.
Samia v. United States by Haden C. Blair
The case of Samia v. United States deals with the admissibility of a non-testifying codefendant’s confession that implicates another defendant indirectly. The Supreme Court’s decision in 2023 allows such confessions with altered details, claiming that the Confrontation Clause is not violated due to historical practices and the presumption that jurors follow instructions.
Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh by Camille Alley
The case of Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh involves the secondary liability of social media giants Twitter, Facebook, and Google under the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) for failing to prevent terrorist organizations from using their services. The Supreme Court ruled that the platforms’ inaction did not constitute aiding and abetting, and highlighted the need for congressional action to address internet platform immunity.
MOAC Mall Holdings LLC v. Transform Holdco LLC by Paul Henken
Trust is integral to an adversarial system. When a party disclaims the use of a procedural tool, only to later evoke that tool to blindside the appellate process, the integrity and efficiency of the legal system is damaged. This bait-and-switch behavior is central to MOAC Mall Holdings LLC. v. Transform Holdco LLC (“MOAC”).
Youth Behind Bars: Analyzing the Constitutional Implications in State of Tennessee v. Booker‘s Juvenile Sentencing Dilemma by Tyler Rapper
In 2015, then sixteen-year-old Tyshon Booker robbed and murdered G’Metrik Caldwell.[1] Because of his actions, a jury later convicted Mr. Booker of two counts of first-degree felony murder.[2] According to Tennessee’s sentencing scheme, this conviction triggered an automatic life sentence, encompassing a sixty-year term with the provision for release after fifty-one years, contingent upon the acquisition and preservation of all applicable sentencing credits.[3] Therefore, as a minor, Mr. Booker received a sentence without the benefit of a sentencing hearing, condemning him to incarceration until at least the age of sixty-six years old.[4] Under Tennessee law, Mr. Booker’s age, maturity, or any other mitigating circumstances were irrelevant when receiving this sentence.
tennesseelawreview.org 