The author begins this Comment by providing a background on the theory and practice of restorative justice—what it prioritizes, what it looks like, and how it is implemented. This involves acknowledging the multiple perspectives that exist about precisely how restorative justice ought to be defined. Then, she summarizes the landscape of federal CSAM law and defines the scope of the Comment’s research. Next, in her discussion, she identifies aspects of federal law and explains why they should be considered examples of restorative justice. Then, utilizing stakeholders’ perspectives, she evaluates the extent to which these aspects of federal law are considering the needs of these stakeholders. Finally, she discusses current and future improvements to the law to further incorporate restorative justice principles.

The federal criminal justice system has been slow to implement restorative justice principles in this context, perhaps due in part to the complicated and sensitive characteristics of these crimes. The more complicated and sensitive, however, the more advanced and pressing the needs of the stakeholders, and the more important it is to ensure that the law recognizes them. 

Mimi Mays *

* J.D. expected 2025, University of Richmond School of Law; B.A. 2020, Meredith College. I am sincerely grateful to Professor Doron Samuel-Siegel for her mentorship and guidance in writing this Comment and in life. I would also like to thank Savanna Clendining for her enduring support in this endeavor and all things. To the Honorable Arenda L. Wright Allen and her staff, thank you for introducing me to federal criminal law and inspiring a thoughtful and compassionate approach to criminal sentencing. Finally, thank you to the editors of the University of Richmond Law Review, particularly Connor Johnson and Jami-Reese Robertson, for their time and patience in bringing this Comment to publication.

This comment argues that stable, long-term funding is needed at the state level in order to sustain and improve the 988 Hotline,specifically through a 988 fee, so that the United States can move to implementing steps two and three of SAMHSA’s framework. Part I discusses the issues with mental health emergency response in the United States—specifically, the dominant role that 911 and law enforcement play in the current system, why this is problematic, and its consequences. 

Part II details SAMHSA’s three-step “integrated crisis system” framework and the reasons why each state would benefit from adopting this three-step framework. Part III introduces the 988 Hotline; discusses how it was launched and how it operates; discusses the federal grants that have temporarily helped states fund the hotline; and examines how various states have funded their implementations of the hotline thus far.

Part IV then argues that the 988 Hotline is experiencing three interconnected problems that are threatening its capabilities: (1) a lack of long-term funding; (2) various operational issues; and (3) a lack of awareness and trust in the hotline and its resources. Finally, Part V proposes solutions to these issues, namely that all states who have not already done so should institute a 988 fee to fund the hotline; the proceeds of which can then be used to build the hotline’s infrastructure to improve its capabilities.

Katherine G. Menello *

* J.D. Candidate, 2025, University of Richmond School of Law; B.A., 2022, George Washington University. I want to thank all of the people who supported me while I was writing this comment, and throughout my law school career. First, to Professor Rachel Suddarth, thank you for all of your help with and feedback on this piece. Your teaching has made such a profound impact on my writing and given me a huge interest in health law, and I am forever grateful for your mentorship. Second, thank you to my friends and colleagues on University of Richmond Law Review, especially Online Editor Connor Johnson,
for your hard work in editing this piece. Third and finally, I want to thank my family and friends for your constant love and support. To Mom, Dad, and Eddie – thank you for being the best family anyone could ask for. And to Zach – thank you for being my rock and always lighting up my life. 

Although there is a Federal Constitution, of which we are all familiar, there are also 50 separately crafted state constitutions designed to respond to the unique circumstances of the territories they govern. These state constitutions contain analogues of our federal constitution, often including a bill of rights or other declaration of individual rights. Despite the distinctive history, nature, structure, and text of each state constitution, for decades if an individual invoked a claim involving a state constitutional right a state court would determine the scope of that state constitutional right in “lockstep” with federal Supreme Court. That approach has fractured.

Last December, the Constitution of Virginia reemerged into the spotlight after more than a century on the sidelines when the Supreme Court of Virginia announced in Vlaming v. West Point School Board that the Constitution of Virginia includes new and sweeping protections for religious freedom, exceeding the rights protected by the Federal Constitution. This decision is important not only for its outcome, but also for the novel questions it raises regarding interpretation of the Constitution of Virginia.

This article attempts to frame but a few of the questions now facing state supreme courts who have reached similar conclusions and then applies them specifically to Virginia, where the recent decision on religious liberties has left them ripe for development.

The Honorable Lisa M. Lorish *

Elizabeth Putfark **

* The Honorable Lisa M. Lorish is a Judge on the Virginia Court of Appeals. Thanks to
Tyler Demetriou, A.E. Dick Howard, Antonella Nicholas, Diane Philips, Lawrence Solum,
and Brian Warren for helpful comments and conversation. A special thanks as well to Connor Johnson, Jami-Reese Robertson and the other wonderful editors at the Richmond Law
Review for their diligent work on this piece. The views expressed in this article represent
strictly the personal views of the authors.

** Elizabeth Putfark is an associate attorney with the Southern Environmental Law
Center and former judicial extern to the Honorable Lisa M. Lorish.