Although “law” is the primary common ground in law and society scholarship, many of us are trained in other, complementary academic disciplines, which give us unique perspectives into the interaction between law and society. How can we employ these perspectives in ways that help us effectively speak to our various disciplinary audiences? In this short essay, I draw from my own experiences navigating professional life in the academy to explore how my engagement with law and society scholarship has helped me navigate scholarly life between law and anthropology.

Poor public understanding of artificial intelligence (AI) systems has become a matter of acute concern. Even when lacking expert technical knowledge, there are good democratic, economic and other societal reasons for ensuring that the public right to know operates effectively in the AI era. Yet, the trade-secret claims of AI providers and deployers are widely seen as a potential barrier to information disclosure rights and duties, which has provoked calls for areas of significant public interest to be carved out from the protections of trade-secrets law. Such transparency carve-outs are, however, likely to lead to uncertainty, over-inclusion and ineffectiveness. In this article, we argue that the dynamic, public-driven character of the right to know can be better secured through third-party participation and public-interest stewardship innovations in AI transparency.

This commentary is part of a series of responses to Michele Goodwin’s 2025 LSA presidential address.

The Irish Supreme Court’s decision in Kelly v UCD1 is a significant ruling on judicial bias and disqualification. It is the first case to consider the implications of familial connections between judges and law firms representing parties since the Judicial Conduct Committee published its Guidelines on Judicial Conduct and Ethics in 2022.2 The case clarifies the legal test for objective bias, delineates its boundaries, and addresses the role of judicial conduct guidelines in disqualification decisions. It also has broader implications for other common law jurisdictions, particularly England & Wales, where similar issues of judicial propriety and public confidence in impartial adjudication arise.

Commenting on Cargill’s article, this Commentary examines how gene therapy research is regulated in the United States and how oversight of the field has developed. It discusses recent applications of gene therapy technologies and their implications for oversight, and of the impact of ordered cuts to NIH-funded research on gene therapy developments more broadly. Ultimately, it underscores the need for adaptive oversight frameworks for research involving emerging biotechnologies that balance scientific innovation, safety, and ethical considerations, and for effective public engagement on the acceptable use of these technologies, notwithstanding the discontinuation of NIH’s advisory mechanism established for this purpose.

Political pressures and institutional constraints have shaped a reactionary regulatory system that unduly preferences industry interests over public health. Breaking the reactive cycles that have long shaped device regulation will involve more than standard technical or incremental reforms. Congress would instead need to revisit more foundational values of device regulation to better align policy with the interests of patients and public health.

The data is clear: Earth’s temperature is on the rise, with the 10 most recent years being the hottest on record. Extreme heat is the number one weather-related killer in the United States. Laws and policies to protect individuals from the health hazards of extreme heat exposure are being contemplated across the nation at the federal, state, and local level. This paper aims to address the realities of extreme heat exposure and community needs during extreme heat. First, it will define important terms relevant to heat as used in climate science, occupational health, public health, and other fields. Second, it will describe heat exposure and needed protections for vulnerable populations, such as communities located in urban heat islands, those experiencing direct heat exposure in the workplace and those who lack access to cooling equipment at home. Last, the paper will explore law and policy approaches to address the health impacts of extreme heat, including a focused discussion of two different areas of the country: Florida and New York City.

Commentary on “ERISA and the Failure of Emplloyers to Perform Their Fiduciary Duties: Evidence from a Survey of Health Plan Administrators.”

This paper explores the interplay between intellectual property and gender in modern design law and practice, with a focus on the New Zealand Designs Act 1953 and references to Australian, United Kingdom and European Union law. It highlights how law and practice favour technical, utilitarian design principles (that coded masculine), but neglect the dynamic, sensory and affective (embodied and emotive) aspects of designs (that coded feminine). Through its focus on the technical, design law and practice ignore the socio-legal reality that the dynamic, sensory and affective are often central to a design’s success. The paper frames the foregoing in standpoint theory and affect. It challenges the focus on that which can be reduced to technical-based representation and the perception that this creates an objective master copy. The paper calls for a reassessment of what design law protects and how it protects it, to better align the system with the socio-legal realities of design creation and use.

This article explores the connection between health and democracy, positing that public health is rooted in political decisions and that improving health outcomes and advancing health equity requires strengthening inclusive, representative democracy. It describes the relationship between civic health, civic and voter participation, power, and health outcomes, and demonstrates that communities with higher rates of civic and voter participation are linked to better population health outcomes. The authors assert that public health practitioners have the opportunity and the responsibility to improve health by democratizing their practice and supporting policies and approaches which strengthen civic health and promote civic and voter participation. The authors also provide detailed stories from two health agencies — Wisconsin and Minnesota — illustrating these efforts in action and offer several strategies for how practitioners can incorporate this work into their scope of practice.