Each year, in a tradition dating back twenty-three years to Volume 33, the Editor-in-Chief of the University of Richmond Law Review authors acknowledgements to be included in their volume’s final publication. In keeping with tradition, I offer below my gratitude to those who have contributed to this publication and to the overall success of the Law Review, and reflect upon the fifty-seventh volume of our journal.

Matthew L. Brock *

*Editor-in-Chief, University of Richmond Law Review Vol. 57. J.D., 2023, University of Richmond School of Law.

Name, image, and likeness (“NIL”) produced nearly $1 billion in earnings for intercollegiate athletes in its inaugural year. Analysts argue that the shockingly high totals result from disproportionate
institutional support for revenue-generating sports.

Although NIL earnings have soared upwards of eight figures to date, first-year data reveals that significant gender disparities exist. Such disparities raise Title IX concerns, which this Article illustrates using a hypothetical university and NIL collective. As such, this Article reveals how schools can facilitate gender discrimination through NIL collectives, contrary to Title IX. Although plainly applicable to NIL transactions in which schools are involved, Title IX’s current regulatory scheme did not anticipate, nor does it mention NIL. This ongoing omission has produced confusion regarding Title IX’s applicability, especially as it relates to NIL financed by third parties. Accordingly, this Article argues that Title IX should be modernized to explicitly address NIL and offers several recommendations for doing so.

Tan Boston *

* Assistant Professor of Law, Northern Kentucky University.

The Twenty-Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution contains a mechanism that enables the Vice President, with the support of a majority of the Cabinet, to temporarily relieve the President of the powers and duties of the Presidency. The provision has never been invoked, but was actively discussed by multiple Cabinet Secretaries in response to President Trump’s actions on January 6, 2021. News reports indicate that at least two Cabinet Secretaries—Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin—tabled these discussions in part due to uncertainties about how to operationalize the Amendment. Specifically, the Secretaries were concerned that the text of the Amendment did not specify whether Acting Cabinet Secretaries (of which there were three at the time) should be included in the vote. This Article considers that question in light of both the common
law and Supreme Court of the United States precedent, concluding that Acting Secretaries should indeed be counted. However, the Article also highlights the political risks caused by the text’s ambiguity and proposes a legislative solution to sidestep the issue.

James A. Heilpern *

* Senior Fellow, Brigham Young University, J. Reuben Clark School of Law.