Comments Editor Luke Gorman and Executive Editor for Digital Media Nate White sit down to talk about student speech, school dress codes, and the limits of the First Amendment when it comes to clothing that depicts firearms

A conversation with Dickinson Law Review Volume 129 Editor in Chief Ana Matovic about her comment, "Chilling Victims’ Rights: The Supreme Court Creates a 'Pride of Place' for True Threats ."

A conversation with Professor Ann Lipton of Tulane Law about ESG (and political backlash thereto) and the debate between stakeholder and shareholder primacists. We also discuss the recent amendments to The Delaware General Corporation Law, and Delaware's place as the nation's foremost state of incorporation.

A conversation with Comments Editor Sara Henry about her forthcoming Comment "Cleaning Up Space Junk: Applying the Models of U.S. Domestic Environmental Law to Regulate the Creation of Orbital Debris by Private Actors." The Comment argues that orbital debris regulations should be modeled after federal environmental law, including simplifying the current permit system and setting up a trust fund to finance research into active debris removal.

A conversation with Dickinson Law Professor Gary Gildin about the history of impacts of state constitutional remedies, and their increased importance in light of a trifecta of United States Supreme Court decisions released in the summer of 2022. The conversation covers the history of both federal and state constitutional remedies, and the federal statutory remedies implemented and expanded. We also discuss Professor Gildin's past writing on the topic, entitled “Redressing Deprivations of Rights Secured by State Constitutions Outside the Shadow of the Supreme Court’s Remedies Jurisprudence,” 115 Penn St. L. Rev. 877 (2011), which articulated the reasons which state constitutional remedies jurisprudence should not mirror the jurisprudence of federal constitutional remedies. Finally, we discuss the present state of the law on this issue, especially in light of the Supreme Court's summer 2022 term.

Continued conversation with the Executive Articles Editor of the Dickinson Law Review, Oliver Krawczyk. The continuing discussion revolves around Oliver's recent comment, entitled "Dangerous and Unusual: How an Expanding National Firearms Act Will Spell Its Own Demise," published at 127 Dick. L. Rev. 273 (2022). The comment as well as the discussion center on the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court's jurisprudence on that Amendment, especially in light of the D.C. v. Heller and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen decisions. Oliver argues that Heller's language affording Second Amendment protections to firearms “in common use” and those “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes,” but not those that are “dangerous and unusual,” and Bruen's historical analytical test lead to the conclusion that the ATF's restrictions on several firearms and accessories are unconstitutional. Finally, the discussion traverses the future of this point of view, and a key citation to Oliver's citation in a brief by the Attorney General of Texas in the upcoming case Texas v. ATF.

A conversation with the Executive Articles Editor of the Dickinson Law Review, Oliver Krawczyk. Oliver and the host begin with Oliver's background and career in law school and his future career. The body of the conversation revolves around Oliver's recent comment, entitled "Dangerous and Unusual: How an Expanding National Firearms Act Will Spell Its Own Demise," published at 127 Dick. L. Rev. 273 (2022). The comment as well as the discussion center on the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court's jurisprudence on that Amendment, especially in light of the D.C. v. Heller and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen decisions. Oliver argues that Heller's language affording Second Amendment protections to firearms “in common use” and those “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes,” but not those that are “dangerous and unusual,” and Bruen's historical analytical test lead to the conclusion that the ATF's restrictions on several firearms and accessories are unconstitutional.