Evan C. Zoldan*
The goal of achieving equality under law is deeply rooted in American philosophical traditions and constitutional doctrine. And although there is no universally accepted definition of equality, some applications of the principle are uncontroversial; most conceptions of equality bristle at the notion of particularized legislative treatment of named individuals without adequate justification.
Consider the following example: a well-connected man, a high-ranking government official no less, dies. He truly is part of the one percent, worth $50 million at his death. In its next Continuing Appropriations Act, between provisions about public health and veterans, Congress inserts a section transferring nearly $200,000 to the deceased millionaire‘s widow. The public owes no preexisting legal or financial obligation to the man or his widow the transfer is neither a pension nor a life insurance payout. Ra-
ther, it is a mere gratuity. But, little attention is paid to this provision and it is passed by both chambers of Congress and signed into law by the President. A gratuitous transfer of this kind, of public wealth to a named individual, singles out a particular person for a special benefit that is not available to the population generally. This statute offends widely held conceptions of equality because it accords the official‘s widow a benefit without reference to any service that she provided to the community—and what is perhaps worse—simply because of her family connections.
Continue reading.
*Associate Professor, University of Toledo College of Law. My thanks for the invaluable comments and suggestions of Akhil Reed Amar, Jack M. Balkin, Victoria F. Nourse, Richard Briffault, Peter D. Enrich, Eric Berger, Gregory M. Gilchrist, Ganesh Sitaraman, Rebecca E. Zietlow, and Kirsten Matoy Carlson. I am grateful for the comments from participants in the Yale/Stanford/Harvard Junior Faculty Forum, the Legislation Roundtable at Cardozo Law School, the Association of American Law Schools New Voices in Legislation Workshop, Loyola University Chicago Constitutional Law Colloquium, Central States Law Schools Association Scholarship Conference, Northeastern University‘s Legal Scholarship 4.0 Workshop, and the faculty of Wayne State University Law School. Thanks also to the University of Toledo College of Law for its support for this project.
Sarah Ashley Barnett*
Scientific advancement is notorious for pushing legal and ethical boundaries, but never more so than recently. For the first time in history, we have the potential to not only recreate genetic marvels of the past, but also reshape the genetic destiny of future generations. This is due to the development of a new, revolutionary technology in genetic engineering called CRISPR—short for clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats.
Continue reading.
*J.D. Candidate, 2017, University of Richmond School of Law. B.A., 2014, University of North Carolina Wilmington. I wish to thank my parents, Greg and Kim Barnett, for their unwavering love, support, and encouragement in all of my endeavors; my sister, Brittyn Johnson, for her constant motivation and validation; and my cousin, Tiffany Goodman, for being my perpetual source of positivity. I would also like to thank Professor Christopher Corts, who has been an inspiration throughout law school and was an invaluable resource throughout this writing process. Finally, I express my gratitude to the University of Richmond Law Review editors and staff for their hard work on this comment.
Chelsea Shrader*
Grade-school and college playing fields have long been segregated on the basis of sex. For decades, male and female students were afforded the opportunity to participate in interscholastic athletic competitions on teams determined by their biological gender. Recently, an increasing number of high school and college-aged [students are publicly] identifying as transgender (or trans), meaning that their internal sense of their gender identity is different from the gender they were assigned at birth. The emergence of openly transgender students in grade schools and colleges, in general, has resulted in vastly disparate rules promulgated by school districts to address how transgender individuals fit into the traditional operation of the education system.
Continue reading.
*J.D. Candidate 2017, University of Richmond School of Law. B.S., B.A. 2012, University of Richmond. I would like to thank the University of Richmond Law Review staff and editors, especially my final editor, Stephanie Serhan, for their assistance in preparing this article for publication. I would also like to thank my parents, Jack and PJ Shrader, for inspiring my love of sports and instilling in me respect for people of all walks of life, and my sisters, Meghan Papineau and Jackie Shrader, for their unconditional love and support.
Alexander Fraser*
The prosecution of Irek Hamidullin in an Article III federal court crystallized the result of years of heated debate amongst legal scholars, the military, and, most importantly, the executive branch. For the first time in the history of the United States, a military detainee enemy combatant was brought from Afghanistan to the United States to stand for a criminal trial in an Article III federal court. The defendant, Irek Hamidullin, was a known associate of the Taliban who orchestrated an attack in Afghanistan in November of 2009 and was captured by American forces thereafter. This concept—bringing a foreign combatant terrorist into our country for a criminal prosecution in a civilian tribunal for war-like conduct that took place on a foreign battlefield—has left many people, even federal judges, confused.
Continue reading.
*J.D. Candidate 2017, University of Richmond School of Law. B.S., 2013, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. I would like to thank the University of Richmond Law Review staff and editors, especially Glenice Coombs and Rachel Willer for their assistance. I would also like to thank Professor John Douglass for helping me articulate my arguments and organize them in a logical, persuasive manner. Lastly, I would like to thank Laura Bedson for her impeccable editing skills and suggestions—which gave this piece the clarity that it needed to make sense of this complex legal framework.
The University of Richmond Law Review proudly presents the thirty-first issue of the Annual Survey of Virginia Law 2016. The Annual Survey is the only legal publication that provides an update to practitioners regarding recent developments in Virginia law. Since 1985, the Annual Survey has been a guiding tool for practitioners and students to stay abreast of the recent legislative, judicial, and administrative developments in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
In this edition, the Law Review is proud to commemorate the memory of Justice Antonin Scalia. We are saddened by his loss and remain extremely thankful for his lasting impact on our nation and in the lives of the many that knew him.
This Annual Survey further includes six articles regarding recent updates in substantive areas of the law including: Civil Practice and Procedure; Corporate and Business Law; Criminal Law and Procedure; Family Law; Taxation; and Wills, Trusts, and Estates. This book also contains three essays about recent developments in Virginia regarding foreclosure, workers’ compensation, and the legal battle to save Sweet Briar College. Additionally, the Law Review is proud to include two comments written by two of its own staff members about Virginia’s filial responsibility law and lack of post-conviction relief.
The Annual Survey is traditionally the largest and most popular publication of the University of Richmond Law Review. The publication of the Annual Survey is made possible because of the generous contributions of scholarly articles written by truly intelligent and experienced practitioners and experts in these fields. I would like to thank each of them for their countless hours and efforts in putting together, writing, and reviewing such valuable contributions to the Commonwealth of Virginia. I personally enjoyed working with and speaking to them all throughout the publication process, and I am grateful for their extensive commitments.
I would like to thank John Hogan and Thomas DiStanislao for their mentorship in planning for this book during the early phases. I also thank the entire Law Review staff for their hard work, and especially Chelsea Shrader, for her constant understanding and assistance throughout the publication process. Thank you as well to the entire Executive Board for their concerted effort in fine-tuning all the details and putting this book together. I extend my sincerest appreciation to our Editor-in-Chief, Rachel Willer, for her unwavering work ethic and dedication to this book. Her collaborative and problem-solving personality has transformed several of our processes this year for the better.
Thank you as well to Glenice Coombs whose advice and expertise has not only been essential throughout the publication process, but shines every day in her willingness to produce an exceptional work product.
To my family, you have made me who I am, and I thank you for your unconditional love and guidance all throughout. Derek Molyneaux, your perpetual support and encouragement continue to guide me every step of the way, and I thank you for being my rock and my greatest blessing.
It has been an honor and pleasure to serve as Editor of the Annual Survey of Virginia Law 2016. Thank you for your continued patronage and readership.
Stephanie Serhan
Annual Survey Editor
L. Margaret Harker *
As Americans, it is our duty to remember United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia‘s unwavering commitment to the words of our Constitution—their true meaning as the Founders deliberately wrote them. Words have meaning. Otherwise, what purpose do they serve? Chief Justice John Marshall, the great Federalist and Virginian, wrote, “As men . . . generally employ the words which most directly and aptly express the ideas they intend to convey, the enlightened patriots who framed our Constitution, and the people who adopted it, must be understood to have employed words in their natural sense, and to have intended what they have said.”
Continue reading.
* J.D., 2011, University of Richmond School of Law; B.S., 2006, Santa Clara University.
