Innovation Law and Tech News

Rowell publishes new interdisciplinary article on nuclear regulation

University of Illinois researchers bridge engineering and law to modernize radiation protection regulation

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.

SCOTUS made right decision in Hikma, Sherkow writes

Ionic column at the Smith Memorial Hall.

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.

Read his full essay on Health Affairs.

Lawsky joins panel at New York Fed Innovation Conference

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.

Illinois Law and Engineering Faculty Submit Interdisciplinary Comment on Landmark Nuclear Reactor Rule

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.

Lawsky publishes article on legal inconsistencies

Main Library at the University of Illinois in early fall.

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.

Read Lawsky’s article on legal inconsistencies.

Undark quotes Sherkow on FDA regulation of peptides

In order to bring a drug to market, manufacturers have long been required to demonstrate safety and effectiveness in clinical trials; however, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. would like to change the Food and Drug Administration’s role to make it easier access experimental medicine. In an article on the FDA considering allowing pharmacies to compound and sell seven unapproved peptides, Undark quoted Professor Jacob Sherkow who called this “a brave new world” in which some substances may “go forward without any rigorous scientific evidence base.”

Read the full article on Undark.

Lawsky publishes article on Direct File

Direct File, a program that allows some taxpayers to file federal income tax returns with the United States government online for free, is an extraordinary accomplishment, Professor Sarah Lawsky writes in a new article published in the Pittsburgh Tax Review. Examining the computer code underlying Direct File, Lawsky finds choices that make “the application of the law and various administrative choices more transparent even to those who are not comfortable reading computer code.”

Read her full article on SSRN.

Sherkow to speak about indirect patent infringement at 15th Waseda-Penn Global Patent Law Conference

Professor Jake Sherkow gives remarks during his investiture ceremony.

On Monday, June 1, Professor Jacob Sherkow will deliver a lecture at the 15th Waseda-Penn Global Patent Law Conference in Japan. His talk will introduce the fundamentals of indirect patent infringement under U.S. law, with a focus on inducement doctrine under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). Drawing on recent litigation and scholarship — including the “infringement by label” debate highlighted in the Supreme Court case Hikma v. Amarin — the talk will critically examine how current case law risks expanding inducement liability beyond its traditional requirement of active encouragement and causation. In doing so, the lecture will highlight broader questions about the proper limits of indirect infringement and the role of regulatory contexts in shaping liability—issues that also resonate in ongoing Japanese debates on the scope and structure of secondary patent liability.

Gerke publishes article in prominent gastroenterology journal about human deskilling in medical AI

In a new co-authored article for Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Professor Sara Gerke explores the risks of “deskilling” for physicians as the use of AI proliferates in the practice of medicine. Gerke and her co-authors also explore whether such systems violate the European Union Artificial Intelligence Act, the world’s first comprehensive regulatory framework on artificial intelligence.

Read the full article at nature.com.

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.”