Washburn Law Journal

Recent Blog Post

ChatGPT-4 Understands Academic Attrition’s Impact on Bar Passage, but Does Anyone Else?

Rory Bahadur and Kevin Ruth | September 13, 2023 | Read this blog post

Summary: Access Lex recently published an article titled, and purportedly answering the question, “Are Law Schools Cream-Skimming to Bolster Their Bar Exam Pass Rates?” The article, however, does not answer the question asked, but rather answers another question, “Whether the impact of attrition and transfer on bar passage can be accurately detected using broad national level regression analysis?” The answer to the first question is yes, some schools’ bar passage rates are impacted by transfer and/or academic attrition. And the answer to the latter question is no, regression cannot accurately detect the impact of academic attrition and transfer on bar passage. In asking one question but instead answering the other, the article conflates and obfuscates the important difference between causation and correlation. In this short essay, we use artificial intelligence to demonstrate why, even though academic attrition and transfer can impact an individual institution’s bar passage rates, these impacts are not fully discernable using broad, national level, regression analysis. Additionally, conclusions based on regression analysis distract us from addressing the systemic inequities perpetuated by the bar examination.

Recent Comments

Range v. Att’y Gen.: When Overbreadth Becomes Dangerous

Joshua N. Becker | February 2, 2024 | Read this comment

Summary: Statutes that prohibit felons from possessing firearms have existed for quite a while in the United States. But now, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, is casting doubt on the validity of those statutes. To make it worse, they casted doubt on the statutes when they did not have to. The court took a case of a very low-level criminal and stretched Second Amendment principles beyond their logical limit to reach a conclusion that may have invalidated felon-in-possession law entirely.

They should not have reached so broad a conclusion. There were opportunities for a narrow decision that does justice to Range but protects necessary safeguards that protect us all from dangerous people having guns. Their alternatives were: (1) invalidate the federal “felony-equivalent” standard because that standard violates due process; (2) applying their Circuit’s test correctly to find valid regulations that have “historical analogues” to historical gun regulations; or (3) applying a “dangerousness” test to prohibit only dangerous felons from possessing firearms on a case-by-case basis.

Preferred Citation: Joshua N. Becker, Range v. Att’y Gen.: When Overbreadth Becomes Dangerous, 63 Washburn L.J. Online  35 (2024), https://www.washburnlaw.edu/publications/wlj/online/volume/63/becker-overbreadth.html.

Paving a Path to Justice: Examining the Implications of the Ruan v. United States Decision on the Opioid Crisis [Ruan v. United States, 142 S. Ct. 2370 (2022)]

Yvonne Theresa SparrowSmith | December 15, 2023 | Read this comment

Summary: The Controlled Substances Act places stringent restrictions on prescribing controlled substances, such as opiates, and subjects doctors to criminal prosecution for violating those restrictions.  In Ruan v. United States, however, the Court held that a doctor does not violate the Controlled Substances Act unless the government can prove he knew his conduct fell outside an exception for prescriptions authorized under related regulations.  These exceptions allow doctors to prescribe controlled substances following their professional discretion.

In short, this decision is vital for both healthcare providers and patients who rely on prescriptions for controlled substances to relieve pain.  For healthcare providers, the holding provides much-needed clarity about when they may prescribe controlled substances without fear of criminal prosecution.  This clarity will help them continue providing needed care to patients without unnecessarily burdening themselves with worry about the threat of criminal prosecution.  For patients, the decision means they can continue relying on their doctor’s prescription for a controlled substance to relieve pain without fear their doctor may be criminally prosecuted.

Preferred Citation: Yvonne Theresa SparrowSmith, Paving a Path to Justice: Examining the Implications of the Ruan v. United States Decision on the Opioid Crisis, 63 Washburn L.J. Online  21 (2023), https://washburnlaw.edu/wljonline/sparrowsmith-paving.

Cargill v. Garland: How Ambiguous Is It?

Nathan T. Seltzer | December 15, 2023 | Read this comment

Summary: In 2017, the horrific mass-shooting in Las Vegas, Nevada, raised the profile of a previously obscure weapon modification known as a “bump stock.”  Following a presidential directive, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) reinterpreted the definition of “machinegun” under the Firearms Control Act to include semi-automatic guns modified with bump stocks, reversing a position it had held since at least 2008.  This made possession of bump stocks illegal, and the ATF confiscated two such devices from Michael Cargill, who sued.

The government won in district court under Chevron deference, and the judgment was upheld by a Fifth Circuit panel.  However, in the case at bar, a 13-3 decision of an en banc Court reversed the panel and created a circuit split by holding the statute was unambiguously contrary to the ATF position; but, even if it was ambiguous, the rule of lenity foreclosed the ATF position.

Chevron does not apply to criminal statutes; the rule of lenity resolves ambiguity against criminality.

Preferred Citation: Nathan T. Seltzer, FCargill v. Garland: How Ambiguous Is It?, 63 Washburn L.J. Online  11 (2023), https://washburnlaw.edu/wljonline/seltzer-ambiguous.

 


The Washburn Law Journal welcomes unsolicited manuscripts for publication consideration. Note: The Washburn Law Journal does not typically accept submissions from students.

All manuscripts should be double-spaced, notes should be in footnote form, and citations should conform to The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation (21st ed.). A copy of the manuscript should also be available as a Microsoft Word file (preferred).

Please direct manuscripts to the attention of the Articles Editor at journalarticles@washburnlaw.edu.

Washburn Law Journal also accepts submissions via Icon: ExpressO service. (through March 31, 2021).

Subscription Inquiries

If you have questions concerning subscriptions or non-received issues, please contact the Washburn Law Journal Secretary at (785) 670-1692 or via e-mail at journalclaims@washburnlaw.edu.

Washburn Law Journal
Washburn University School of Law
1700 SW College Ave.
Topeka, KS 66621
(785) 670-1683
journal@washburnlaw.edu
(general correspondence)
journaleditor@washburnlaw.edu
(Editor-in-Chief)

Short URL for this page:
https://washburnlaw.edu/wlj

45th Foulston Siefkin Lecture
Photograph: Judge U.W. Clemon

Washburn University School of Law
and the Washburn Law Journal
proudly present

Judge U.W. Clemon
Retired Federal Judge

"A Dream Deferred: The Fight for Desegregation of America's Schools"

Thursday, March 23, 2023
12:30 p.m. • Room 114

Volume 63 Editor-in-Chief, Board, and Staff

See the Washburn Law Journal Volume 63 Board of Editors and Staff Members.