Journal Article
1 November 2025
Current Issue
Volume 12, Issue 1 (2025)Read More
Featured Content
Journal Article
1 November 2025
Upcycled and Rightful: Navigating Trademark Law and the Circular Economy
This Article elaborates on the practice of upcycling and argues that upcycling should be considered a lawful practice under current trademark rules in the United States. Upcycling is the process of taking existing products lawfully sold on the market, in most instances, used products, and giving these products a second life by adding additional elements and decorations or by using the still viable product parts to create new products altogether. Because of its focus on reusing existing products or product parts, the practice of upcycling has become increasingly popular, also because it promotes circular and environmentally friendly production practices. However, upcycled products often display logos and patterns from the original product, many of which are famous trademarks, which has led to widespread opposition by trademark owners— especially in the luxury fashion industry. Specifically, trademark owners have argued that upcycled products are “materially different” from the originals and can lead to consumer confusion and dilution of their marks. This Article disagrees with this position and argues that upcycling should be considered a lawful practice under current United States trademark law. In particular, it considers current trademark defenses and how they apply to the practice of upcycling. In this context, the Article argues that upcycling should be considered lawful under a broad interpretation of the doctrines of trademark, first sale, and fair use. The Article additionally argues that upcycling activities, particularly when clearly communicated through labeling and disclaimers, warrant First Amendment protection under the United States’ Constitution as a form of expressive speech advocating for circular economy principles and environmentally conscious practices.Current Articles
Journal Article1 November 2025
Copyright Law and Property Law
Property is at the core of state law since it is the exclusive power of the individual state governments to define and protect property rights within their jurisdiction. In this paper I will discuss the general connection between copyright and property generally. I will argue that property law sheds important light on copyright law and can help us cut through modern controversies in copyright law. If I am correct in this view, any judge sufficiently familiar with property law doctrines could do better than the Supreme Court of the United States in resolving a new copyright controversy. Specifically, property law can be usefully applied to resolve fair use disputes. Of course, property law alone is not enough to resolve these problems. Courts will also have to determine what constitutes an “invasion” or an “interference” with a copyright. These are matters that turn toward economics.Journal Article1 November 2025
The Sovereign Acre
What if the next constitutional crisis is not declared from a presidential podium but tyranny forged into a deed? Not a contested election. Not a rogue legislature. Not even a runaway court. This time, it is quieter—with a deed signed and title passed, a new sovereign is crowned in private ink. Across the country, billionaire land grabs are redrawing the map of municipal governance itself. As wealthy elites and corporate oligarchs carve out private enclaves—from the privatized contract city of Sandy Springs, Georgia, to the unsettling governance of The Woodlands, Texas—we bear witness to public sovereignty giving way to oligarchic rule. Slowly. Quietly. Deed by silent deed. These private states are not simply gated communities policed by overzealous HOA boards. They are full-fledged jurisdictions ruled by those whose power derives not from public consent but from private wealth. Billionaires and corporate oligarchs impose their own rule of law—zoning, taxing, regulating, and even policing—without bearing the constitutional obligations and accountability that once constrained public power. Due process becomes optional, and equal protection descends to little more than a fluid formality. In these private states, ownership no longer secures liberty; it demands allegiance to oligarchic power. As billionaires and corporate elites advance their march against public governance, the judiciary and legislatures continue to turn a blind eye. The public function doctrine lies in tatters, and the nondelegation doctrine is but a whisper of days gone by. Courts and lawmakers, charmed by promises of “efficiency” and “innovation,” have willingly ceded traditional safeguards, allowing constitutional protections to decay under the weight of privatized rule. In the meantime, the American vision of common governance—once indivisible, public, and accountable—is being parceled out, one sovereign acre at a time. The largest billionaire land grab since the Great Depression adds urgency to this conversation. The acquisition of entire towns and vast rural tracts by the likes of Elon Musk and Marc Cuban makes clear that private sovereignty is no longer a theoretical risk but a reality to be enjoyed by the highest bidder. Let us not be naïve—these projects are not mere anomalies of eccentric titans of industry; they are blueprints for a dystopian future where public governance retreats, constitutional obligations unravel, and democracy survives only beyond the gates of billionaire control. This Article introduces the concept of deed-based sovereignty, defined here as privatized governance constructed not through elections or public charters, but through property law’s oldest devices—restrictive covenants, easements, and development agreements. Situating these micro-sovereignties within the longer arc of American land power—from feudal manors to company towns—this Article asks what happens when ownership, not citizenship, becomes the defining metric of lawful authority. It argues that legislatures and the judiciary must end the indulgence that wealthy elites and corporate oligarchs are merely private actors engaged in private conduct. Where private hands govern as the state, constitutional limits must follow. Reforging sovereignty in property law demands both a revival of the public function doctrine and a renewed commitment to enforcing nondelegation principles, actions that are necessary to prevent the covert transfer of public power beyond the reach of constitutional accountability. Only by restoring these safeguards can courts fulfill their duty to ensure the principles of public sovereignty—and the democratic principles anchored to it—are not surrendered to the silent ledgers of private deeds.Journal Article1 November 2025
A Comparison of Inadequate Doctrines: The Canadian “honour of the Crown” and the U.S. Federal Trust Responsibility
Journal Article1 November 2025
Upcycled and Rightful: Navigating Trademark Law and the Circular Economy
This Article elaborates on the practice of upcycling and argues that upcycling should be considered a lawful practice under current trademark rules in the United States. Upcycling is the process of taking existing products lawfully sold on the market, in most instances, used products, and giving these products a second life by adding additional elements and decorations or by using the still viable product parts to create new products altogether. Because of its focus on reusing existing products or product parts, the practice of upcycling has become increasingly popular, also because it promotes circular and environmentally friendly production practices. However, upcycled products often display logos and patterns from the original product, many of which are famous trademarks, which has led to widespread opposition by trademark owners— especially in the luxury fashion industry. Specifically, trademark owners have argued that upcycled products are “materially different” from the originals and can lead to consumer confusion and dilution of their marks. This Article disagrees with this position and argues that upcycling should be considered a lawful practice under current United States trademark law. In particular, it considers current trademark defenses and how they apply to the practice of upcycling. In this context, the Article argues that upcycling should be considered lawful under a broad interpretation of the doctrines of trademark, first sale, and fair use. The Article additionally argues that upcycling activities, particularly when clearly communicated through labeling and disclaimers, warrant First Amendment protection under the United States’ Constitution as a form of expressive speech advocating for circular economy principles and environmentally conscious practices.Journal Article1 November 2025
Pore Some More: Current Legal Considerations of Pore Space Ownership in Texas
Most Popular Articles
Journal Article
1 June 2019
Executive Order 13563 Creates Access to Affordable Child Support Orders for Incarcerated Parents
Former President Barack Obama issued Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review in his last month of presidency, prohibit- ing States from treating incarceration as voluntary when considering a par- ent’s request for a modification of his or her child support order. Although fully expected to, President Donald Trump has yet to act on the executive order, which right-wing politicians fought vehemently against for two years. This Comment argues that the President should leave the order in action be- cause it will promote payment of child support and relationships between non- custodial parents and their children, as well as help to combat the cycle of incarceration that plagues low-income, noncustodial parents. This Comment also argues that courts should opt to suspend child-support payments for non- custodial parents when they face sentences that will produce significant arrear- ages by the time the parent is released from incarceration. Finally, the Comment will address how incarceration affects modification of support orders and the cycle of incarceration, who is affected by this cycle, and public views as to President Obama’s executive order that attempted to resolve such issues.Journal Article
15 February 2025
The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Lending: A New Form of Redlining?
The issue of biased lending is longstanding and has faced much legislation over the past few decades. When issues of discrimination in the housing market became center stage in the 1960s, Congress passed multiple acts to combat what became known as “redlining,” or systematically denying credit to minority groups of people. Acts such as the Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act worked to eliminate this discrimination, but that does not mean bias does not still exist. However, lending companies, due to the efforts of the above-enumerated acts, can no longer act on these biases. But with the introduction of algorithmic lending with artificial intelligence systems, the decades of work to eliminate lending discrimination are threatened. Artificial intelligence systems are trained by humans but often lack human oversight when making actual lending decisions. This human training leads to implicit biases within the algorithms themselves, bringing up the issue once more of discriminatory lending practices, known as “digital redlining.” To combat this discrimination, there needs to be regulation on how algorithms must be trained and the transparency of their decision-making. Without such regulations, protected classes of people will once again face housing discrimination, much like that of those in the 1960s and before.Journal Article
1 January 2014
Spanish and Mexican Land Grants and Heirs' Rights to Unclaimed Mineral Estates in Texas
This Comment discusses the history of Spanish and Mexican land grants in Texas and the complicated issues of: (1) recognizing the rights of original land grant owners; and (2) distinguishing what remedies, if any, shall be given to their heirs. Part II provides background of Spanish and Mexican land grants in Texas, including the provisions included in the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, and the underlying cultural, political, and social issues. Part III discusses the history of general land grant case law and mineral estate case law in Texas. Part IV discusses the current obstacles that heirs face in bringing ancient land grant claims, which are subject to the current property laws in Texas. Finally, Part V explores the possible future for land grant disputes including the recent passage of HB 724, the current goals of heirs seeking recognition of their rights, and competing arguments on the fulfillment of those goals.Journal Article
16 February 2022
Patently Absurd: The Invention Secrecy Order System
The current patent application secrecy order system has almost no safeguards to prevent abuse and overreach into private intellectual property rights by the Government. Defense agencies are presently able to have the United States Patent and Trademark Office place secrecy orders on applications by merely deciding for themselves that revelation of information found therein would be detrimental to national security; there are no rules or restrictions on how the agencies go about making this determination. Likewise, the current system contains little in the way of protection for inventors who are left without a meaningful way to challenge these orders. The prospect of devoting substantial time, money, and resources towards inventing a new technology only for the Government to both prevent inventors from obtaining a patent on it and forbidding them from leveraging such a patent cuts against the incentivization that lies at the heart of a healthy intellectual property regime. An overhaul to this system guaranteeing stronger safeguards and better protections is required to maintain the pace of technological advancement facilitated by the strong private rights afforded by the United States’ patent system. This Comment proposes a number of changes to the current statutory and regulatory framework that will create these necessary protections to check Government abuse and to safeguard inventors’ rights.Journal Article
1 May 2025
Invasives: The How of Biodiversity Loss
Invasive species are non-native organisms, existing outside of their original habitat, which may cause damage to the biodiversity in their new environment. These species often outcompete native species for resources, which can dramatically disrupt ecological balance and biodiversity. This Article first surveys existing invasive species laws, documenting the current legal frameworks that various countries use to manage invasive species. It then proposes an array of new legal approaches that may improve how human civilizations manage the complex issues surrounding invasives. Finally, it evaluates the prospects for preventing—or even rolling back—the harm invasives cause to biodiversity. The broad goal of this Article is to understand the current and potential future ways that legal frameworks could help manage invasive speciesJournal Article
1 June 2019