Volume 58, Issue 2

By Tyler Henry

Sex devices, commonly referred to as “toys,” have grown in popularity over the past decade and somehow evaded regulations from consumer protection agencies. The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has no specific regulatory standards for sex devices, regulating them as “novelty toys.” And the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) unnecessarily limits its oversight by only regulating “therapeutic” sex devices. These shortcomings create significant regulatory gaps, exposing consumers to harm, leading to thousands of emergency room visits annually. This Comment argues that FDA jurisdiction over sex devices as “medical devices” is appropriate and necessary to protect consumer health, especially for women and LGBTQ+ communities who are more likely to experience harm from sex devices.

Download Comment

By Kristen Popham

America’s rapidly expanding and politically influential nonprofit sector is under increased scrutiny, and nonprofit law has yet to provide answers to critics’ burning questions. If the nonprofit sector is born of a democratic commitment to pluralism and community linkages, what do we make of its contributions to plutocracy? If the federal government’s subsidization of the nonprofit sector reflects political choices about who and what serves the community benefit, should the sector include groups that actively undermine principles of civil rights? Should institutions be able to exploit the nonprofit legal form to exact discrimination? As the nation undergoes a rethinking of the government’s role in enforcing public and private norms, answers to these questions will prove critical.

This Comment aims to move the law one step forward in answering these questions by proposing modifications to the private benefit standard through the case study of nonprofit Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) collectives. The Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in NCAA v. Alston both facilitated student compensation in collegiate athletics and prompted the growth of over 200 organizations pooling fan and alumni funds for school-specific athletes. These NIL collectives represent a black market for college athletic labor facilitated by weaknesses in nonprofit law. Offering a safe-haven free from the demands of federal antidiscrimination law, the nonprofit sector allows NIL collectives to amass great wealth for a small, disproportionately male subset of private individuals. In addressing this sector, the IRS has missed an opportunity to articulate a more reaching community benefit analysis of nonprofit organizations that reintegrates public policy doctrine principles into nonprofit law. This Comment posits that the IRS should seize the opportunity created by this emerging form of inequality to clarify important elements of the community benefit doctrine and reinvigorate the application of antidiscrimination principles in nonprofit legal enforcement.

Download Comment

By Sonia Marton

Unpaid caregiving is an enormous element of life for millions of Americans. But caregivers too often suffer discrimination in the paid workplace due to the real or perceived demands of their care work outside of it. Despite this inequality, employment antidiscrimination statutes do not protect caregivers explicitly. Instead, caregivers must demonstrate a connection to at least one expressly protected class to access antidiscrimination protection, usually by linking discrimination based on caregiving (unprotected) with discrimination based on sex (protected). As a result, equal employment opportunity (EEO) laws implicitly and explicitly reinforce the connection between being a woman in the workplace and being a caregiver outside of it. This state of affairs is both a driver and a manifestation of sex inequality because unpaid caregivers in this country are mostly women. This Comment offers a critical feminist analysis of how, why, and what could be done about it.

Specifically, this Comment advocates for explicit protections for caregivers as a class to help disentangle sex from caregiving and thereby help address sex inequality in the United States. Part I discusses the landscape of federal EEO laws and how it is insufficient for caregivers. Part II dives into the avenues that caregivers currently most often use to gain protection under the law. Part III showcases how broad and explicit protection for caregivers as caregivers can be successful.

Download Comment

By Mary Gianna Hill

The rise of Real-Time Crime Centers (RTCCs) in the United States, including their implementation in Pennsylvania, marks a significant development in law enforcement surveillance. These centers employ advanced technologies to conduct real-time monitoring of the public. While the primary aim of RTCCs is to enhance public safety, they also raise critical concerns about privacy rights and constitutional protections. Specifically, the use of pervasive surveillance technology by the Philadelphia Police Department (PPD) through its RTCC challenges the boundaries of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.

This Comment explores the constitutional implications of RTCC surveillance, arguing that the PPD’s use of this technology constitutes a search under both the Fourth Amendment and the Pennsylvania Constitution. By analyzing U.S. Supreme Court decisions on surveillance, as well as relevant Pennsylvania court rulings, this Comment advocates for enhanced judicial scrutiny of RTCCs, noting that while Pennsylvania’s Article I, Section 8 does not categorically exceed the protections of the Fourth Amendment, it offers particularly persuasive safeguards when it comes to real-time surveillance. The conclusion underscores the need for a balanced approach that respects both public safety and individual privacy in the digital age.

Download Comment