The University of Texas at Dallas Undergraduate Law Review

“In her article Republican Judicial Appointments: The Fracture and Restructure of Federalism, Samantha Forrester examines how Republican presidents from 1969 to 2005 attempted to reshape the Supreme Court's federalism jurisprudence through judicial appointments. Edited by Editor in Chief Sudipta Rout, the article draws on archival materials from the Library of Congress, including internal memoranda and draft opinions from justices such as Harry Blackmun, Lewis Powell, and Sandra Day O'Connor, to trace the rise and eventual collapse of the Rehnquist Court's federalism revival. Forrester argues that the strategic and selective deployment of federalism doctrine did not merely constrain the project but actively produced the internal contradictions that led to its fragmentation, demonstrating that presidential influence over constitutional doctrine remains limited by judicial independence and the unpredictable evolution of justices once confirmed.” – Sudipta Rout, Editor in Chief

“In The First Amendment on an Uncertain Stage: Texas S.B. 12 and Burden on Live Performance, Loan Tran analyzes the constitutional implications of Texas Senate Bill 12 and how it impacts live performances. Edited by Anya Bhandari, Gabriel Hentschel, and Sofia Meinardus, Tran argues that the bill creates legal uncertainty through borrowing language from the obscenity doctrine without incorporating the constitutional safeguards that traditionally limit its application. Through an analysis of First Amendment doctrines, which include vagueness, overbreadth, and content-based regulation, the paper argues that the statute places undue burdens on performers, venues, and institutions, which lead to self-censorship before judicial review can occur. Ultimately, it advocates for replacing the bull with a narrower, conduct-based framework that protects minors while preserving lawful artistic, educational, and theatrical expression.” – Gabriel Hentschel, Managing Editor

“In Borderless Medicine, Bordered Law: State-Based Telehealth Licensure’s Dormant Commerce Clause Implications, Sean Sudalaimani criticizes the New Jersey District Court’s formalist and textualist approach to Pike balancing in MacDonald v. Sabando (2025) and its direct consequences. With the assistance of faculty advisor Professor Daniel Karnuta and Editor-in-Chief Sudipta Rout, Sudalaimani contends that while telehealth increasingly clashes with a fragmented, state-based regulatory framework, cases like Sabando use fig leaf legitimacy to shield restrictive state laws from Dormant Commerce Clause challenges; a trend that ultimately constrains widespread telehealth adoption and threatens patient access to care. In response, as Sabando appeals to the Third Circuit, Sudalaimani advocates for a functionalist recognition of telehealth’s practical realities, offering a modest, incremental shift that simply requires more robust, fact-based state justifications in line with Third Circuit precedent. Finally, Sudalaimani discusses the potential application of driver's-license-style reciprocity in physician licensing as an alternative means of decoupling modern medical expertise from geographic borders.” – Sean Sudalaimani, Managing Editor