SCOTT CHEADLE (3L), University of Memphis Law Review Notes Editor: Mr. Cheadle had his piece, “A Need for Improved Medical Treatment: Why Borrowed Eighth Amendment Standards are not Sufficient to Protect Pretrial Detainees in Substantive Due Process Cases," published by the Connecticut Public Interest Law Journal.

Mr. Cheadle’s article advances the position that professional judgment, a standard from the Supreme Court case Youngberg v. Romeo, should be the standard used for medical treatment cases that involve pretrial detainees. Professional judgment is a standard that was created for involuntarily committed, mentally ill detainees who are acutely similar to pretrial detainees since there has been no adjudication of guilt and they cannot be punished at all. Unlike deliberate indifference, which evaluates whether the defendant knew of and disregarded a serious medical need, professional judgment is the most workable standard for medical treatment of pre-trial detainee claims arising under the Fourteenth Amendment because the standard mandates a backdrop of professional procedures to evaluate the defendant’s actions against. In his work, Mr. Cheadle fully explains the evolution of the current adjudicatory standard and the need for a more humane replacement.

WAI-LIN DANIELEY (3L), University of Memphis Law Review Notes Editor: Ms. Danieley had her article, "Meme Regulation: Analyzing the SEC’s Concerns Regarding Digital Assets and Non-Fungible Tokens," published by the Virginia Sports and Entertainment Law Journal.

In her published piece, Ms. Danieley examines the often confusing, but usually entertaining, worlds of meme-culture, NFTs (Non-Fungible Tokens) and blockchain technology. She tracks the journey of “Dogecoins” and the related NFT and blockchain technology from the early 2010s, when internet users began producing the first memes, one of which was the original “Doge” meme and digital image consisting of a comic-sans-overlaid Shiba Inu dog. Years later, the Doge became a multifaceted asset when its novelty was monetized within the digital economy in 2013 via the “Dogecoin,” a fungible cryptocurrency token, with the original artwork then eventually converted by the first Doge artist into a Non-Fungible Token (NFT), essentially “minting” the artwork on the popular Ethereum blockchain ledger. Ms. Danieley goes on to look at how the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in 2018 published a guided framework for digital asset creators and technology developers, subsequently denouncing the most prominent digital blockchain ledgers, including Ethereum, as securities and cautioning future digital asset developments. Particularly, the SEC enunciated the precedence of SEC v. W.J. Howey Co. and warned digital asset creators against developing assets that reflect the characteristics of securities. Her article juxtaposes the technical attributes of NFTs and the NFT economy to the legal rationale explicated in Howey.

DENISE LEE (3L), University of Memphis Law Review Notes Editor: Ms. Lee had her article, "Hoarders of the Lost Art? The Fallacy Behind Museums and the Statute of Limitations in Nazi Restitution Claims," published by the Virginia Sports and Entertainment Law Journal.

Ms. Lee’s work is about the greatest art theft in history. From the 1930s until the end of the Second World War, the Nazi Party plundered approximately 600,000 pieces of art and took over six million lives. Immediately after the war, a group of men and women, known as the Monuments Men, came together to find and return what the Nazis wrongfully stole. But despite many museums that have voluntarily restituted artwork over the past few decades, museums continue to be the center of much criticism in both legal scholarship and mass media, risking their goodwill and reputations in public view.

One of the more common criticisms concerns the statute of limitations defense – even though there are very few of these claims. Moreover, the Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act, which temporarily replaced all state statute of limitations for Nazi restitution claims with a uniform six-year limitations period after actual knowledge of the claim, is set to expire in a few years making the statute of limitations an issue on the imminent horizon. Critics allege that museums who raise such a defense are unfairly preventing claims from being heard on the merits because the statute of limitations is nothing more than a technical and meritless defense that dismisses claims simply based on the passage of time. The natural implication of this argument is that museums are hoarding Nazi loot and want to prevent courts from uncovering that fact. But this is simply not true and unnecessarily puts museums in a terrible light. 

Ms. Lee’s work dispels this criticism and calls upon the courts to help address the status of title when adjudicating a restitution claim on the statute of limitations.

NAKOTA WOOD (3L), University of Memphis Law Review Notes Editor: Ms. Wood had her article, "The Gay Panic Defense: A Rainbow of Reasons Calling for Abolishment & Protections in Tennessee," published by the Tulane Journal of Law and Sexuality.

Ms. Wood’s article addresses a legal strategy known as the gay panic defense, and the critical role it plays in biasing juries in criminal cases where LGBT individuals are victims. The gay panic defense legitimizes and excuses violent behavior directed at members of the LGBT community. No published articles, notes or comments have a solution directed at why the Tennessee legislature should ban the gay panic defense and how to implement gay shield laws to protect LGBT individuals from being unjustly discriminated against. Despite a nationwide shift towards LGBT acceptance, hate crimes against the LGBT community are on the rise. Her published piece proposes a well-reasoned justification for banning use of the gay panic defense. The proposed ban coupled with evidentiary shield laws will ensure that victims of LGBT hate crimes are not further victimized by the criminal justice system.