This poem celebrates fifty-six brave and courageous men who chose to sign the Declaration of Independence:
They gathered not as perfect men,
But men who knew the gathering storm;
This poem celebrates fifty-six brave and courageous men who chose to sign the Declaration of Independence:
They gathered not as perfect men,
But men who knew the gathering storm;
Opening Statement
This essay does not advocate a predetermined legal or religious outcome. Its purpose is to examine, as fairly and carefully as possible, the competing arguments surrounding proposals to create a child-abuse exception to the clergy-penitent privilege or sacramental seal of confession. The protection of children, the preservation of religious liberty, the responsibilities of clergy, and the practical consequences of mandatory-reporting laws all deserve serious consideration. After reviewing these perspectives, readers should be left to decide how, or whether, these important interests can be reconciled.¹
Introduction: A Difficult Intersection of Law, Religion, and Child Protection
For more than 70 million Americans, Social Security provides an essential source of retirement, disability, and survivor income. One of the program’s most important features is the annual Cost-of-Living Adjustment (COLA), which is intended to help benefits keep pace with inflation.
A recently introduced proposal in Congress the Social Security 2100 Act would make a significant change to the way future COLAs are calculated. According to a recent overview published by FinanceBuzz, the legislation would replace the current inflation index used for Social Security with one that many advocates believe more accurately reflects the spending patterns of older Americans. If enacted, retirees could receive modestly larger annual benefit increases over time.
Artificial intelligence policy has often been characterized as a contest between those urging rapid innovation and those seeking greater regulation. A recently released statement entitled Pacing the Frontier suggests that this characterization may no longer be sufficient.
Signed by more than one thousand researchers and employees from leading AI organizations (including OpenAI, Anthropic, Google DeepMind, Meta, Microsoft, Amazon, and others) the statement does not advocate halting AI research. Instead, it urges governments to help develop the technical and institutional mechanisms needed to ensure that future advances remain under meaningful human oversight.
Ohio has enacted a new law governing the use of drones by law enforcement, reflecting the growing effort by legislatures to adapt Fourth Amendment principles to rapidly evolving surveillance technologies. Signed by Governor Mike DeWine, House Bill 251 establishes that, in most situations, police officers must obtain a search warrant before using a drone to conduct a search when a warrant would also have been required had officers entered the location in person.
The legislation recognizes that unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) have become increasingly valuable investigative tools while also raising significant privacy concerns. Until now, Ohio law addressed some warrant requirements for surveillance conducted from manned aircraft but did not specifically regulate drones. House Bill 251 fills that gap by extending traditional constitutional search principles to unmanned aerial surveillance.
David G. Badertscher
“Every generation of legal researchers inherits new tools. Their enduring responsibility is to learn how to use them wisely.”
Introduction
On June 17, 2026, representatives of the United States and Iran signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) intended to halt escalating hostilities and establish a framework for broader negotiations. The agreement attracted immediate international attention because it touches upon several of the most consequential issues in Middle Eastern and global politics: military conflict, nuclear proliferation, economic sanctions, energy security, and freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz.
Although some commentators have described the document as a “peace agreement,” it is more accurately characterized as an interim political understanding. It does not fully resolve the longstanding disputes between the two countries. Instead, it creates a temporary framework within which negotiators hope to reach a more comprehensive settlement.
Budget reconciliation is a special congressional procedure created by the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 that allows Congress to consider legislation affecting federal spending, revenues (taxes), and the debt limit under expedited procedures. Most notably, reconciliation bills can pass the Senate with a simple majority vote rather than the 60 votes normally needed to overcome a filibuster. As a result, reconciliation has become one of the most important tools for enacting major fiscal policy changes. The following is an overview of the congressional budget reconciliation process and a discussion of its importance to librarians, researchers, and the general public.
Reconciliation is designed to align existing laws with the fiscal goals established in a congressional budget resolution. It can be used to:
Can a government investigate allegations of politically motivated law enforcement without creating new concerns about political influence over the justice system? That question lies at the center of the debate surrounding the Department of Justice’s Weaponization Working Group. This article explores the origins and objectives of the Working Group, summarizes its stated mission, and reviews the differing reactions it has generated within the criminal defense community. In doing so, it seeks to highlight the broader constitutional and institutional questions raised whenever government examines the exercise of its own prosecutorial power.
In February 2025, Pam Bondi, soon after being sworn in as Attorney General of the U.S Department of Justice , signed a memorandum creating the Department of Justice’s Weaponization Working Group, a special initiative charged with examining allegations that federal law enforcement and prosecutorial powers may have been used for political purposes. The establishment of the DOJ Working Group followed President Donald Trump’s more broadly based Executive Order 14147 entitled Ending the Weaponization of the Federal Government, which directed federal agencies to review actions allegedly taken against individuals or groups based upon political considerations.
To clarify: