Articles Posted in Legal Information Professionals

Overview

In his August 26, 2026 essay, The Turbulent AI Era Is Here. The Choices We Make Now Are Critical,” Bill Gates presents artificial intelligence as a technological transition potentially different in important respects from earlier waves of automation. AI can increasingly perform cognitive work, can spread rapidly through technologies and infrastructure already in widespread use, and can be accessed through ordinary language without requiring users to master specialized computer skills. Gates is not arguing against AI. On the contrary, he remains strongly optimistic about its potential in medicine, education, agriculture, scientific research, government services, clean energy, and assistance for people who otherwise lack access to specialized expertise. His concern is that these benefits will not necessarily be distributed fairly and that significant social and economic disruption could accompany them.

Gates identifies three major categories of concern:

Introduction

Two distinguished law professors recently offered incoming law students advice from different but unusually complementary perspectives. Vikram David Amar, writing broadly about the habits of mind and disciplined effort required to succeed in law school, is principally concerned with how students learn to think like lawyers. Michael C. Dorf, focusing more specifically on artificial intelligence, considers how that learning process can be preserved and adapted at a time when AI systems can produce seemingly authoritative answers almost instantly.

Considering their essays together reveals an important relationship that might be less apparent if each were read in isolation. The traditional methods through which law students develop legal reasoning, judgment, and intellectual independence are now encountering technologies capable of retrieving information, summarizing complex material, and generating plausible responses with remarkable speed. The question is therefore not simply whether students should use AI, but how they can take advantage of useful technological tools without allowing those tools to displace the intellectual work that legal education is intended to cultivate.

On August 12, 2026, Austin Sarat, William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence and Political Science at Amherst College, published a commentary in Verdict, Justia’s legal analysis and commentary publication. Sarat’s commentary is titled “Trump’s Arresting State,” where he examines what he regards as an increasingly consequential feature of the Trump administration: the use or threatened use of arrest, prosecution, fines, and other criminal penalties not simply against political opponents, but as a means of pressuring state and local officials to cooperate with federal policy objectives.

Sarat’s article is strongly critical of the administration. His central concern is that the threat of criminal enforcement may be moving beyond conventional law-enforcement situations and into disputes involving government authority and public policy, particularly immigration enforcement and the administration of elections. Because Sarat’s article is commentary rather than a neutral news report, it is useful to examine his arguments alongside the administration’s own statements, relevant government documents, and other primary sources. Doing so provides a fuller context within which readers can evaluate both Sarat’s concerns and the federal government’s stated legal and policy justifications.

From Political Rhetoric to Governmental Power

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

Introduction

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.

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.

Contact Information