Articles Posted in Legal Information Professionals

FROM THE LAW LIBRARY AT THE WASHINGTON AND  LEE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW:

The 2025 W&L Law Journal Rankings are now available!

Released on July 15, 2026, the 2025 Rankings provide citation data and calculated ranks for the top 400 U.S.-published law journals and the top 100 law journals published outside the United States. Journals ranked below these thresholds display “NR” (Not Ranked) for each data category and are listed alphabetically. The survey span of the 2025 ranking is five years (2021-2025). For more information about the new and previous rankings, please see our Methodology page.

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.

Principal Provisions

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.

What Is Reconciliation?

Reconciliation is designed to align existing laws with the fiscal goals established in a congressional budget resolution. It can be used to:

At its April 2026 meeting, the AALL (American Association of Law Libraries) Executive Board approved two proposed revisions to Article IV of the AALL Bylaws, both related to student membership. These proposed changes align with AALL’s Strategic Plan—specifically on strengthening the pipeline to the profession. By broadening the definition of student membership and increasing flexibility in dues, the Association aims to reduce barriers to entry, support a wider range of educational pathways, and expand opportunities to engage future legal information professionals. This approach also supports efforts to increase visibility of the profession and foster early connections through mentorship, skill development, and community engagement.

HOW TO VOTE

To access the online ballot, please log in with your email address and the unique voting PIN provided below. Ballots must be submitted by Tuesday, June 30 at 3:00 p.m. EDT.

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:

Introduction

The purpose of this essay is not to criticize leadership itself. Every society requires leaders. Effective leadership can inspire, unify, and guide communities through difficult circumstances. Rather, the focus here is on a recurring historical phenomenon: the tendency of some societies to elevate leaders into figures of redemption and the tendency of some leaders to embrace that role.

 Temptation of Political Salvation

Few issues in American public life generate more political rhetoric, and less public consensus, than the growth of the national debt. Democrats and Republicans alike frequently accuse one another of fiscal irresponsibility, while voters struggle to determine which party has actually contributed more to the nation’s long-term debt burden.

Two recent sources help illuminate this debate from different perspectives: an article distributed by The Epoch Times and an analytical report published by Investopedia titled “Democrats vs. Republicans: Who Had More National Debt?” Together, these sources underscore both the political complexity and the historical nuance surrounding America’s growing fiscal challenges.

According to Investopedia, the United States national debt exceeded $38 trillion in 2025–2026, continuing a decades-long pattern of expansion under administrations of both political parties. The article notes that, when adjusted for inflation and measured per presidential term since 1913, Republican presidents have added slightly more debt on average than Democratic presidents: approximately $1.4 trillion per term versus $1.2 trillion for Democrats. However, Democratic presidents collectively added more total debt overall because Democrats occupied the White House for more years during the period studied.

I have chosen to write about this remarkably rich topic because it sits at the intersection of constitutional law, political theory, logic, and history, precisely the kind of issue that invites thoughtful discussion among lawyers, judges, scholars, and legal information professionals.

Although Kurt Gödel never publicly explained the precise “proof” he believed he had discovered, scholars, constitutional theorists, historians, and legal commentators have spent decades trying to reconstruct what he meant when he warned that the U.S. Constitution could legally evolve into a dictatorship.

The story itself is well documented. While preparing for his U.S. citizenship examination in 1947, Gödel intensely studied American constitutional law. According to his friend Oskar Morgenstern, Gödel became alarmed after concluding that there was an “inner contradiction” in the Constitution that could permit a democratic republic to transform legally into an authoritarian regime.

Contact Information