Beginning in 1981 and continuing into the mid-1990s, The Alledger was the student newspaper of the Boston College Law School. The Alledger published both serious and satirical articles on topics related to student life at the law school. Frequent topics include the arrival and departure of faculty members, profiles of candidates for leadership positions in student government, and previews of lectures given by noteworthy speakers.

The publication consistently poked fun at the law student experience, making professors and classmates alike the targets of good-natured parody. The Alledger featured an annual April Fool’s Day issue which consisted entirely of satirical articles.

The Alledger is a record of the school’s history, offering evidence of an increasingly competitive environment for law schools in the form of extensive coverage of a 1995 dispute related to the U.S. News and World Report law school rankings. The newspaper also recorded changes in the demographics of the student body, as well as frequent discussion of tuition increases and the financial relationship of the law school to the university. Moreover, the humorous and frank tone of The Alledger provides real insight into the lives of law students in the 1980s and 1990s.

The Alledger was digitized from the collection of the Boston College Law School Library. Issues missing from this collection are not owned by the law library; due to frequent inconsistencies in the numbering of issues, the law library is not sure how many issues are missing from this collection.

The Alledger

Boston College Law Review is Boston College Law School's flagship scholarly publication.

The Review, ranked in the top 25 law journals by Washington & Lee, publishes eight issues each year featuring articles and essays by prominent authors addressing legal issues of national interest.

In addition to articles written by outside academics, the Review prints the work of its student staff, many of whom publish notes during their third year. The Review’s second-year staff members also prepare short comments on recent federal circuit court decisions, which may be published in the Review's Electronic Supplement.

Visit the Boston College Law Review website at <a href="http://bclawreview.bc.edu">bclawreview.bc.edu</a>.

Boston College Law Review

Boston College Law Library collects the publications of Law School faculty, and, when possible, makes them available through this collection. Organized by year and tagged with authors and subject areas, this resource reflects the school and the library’s commitment to open access while at the same time serving as a valuable institutional record.

Boston College Law School Faculty Papers

Boston College Law School Lectures and Presentations

On December 13, 2016, in EEOC v. Catastrophe Management Solutions, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that discrimination on the basis of hairstyle is not actionable under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, even if that hairstyle is closely associated with a particular race. In doing so, the Court continued an antiquated tradition in how “immutable characteristics” are viewed and declined to advance a more contemporary notion of “race,” resting instead on decades-old understandings of how race is construed. This Comment argues that with respect to race, courts should follow the Seventh Circuit’s understanding of immutability. Barring that, courts should apply the Supreme Court’s logic in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins that prohibits stereotype-based sex discrimination to discrimination based on hairstyle and other sociocultural characteristics.

BCLR Electronic Supplement

Twisted Up: The Eleventh Circuit Standard for Immutability in EEOC v. Catastrophe Management Solutions

This Article evaluates the ramifications of modern trademark law in the context of sports apparel and logos. Collegiate and professional sports teams have utilized modern trademark law to enact a licensing regime where third-party companies must pay royalties to produce apparel with collegiate logos. This regime assumes the inherent value of trademarks on sports apparel is derived from their association with the teams they represent, not the logo itself. This Article examines various approaches courts have taken to address the dichotomy between the necessary consumer association and the reality that the logos themselves are what draw consumers. Most notably, this Article focuses on the recent ruling in Pennsylvania State University v. Vintage Brand, LLC (M.D. Pa. 2022). Finally, this Article considers how the Supreme Court could potentially resolve the confusion surrounding trademark rights in sports merchandising by affirming third-party disclaimers.

Intellectual Property and Technology Forum

Disclaimers: The Solution to Source Confusion in Sports Merchandising?

The life sciences industry is a vital sector of the American economy, and its success is reliant on the protection of patent holder rights. One common feature in life sciences patents is the genus claim, a claim type traditionally allowing the patent holder to claim a group of related species based on common functionality. A novel interpretation of “written description,” a required element for patent applications, has emerged in recent decisions by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. This new interpretation has caused concern among some members of the life sciences industry regarding the validity of genus claims in current patents and future patent applications. The majority-conservative Supreme Court could have resolved this issue in favor of patent owners, but failed to seize such an opportunity by denying the writ of certiorari in Juno Therapeutics, Inc. v. Kite Pharma, Inc. in November 2022. If the Court addresses the Juno decision in subsequent rulings, it will likely protect life sciences genus claims. Such protection would benefit patent owners because the validity of current patents and the predictability of new patents depend on such claims. These benefits would strengthen the structure of the patent system as a whole. Nevertheless, the Court, much to critics’ chagrin, remains silent for the time being.

The Supreme Court’s Missed Opportunity to Save Genus Claims in Life Sciences Patents

Front Matter

When the popular retail brokerage firm Robinhood decided to restrict trades in certain securities in late January 2021, politicians, regulators, and the general public called for increased regulation on brokerage firms. The business model of online brokerage firms like Robinhood came under intense scrutiny. Specifically, regulators and politicians raised questions about Robinhood’s zero-commission fee model predicated on payment for order flow. In a report, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) raised questions about payment for order flow––the kick-back received by brokerage firms for a customer’s order––and the conflicts of interest such payments pose for brokerage firms when carrying out their duty of best execution. As the SEC considers implementing new regulations on payment for order flow, including increased disclosure requirements and an outright ban, debate exists over the practicality of these regulatory changes. Brokerage firms like Robinhood argue that prohibiting payment for order flow altogether would stymie the democratization of American stock markets. In contrast, critics of the practice argue that the conflicts of interest that arise from payment for order flow necessitate enhanced regulation or an outright ban. This Note argues that banning payment for order flow is a necessary regulatory change for two principal reasons. First, a ban is necessary because it is impossible to eliminate the conflicts of interest that stem from the practice. Second, consent received by broker-dealers from retail investors to receive payment for order flow is inadequate under the common law of agency.

Deceiving the Young to Give to Themselves: Eliminating Payment for Order Flow to Ensure Loyal Agents

In the United States, student indebtedness is prevalent and will become even more so after the Biden Administration’s temporary pause on student loan repayments ceases. With total outstanding student loan debt at a peak of roughly $1.7 trillion, the market for student education requires an alternative to alleviate the need for students to assume more debt to finance education costs. In the past several years, income share agreements emerged as a popularly suggested solution to supplant federal aid. Given the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s recent consent order, however, income share agreements have become merely another form of debt. Furthermore, bargaining power in the income share agreement relationship lies completely in the hands of investors. One hypothetical alternative is to allow students to self-incorporate and offer shares to the universities, limiting voting power and restricting the power of shareholders through the certificate of incorporation. The legal approach to income share agreements reflects leniency with respect to an individual’s signing away future rights, indicating that the regulatory framework for self-incorporation, at least at the start, would be similar. By utilizing state corporate law, students can take control while seeking active buyers of shares from university to university as each endowment fund would serve as an accredited investor for the purposes of private placement. This alternative presents an equity option as students seek to limit their debt levels when pursuing higher education. This Note seeks to explore this alternative.

Welcome to LIRA@BC Law!

Featured Collections

The Alledger

Boston College Law Review

Boston College Law School Faculty Papers

Boston College Law School Lectures and Presentations

Recent Additions

Twisted Up: The Eleventh Circuit Standard for Immutability in EEOC v. Catastrophe Management Solutions

Disclaimers: The Solution to Source Confusion in Sports Merchandising?

The Supreme Court’s Missed Opportunity to Save Genus Claims in Life Sciences Patents

Front Matter

Deceiving the Young to Give to Themselves: Eliminating Payment for Order Flow to Ensure Loyal Agents

Exercising Your Corporate Rights: Self-Incorporation as an Equity Alternative to Student Loans

Welcome to LIRA@BC Law!

Featured Collections

.repo-96qggn{color:inherit;text-align:left;font-weight:500;line-height:2.3rem;font-size:1.8rem;overflow-wrap:break-word;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-line-clamp:4;overflow:hidden;hyphens:auto;}.repo-96qggn:hover{color:inherit;}The Alledger

Recent Additions

The Alledger