In an attempt to provide regulatory authority within the digital asset market, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the CLARITY Act. Under the Act, a blockchain first falls under the jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange Commission and then transitions to the jurisdiction of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission as the blockchain “matures.” While the Act attempts to bring clarity to regulation within the digital asset industry, it falls short. Because of the Act’s transitional form, gaps are left for issuers to distort definitions and manipulate timelines to secure the oversight they want. This Article discusses the Act’s shortcomings and argues that a function-based approach to regulating crypto would provide greater consistency and increased investor protection. By examining the Act’s limitations, it is clear that a function-based approach would create a functional division between the SEC and the CFTC and promote market stability. Thus, Congress should adopt a function-based regulatory framework to provide clarity and consistency within the digital asset market.
This Comment asks whether Wyoming’s current immunity framework for reporting overdoses truly reduces delays in emergency treatment when distance, weather, and limited emergency medical service (EMS) capacity already regularly extend response times. It proposes that by amending two Wyoming statutes and funding statewide education, the goal of reducing barriers to calling 9-1-1 to report overdoses can be better achieved, and residents better protected. To support these proposed changes, Part II provides a concise account of relevant Wyoming statutory protections. Part III proposes specific amendments that would address the on-the-ground challenges of the Wyoming emergency response system. These adjustments will utilize available resources—with the known characteristics of Wyoming—to best further the legislative goal of reducing preventable deaths. Last, Parts IV and V address common misconceptions regarding the proposed lifesaving legislation, why they fail to undermine the need for change, and why this is the most efficient and ethical route for Wyoming to pursue in its fight against the opioid epidemic.
The emergence of Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) compensation has fundamentally reshaped college athletics, exposing a growing disconnect between the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s (NCAA) “student-athlete” model and the economic reality of modern-day college athletics. While courts have historically deferred to the principle of amateurism, this Comment argues that NIL has eroded the factual and legal foundations underlying that deference. This Comment reframes the employment-status inquiry through the Fair Labor Standards Act’s (FLSA) economic-reality test, arguing that many college athletes today meet the statutory definition of “employees.” Drawing on Johnson v. NCAA as a structured articulation of longstanding FLSA principles, this Comment demonstrates that college athletes perform services under institutional control, for the primary benefit of universities, and have a reasonable expectation of compensation. It further contends that House v. NCAA resolves the final doctrinal barrier by legitimizing the revenue sharing and institutional payments between college athletes and their schools, thereby solidifying that expectation. Situating these developments within the broader history of FLSA jurisprudence, this Comment argues that recognizing college athletes as employees is not a departure from existing law, but a natural extension of it. Ultimately, this Comment concludes that employee classification aligns legal reality with economic reality and provides a coherent framework for regulating modern college athletics.
The headwaters of the Colorado River Basin supply nearly 90% of the river’s flow and are among the most hydrologically sensitive areas in the U.S. During the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, westward expansion and the allure of gold and other valuable minerals drove thousands of miners into the basin. When the mining boom ended, the mines were left behind. Today, thousands of abandoned hardrock mine sites continue to leach acidity and heavy metals into streams, leaving a lasting impact on water quality. For decades, strict environmental liability laws made cleanup nearly impossible, creating a chilling effect that discouraged even well‑intentioned remediation. Congress attempted to change this dynamic with the Good Samaritan Remediation of Abandoned Hardrock Mines Act of 2024, which launched a pilot program limiting liability for third parties who take on cleanup projects. This Comment argues that while the Act is a step forward, Congress should (1) improve funding opportunities for abandoned mine remediation projects by establishing a hardrock royalty, and (2) make the Good Samaritan Program permanent rather than allowing it to sunset after the pilot period. Additionally, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency should issue guidance prioritizing projects in headwater areas, those with potential for responsible critical mineral and rare earth element reprocessing, and those that meaningfully engage with local communities. Expanding the program in these ways would accelerate cleanup, protect water resources, and ensure reclamation delivers ecological, economic, and social benefits across the basin.
This Comment examines the existence and impact of alleged loopholes within American gun control laws and explores how these gaps may affect Constitutional rights, legal enforcement, and public safety. In addition to identifying trends in American gun ownership, including patterns of purchasing, possession, and regulatory compliance, this Comment analyzes the current legal standards that determine who is disqualified from owning or possessing a firearm under federal law. These categories include individuals with certain criminal convictions, domestic violence restrictions, or mental health adjudications, and how those legal standards are applied in practice. Beyond the legal framework, this Comment also considers the broader social debate surrounding gun control in the U.S. Many Americans express concerns about background check systems, private sales, the accessibility of firearm components, and the clarity of regulatory definitions. By examining these concerns, this Comment evaluates how public perception and legal reality intersect, and whether some commonly discussed “loopholes” arise from genuine statutory failures, inconsistent enforcement, or misunderstandings of existing law. Where the analysis reveals potential legal or regulatory shortcomings, this Comment proposes a revised legal framework to address those issues while balancing constitutional protections, the realities of enforcement, and public safety considerations. The proposed framework focuses on improving statutory clarity, strengthening existing regulatory mechanisms, and reducing ambiguity in firearm-related laws and enforcement practices. Ultimately, this Comment seeks to clarify the legal landscape of gun regulation in the U.S. and to contribute to a more informed discussion about potential reforms and policy solutions.
