Current Issue

Volume 20, Issue 2 (2025)Read More

Featured Content

  • Journal Article
    18 February 2026

    The Nondelegation Doctrine and Consumers’ Research: What Happened?

    Eric Bolinder
    This article is a brief summary of the decision in FCC v. Consumers’ Research that forms the basis for my remarks at Liberty University Law Review’s annual Supreme Court Review. It seeks to highlight the key points made by the majority, concurrence, and dissent.
    Read More
  • Journal Article
    18 February 2026

    Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services: Reaffirming Title VII’s Neutrality in an Era of Shifting Discrimination

    David McGinley
    Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits workplace discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, emphasizing individual rights over group status. In Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, however, the district court and Sixth Circuit deviated from this bedrock principle by imposing an additional “background circumstances” evidentiary burden on plaintiff Marlean Ames, a heterosexual female alleging sexual orientation discrimination, solely because of her perceived majority-group status. This Article demonstrates that such group-based burdens contravene Title VII’s text, legislative intent, and judicial precedent, as reaffirmed by the Supreme Court’s rejection of the “background circumstances” requirement in Ames. Through an analysis of Title VII’s individual-focused framework, the lower courts’ misapplication of the McDonnell Douglas standard, and the broader implications of Bostock v. Clayton County’s expansion of “sex” to include “sexual orientation” and “gender identification,” this Article highlights the absolute necessity of Title VII’s neutral application to ensure equal protection for all plaintiffs. It further contends that evolving workplace dynamics, including the rise of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion initiatives, render outdated the assumption that discrimination against majority groups is uncommon, underscoring that Title VII must maintain its role as an impartial arbiter amidst shifting cultural trends.
    Read More

Current Articles

Journal Article18 February 2026

Mahmoud v. Taylor: A Significant Victory for the Religious Rights of Parents with Children in Public Schools

Rena Lindevaldsen
The Supreme Court’s June 2025 decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor unmistakably accomplished two things: it strengthened the Free Exercise Clause protections of the First Amendment, and it weakened the ability of schools to press an ideological agenda on matters of human sexuality and gender identity when the materials substantially interfere with the religious development of children. After Montgomery County refused to exercise its discretion to give parents notice and the right to opt their elementary-aged children out of objectional material concerning gender identity and sexual orientation, several parents and a non-profit organization sued, alleging free exercise and parental rights claims. The United States Supreme Court only reached the free exercise claim, leaving until another day the parental rights question. For years, lower court decisions have afforded broad discretion to school officials to require student attendance at sexually explicit school-sponsored events or instruction that parents found objectionable. Some federal circuit courts have gone so far as to say that the only choice parents have is whether to send their child to public schools and that once parents drop their children off at school, it is the school that decides what the students should be taught, regardless of parental objection. Those decisions represent the mindset that government, not parents, has the primary responsibility to raise children. Scripture, however, makes clear that the opposite is true: God has given parents the responsibility to “[t]rain up a child in the way he should go” and to impress the truths of Scripture on children at all times and places. In Mahmoud, the Supreme Court strengthened Free Exercise Clause claims, concluding that even if a law is neutral and generally applicable, it still is subject to strict scrutiny when it imposes a burden “of the same character as that imposed in Yoder.” That burden exists when the government “substantially interfer[es] with the religious development of the [parents’] child[ren]” and “poses ‘a very real threat of undermining’ the religious beliefs and practices that the parents wish to instill” in their children. Significantly, the Court concluded that substantial interference exists even if children are not forced to abandon or disclaim their religious beliefs. This Article explains the Mahmoud decision, discusses the decision’s implications for future parent-school instructional conflicts, and identifies important questions left unresolved.
Journal Article18 February 2026

Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services: Reaffirming Title VII’s Neutrality in an Era of Shifting Discrimination

David McGinley
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits workplace discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, emphasizing individual rights over group status. In Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, however, the district court and Sixth Circuit deviated from this bedrock principle by imposing an additional “background circumstances” evidentiary burden on plaintiff Marlean Ames, a heterosexual female alleging sexual orientation discrimination, solely because of her perceived majority-group status. This Article demonstrates that such group-based burdens contravene Title VII’s text, legislative intent, and judicial precedent, as reaffirmed by the Supreme Court’s rejection of the “background circumstances” requirement in Ames. Through an analysis of Title VII’s individual-focused framework, the lower courts’ misapplication of the McDonnell Douglas standard, and the broader implications of Bostock v. Clayton County’s expansion of “sex” to include “sexual orientation” and “gender identification,” this Article highlights the absolute necessity of Title VII’s neutral application to ensure equal protection for all plaintiffs. It further contends that evolving workplace dynamics, including the rise of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion initiatives, render outdated the assumption that discrimination against majority groups is uncommon, underscoring that Title VII must maintain its role as an impartial arbiter amidst shifting cultural trends.
Journal Article18 February 2026

The Nondelegation Doctrine and Consumers’ Research: What Happened?

Eric Bolinder
This article is a brief summary of the decision in FCC v. Consumers’ Research that forms the basis for my remarks at Liberty University Law Review’s annual Supreme Court Review. It seeks to highlight the key points made by the majority, concurrence, and dissent.

Most Popular Articles

Journal Article
31 January 2024

The Fallacy of Systemic Racism in the American Criminal Justice System

Paul Larkin, GianCarlo Canaparo
Critics of the criminal justice system have repeatedly charged it with systemic racism. It is a tenet of the “war” on the “War on Drugs,” it is a justification used by the so-called “progressive prosecutors” to reject the “Broken Windows” theory of law enforcement, and it is an article of faith of the “Defund the Police!” movement. Even President Joe Biden and his chief lieutenants leveled the same allegation early in this administration. Although the President has eschewed the belief that Americans are a racist people, others have not, proclaiming that virtually anyone who is white is a racist. Yet, few people have defined what they mean by that term. This Article examines what it could mean and tests the truth of the systemic racism claim under each possible definition. None stands up to scrutiny. One argument is that the American citizens who run our many institutions are motivated by racial animus. But the evidence is that racial animus is no longer tolerated in society, and what is more, the criminal justice system strives to identify it when it does occur and to remedy it. Another argument says that the overtly racist beliefs and practices of the past have created lingering racist effects, but this argument cherry-picks historical facts (when it does not ignore them altogether) and fails to grapple with the country’s historic and ongoing efforts to eliminate racial discrimination. It also assumes a causal relationship between past discrimination and present disparities that is unsupported and often contradicted by the evidence. Yet another argument relies psychological research to claim that white Americans are animated by a subconscious racial animus. That research, however, has been debunked. Still another argument says that the criminal justice system is systemically racist because it has disparate effects across racial groups, but this argument looks only at the offenders’ side of the criminal justice system and fails to consider the effect of the criminal justice system on victims. Proponents of the systemic racism theory often proffer “solutions” to it. This Article examines those too and finds that many would, in fact, harm the very people they aim to help. In the context of the “War on Drugs,” where so much of the rhetoric is focused, the authors examine these arguments and solutions. The bottom line is this: the claim of systemic racism in the criminal justice system is unjustified.
Read More