Some courts, on the state and federal level, have implemented rules for appointing counsel in habeas corpus petitions, which allow petitioners in state or federal custody to challenge the validity of their detention. But these rules are inconsistent and differ greatly, leading to petitioners having no knowledge of whether or not counsel will actually be appointed, or whether appointed counsel is prepared to provide adequate representation.

However, because local rules of the federal district courts can be changed relatively easily, judges have an opportunity to adopt favorable appointment mechanisms without much difficulty. This article looks at the Pennsylvania state rules and the local rules of several district courts, with the local rules of each court serving as individual “cases,” to determine just how effective the mechanisms of appointment are, and in doing so, makes recommendations as to what rules courts should adopt to ensure more effective appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings.

The “myth of voter fraud” poses a significant threat to American democracy by both disenfranchising large numbers of voters and by weakening the public’s faith in elections. Noting that about twenty-one states currently enforce strict voter ID requirements, and that many state legislatures are in the process of further restricting access to the polls, this Comment urges voting rights advocates to challenge voter ID laws in state court—and proposes potential pathways for doing so.

During the protests that followed George Floyd’s death at the hands of law enforcement in 2020, a number of journalists were arrested on the job. A series of journalists fired back with lawsuits, asserting that their constitutional rights were violated. Collectively referred to as the “Floyd Caselaw,” these cases present a compelling portrait as to the status of First Amendment rights in the United States, and hint at broader acceptance of judicially-recognized press rights.

The Senate’s system of self-governance has become so complex that it requires a full-time parliamentarian to prepare guidance. Senators generally adhere to the unwritten rules, but because they are not binding, they can be bent and broken. Greg Burton argues that this procedural looseness opens Senate proceedings to exploitation, rendering the proliferation of unwritten rules undesirable.

This Comment will consider whether the growing scholarship on the culpability of young adults should influence how courts and society blame and punish persons that commit crimes while between the ages of eighteen and twenty-four. It also explores the evidence that indicates that young adults are more similarly situated to juveniles than adults with regard to their moral blameworthiness and how, if it all, this will impact criminal punishment for young adults.

This Comment argues that the Federal Tort Claims Act permits suit against the United States based on state law theories of tort that would otherwise be phrased in a Bivens action. By shifting their focus, plaintiffs can still receive compensation for discriminatory and injurious acts by federal tortfeasors without running afoul of the corpse of the Bivens doctrine.