Blog By: Antonio C. Ellzey
In this Blog, 3L Staffer Antonio C. Ellzey discusses the challenges faced by entrepreneurs in the cannabis industry, particularly the impact of Section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code, which limits deductions for businesses engaged in the cannabis trade due to federal prohibition. Ellzey discusses the potential benefits of rescheduling cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III, which he argues would alleviate financial burdens on cannabis businesses, enhance safety, and stimulate economic growth.
Blog By: Yuha Jung
In this Blog, outgoing 3L Staffer Yuha Jung explores two recent youth climate cases, one resolved in Montana (Held v. State) and another ongoing in California (Genesis v. EPA), emphasizing their implications for future climate litigation. Jung contends that youth-led climate lawsuits will ultimately contribute positively to safeguarding a clean and healthy climate for future generations.
Blog By: Camille Camp
In this blog, 2L Staffer Camille Camp discusses the threat black vultures pose to the livestock industry and the proposed bill aimed at assisting livestock producers. Additionally, she highlights the essential ecological function served by black vultures and stresses the importance of finding a sustainable solution that both addresses the threat to livestock and preserves the black vulture population.
Blog By: Daniel Martell
In his blog, Vol. 17 Executive Editor Daniel Martell reports on a barrier in the transition to clean energy: local opposition to solar projects in rural communities. While opposition groups have delayed and derailed solar projects in the past, Martell argues that there are steps that solar farm developers can take to the conflict and cost that come with public opposition to their energy projects.
Blog By: Daniel Short
2L Staffer Daniel Short discusses the Kentucky legislature's decision to create an acreage requirement for hunting and fishing licenses, exempt private landowners. Shortly after, the legislature rescinded the rule, which Short argues was the right decision because of the requirement's uncertainty in enforcement and effectiveness, as well as the detriment to resident outdoorsmen.
