Professor Arden Rowell, in conjunction with researchers from the University of Illinois Grainger College of Engineering, recently published an article in Nuclear News proposing an interdisciplinary framework for modernizing one of the foundational principles of radiation protection. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) recently released a proposed rule that would remove the long-standing As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) principle from its radiation protection regulations while retaining existing dose limits and opening the proposal for public comment, making their article, “Don’t Scrap ALARA—Modernize It,” especially timely.

In an new essay on Health Affairs, Professor Jacob Sherkow writes that the U.S. Supreme Court made the correct decision in Hikma Pharmaceuticals v. Amarin Pharma, giving generic drug manufacturers important protection against patent suits based on labeling approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This decision will “help preserve patient access to lower-cost medicines,” he writes; however, it also shifts pressure onto FDA, which does not interpret patent claims or decide whether future prescribing will infringe.

In late June, Professor Suja Thomas was a featured speaker at the National Employment Lawyers Association conference in New Orleans, Louisiana. The theme of the conference was “Leading with Vision. Rooted in Justice.” and Professor Thomas spoke in one of the final sessions, covering “The Year in Review: Significant Developments in Employment Law.” Along with two other speakers, Thomas reviewed employment cases decided by the U.S. Supreme Court during its 2025–2026 term, as well as significant appellate court, legislative, and state law developments, and the emerging issues reshaping plaintiffs’ employment law practice.

The Supreme Court ruled in June on the case of Keathley v. Buddy Ayres Construction, unanimously held that courts should look to the totality of the circumstances when determining whether an omission of a claim in the bankruptcy context was inadvertent or mistaken for purposes of the judicial estoppel doctrine. Professor Robert Lawless, who joined an amicus brief on the case, joined host Bill Rochelle on the American Bankruptcy Institute Podcast to discuss the facts of the case, the decision, and how courts are likely to proceed moving forward.

In June, Professor Sarah Lawsky joined a panel discussion on Turning Law into Verified Code at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s Innovation Conference. The two-day conference brought together individuals from academia, industry, and other areas to share ideas on technology and finance. The conference explored the landscape of the financial world and the role of banks and the private sector in innovation and stability.

Following up on previous work, Professors Jason Mazzone and Vikram Amar continue their analysis of the federal lawsuit brought by Judge James R. Brown against the Justices of the Illinois Supreme Court in a new article at Justia Verdict. The court declined to issue a preliminary injunction, which the authors found defensible; however, much of the court’s reasoning was described as problematic in the article. They break down what aspects of the case they found most fault with at this point, but note that this will not be the end of the intrigue in this case.

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.”