Lawless speaks to New York Times about Spirit Airlines shutdown

After struggling financially for years and failing to secure a government bailout, Spirit Airlines announced that it would begin the process of shutting down in early May. Investors were strongly opposed to the government bailout, especially those that had made Spirit debtor-in-possession loans. Such loans have high interest rates, and the investors who own them are paid back before other creditors. The investors also have the right to object to changes, including new loans, that could hurt their interests.

Speaking to the New York Times, bankruptcy expert and professor Bob Lawless compared the rights of these lenders to an oft-cited metaphor of hikers standing on a hill. “The new lender says, ‘We’re on this mountain trail, and there’s plenty of room for you to go out and stand out there closer to the edge of the cliff,’” Lawless said. “And the existing lender has a good response, which is that if there’s so much room, why don’t you go stand out there?”

Gerke: Autonomous AI-based drug prescribing rife with potential problems

A first-of-its-kind pilot program in Utah developed by a health-technology startup company uses artificial intelligence to automatically renew certain prescriptions for patients with chronic conditions such as hypertension and diabetes. But according to a new paper co-written by a University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign expert in legal issues surrounding cutting-edge medical technology, autonomous AI-based drug prescribing raises important clinical and legal issues.

With AI rapidly being deployed in health care, a “move fast and break things” mentality has permeated the industry, raising complex questions about the role of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in regulating these technologies, says Sara Gerke, the Richard W. & Marie L. Corman Scholar at the College of Law.

“The big issue here is the relationship between state and federal law, which we’re seeing in Utah, where the state has become a testing ground for so-called AI sandboxes that companies can use to experiment,” said Gerke, also a professor at the European Union Center at Illinois. “The idea behind it is to test these AI medical tools before they are completely developed. But even that is legally questionable. The existence of mitigation agreements and waivers under state law doesn’t automatically render the use of unproven medical technology lawful at the federal level.”

Immigration Law Clinic selected by ISBA for the 2026 John E. Thies Excellence in Legal Education Award

The Illinois State Bar Association (ISBA) has named the University of Illinois College of Law Immigration Law Clinic as one of the recipients of the 2026 John E. Thies Excellence in Legal Education Award. The award recognizes law school programs that emphasize real world skills for law students. The clinic will be honored at the ISBA Member Appreciation and Recognition Reception on Thursday, May 14 at the Morton Arboretum.

Kaplan says Trump’s recent remarks about pulling back on federal funding of Medicare are result of “fundamental misunderstanding” of how the program works

According to the New York Sun, President Trump suggested during remarks at a private luncheon that the federal government may no longer support essential care programs and that states should instead rely on state-level funding to do so.

Professor and tax law expert Richard Kaplan says that the president’s remarks about Medicare, in particular, rest on a fundamental misunderstanding of how the program is financed.

“Medicare is almost entirely funded by the federal government through payroll taxes paid by almost all employees, the great majority of self-employed persons, and most employers; premiums paid by program enrollees; and general federal funds,” Kaplan said. “States have no role of any consequence.”

First Amendment Clinic helps secure a victory against the Wisconsin DOJ, thanks in part to sustained efforts of student clinicians

On Tuesday, April 28, 2026, Dane County Circuit Court Judge Rhonda Lanford ruled that the Wisconsin Department of Justice must release its list of approximately 16,000 law enforcement officers currently certified in the state.  The judge rejected the DOJ’s arguments that releasing the list would identify undercover officers, subject officers to harassment, or put them in danger.

“When responding to records requests, there is a strong presumption of openness and liberal access to public records,” wrote the judge.  “[T]he DOJ has not met its burden to show that this is an ‘exceptional case’ warranting nondisclosure.”  The judge concluded that DOJ’s denial “was not the product of a genuine, case-by-case balancing analysis, but rather a habitual denial based on [its] past inability to garner compliance from local agencies.”

The suit was brought by The Badger Project and Invisible Institute.  The media organizations are represented by the Wisconsin Transparency Project and the University of Illinois College of Law First Amendment Clinic.

The Badger Project is a nonpartisan journalism nonprofit that focuses on and investigates government, politics, and related matters in Wisconsin. Invisible Institute is a nonprofit public accountability journalism organization based in Chicago.  Both organizations have litigated cases seeking police records and written extensively about law enforcement issues, particularly the problem of “wandering officers” who jump agencies to avoid discipline.

The Badger Project and Invisible Institute asked for officers’ names, birth years or ages, zip code, and work history.  Most states release this information, but have not experienced any significant problems caused by making the information public.  The request did not ask for home addresses.

Both organizations have reported on the lawsuit:

“Courts have ruled time and time again that speculative fears of harm do not justify withholding government records from the public,” said Tom Kamenick, president of the Wisconsin Transparency Project.  “Government officials must do more than merely claim that, hypothetically, something bad might happen if the records are released.  Rather, they must show that harm is likely to occur and is sufficiently serious to overcome the presumption of access to government records.  DOJ could not do that here.”

“We are incredibly proud to have represented the Invisible Institute in this critical fight for accountability,” said Lena Shapiro, Director of the First Amendment Clinic. “Securing this victory took three years of sustained effort, with nine students and two fellows from the First Amendment Clinic pouring their energy into this matter to ensure that the public’s right to know prevailed over blanket government secrecy.”

The Clinic students handled discovery, including resolving disputes and taking depositions, and briefed the successful motion for summary judgment, which was ultimately argued in January by advanced student Gabriela De La Llana.For a copy of the complaint, contact the First Amendment Clinic at the University of Illinois College of Law at law-firstamend@illinois.edu.

Ryan Washburn ’18

Ryan Washburn has been promoted to Member at Bodman PLC. Washburn, a member of the firm’s Mergers & Acquisitions Practice Group, advises clients on a broad range of corporate matters including business formation and structuring, financing transactions, and commercial contracts.

College of Law
504 East Pennsylvania Avenue
Champaign, IL 61820
(217) 333-0931