News featuring a faculty member
Copyright termination is a process by which copyright holders may terminate a grant—or transfer—of their rights. In a recent Eleventh Circuit case, judges ruled that termination rights are retained by an estate even after discharge, a decision that presents some problems. Rochelle’s Daily Wire, a publication of the American Bankruptcy Institute, quoted Professor Robert Lawless on this topic, including his suggestion of how courts may create a more useful mechanism for future cases.
Can U.S. service members refuse to engage in what may be seen as unlawful orders? This is a question that has been at the forefront of many military news stories thanks to the FBI’s investigation into Sen. Mark Kelly and Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who reminded leaders of the legal option to refuse. Professor Yulanda Curtis, in an op-ed published by The Fulcrum, looks at the Iran War, which was not approved by Congress, and questions whether troops may be punished for disobeying orders even if the war is later determined to be illegal. “The United States faces a critical choice about the future of its military. Especially now when war has been initiated and U.S. troops have been killed,” she writes.
For Women Veteran’s Recognition Day, Professor Yulanda Curtis, director of the Veterans Legal Clinic, wrote an editorial for The Grio about how serving in the armed forces helped provide her mother with a pathway out of poverty. She served for 20 years, starting with her parents’ permission at just 17 years old, and forged a life of opportunity for herself and her family. “For many young Americans, especially those from impoverished areas like the Mississippi Delta, the military is not a calling. It is a pathway out. It is essential to think of migration as something that happens across borders,” Curtis writes in her editorial. “In that sense, many servicemembers are internal migrants,.”
When the Supreme Court announced its decision regarding President Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship, as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment, via executive order, the ruling in favor of the Constitution was a relief to countless individuals. The Chicago Tribune framed the story around the joy felt by Illinois immigrants and political leaders in the wake of the decision. Professor Jason Mazzone shared his thoughts on the decision as well, telling the Tribune, “With the nation’s 250th anniversary days away, the Court’s ruling is a powerful reminder of the nation’s commitment to the fundamental principle of birthright equality.”
Faculty and researchers from the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign have submitted a public comment to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) addressing the agency’s proposed rule on “Part 57,” a major regulatory initiative that attempts to modernize U.S. nuclear regulation by creating a dedicated licensing framework for new nuclear technologies, including microreactors and certain advanced nuclear reactors.
The submission reflects a unique collaboration between researchers at the University of Illinois College of Law and the Grainger College of Engineering, bringing together nationally recognized strengths in both engineering and administrative law to address complex regulatory questions with substantial societal consequences.
Led jointly by Professor Arden Rowell of the College of Law and Professor Zahra Mohaghegh of the Department of Nuclear, Plasma and Radiological Engineering (NPRE), the comment combines administrative law, statutory interpretation, engineering risk analysis, and regulatory economics to evaluate the NRC’s proposed framework. George Joslin, a Ph.D. student in NPRE and graduate researcher in Mohaghegh’s Socio-Technical Risk Analysis (SoTeRiA) Research Laboratory, also contributed to the effort.
The proposed Part 57 rule was developed pursuant to Section 208 of the ADVANCE Act and represents a significant step in U.S. nuclear policy. The Illinois team’s submission evaluates whether the NRC’s proposal satisfies the requirements of the Atomic Energy Act, the ADVANCE Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act while also providing a technically and legally defensible foundation for future advanced-reactor licensing.
The comment addresses two central questions: whether the NRC’s proposed safety framework adequately supports the agency’s statutory obligations concerning safety, efficiency, and reasoned decision-making, and whether the agency’s regulatory analysis provides a sufficiently evidence-based assessment of the rule’s costs, benefits, and alternatives. The submission recommends that the NRC continue developing cost-benefit analysis as an important component of implementing the ADVANCE Act’s efficiency mandate while strengthening the evidentiary basis for key safety and regulatory determinations. It also calls for additional legal and technical justification regarding accident-analysis methodologies, cumulative impacts associated with multi-reactor deployment, and the treatment of uncertainty in the agency’s regulatory analysis.
The collaboration reflects a broader research partnership between the College of Law and the SoTeRiA Research Laboratory focused on the future of risk-informed and performance-based nuclear regulation. The work forms part of a larger NRC-funded research initiative examining how developments in reactor technology, probabilistic risk assessment, and administrative law are reshaping the governance of emerging energy systems.
At a time when advanced reactor deployment, administrative law doctrine, and federal regulatory policy are evolving simultaneously, the project demonstrates how interdisciplinary engagement can contribute to more durable and analytically rigorous approaches to public governance.
The comment was submitted to the NRC on June 15, 2026, and is now part of the agency’s public administrative record as the Commission evaluates comments and develops the final Part 57 rule.
The requirement that individuals withdraw required minimum distribution amounts, as specified in the SECURE 2.0 Act, requires women to withdraw more than their
gender-specific life expectancy would otherwise require. This is the conclusion of Professor Richard Kaplan in a new article published in the Pittsburgh Tax Review. The paper was originally presented at an ABA-sponsored conference on revealing and addressing hidden gender bias in tax law and policy.
In updates to her report on law school hiring information, Professor Sarah Lawsky recently published data on entry-level hires as of Spring 2026. Her data show 108 new hires for the 2026 year, she further breaks down the data by schools, where hires earned degrees, whether hires had a fellowship, when hires earned their degree, and several other parameters.
When a law is inconsistent, further guidance should come from Congress, courts, and administrative agencies to create clarity. In her recent article, Professor Sarah Lawsky examines via a programming language framework an example of a tax statute that mandates inconsistent outcomes for the same set of facts and shows how that inconsistency has been addressed by the Treasury and the IRS. Her article was also the subject of a TaxProfBlog article, which you can read online.
Professor Peter Maggs published the 8th edition of his co-authored book “Law and Legal System of the Russian Federation” in May. Updates to the latest edition include Russia’s withdrawal from the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights, the legal integration of Donetsk, Kherson, Lugansk, and Zaporozhe into the Russian Federation, and sweeping legislative changes enacted to support the so-called “Special Military Operation” in Ukraine.
Based on a 2023 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, a federal judge found that Cook County may be liable for taking property without properly compensating homeowners for their remaining equity. The amount owed to individuals, Professor Scott Szala explained to Fox 32, may not be a huge number, perhaps $15 million per year, but in the current economic climate that might require aid from the Illinois general assembly.