Ipse Dixit

In this episode, Rohan Grey, Assistant Professor of Law at Willamette University School of Law, discusses his draft article "Digitizing the Fisc." Grey begins by explain how the Trump administration and Elon Musk have seized unilateral control of the administrative state through federal payment systems. He explains how those systems work and why their current structure makes it impossible for Congress to prevent a determined president from hobbling the administrative state. He proposes an alternative structure for the public fisc, using digital currency system managed by Congress. He explains how that alternative system would enable Congress to assert its full power over the budget and protect the government from a rogue executive. Grey is on Twitter and Bluesky. You can find more information on his website.This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye and on Bluesky at @brianlfrye.bsky.social.

In this episode, Dan Rabinowitz, founder and CEO of Pre/Dicta, a litigation analytics platform that uses artificial intelligence to predict the outcome of lawsuits, explains how the platform works, why it is useful, and who might find value in using it.This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye and on Bluesky at @brianlfrye.bsky.social.

In this episode, Gregory M. Dickinson, Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln College of Law, discusses his article "The Patterns of Digital Deception," which is published in the Boston College Law Review. Dickinson begins by explaining why it's important to prevent online fraud, but also important to prevent it effectively and efficiently. He observes that many current legislative efforts to prevent online fraud will probably be ineffective, in part because they target technologies that have both fraudulent and non-fraudulent uses, and in part because they will be easy for fraudsters to avoid, He argues that different approaches may be more effective, including encouraging private litigation and targeting regulation to specific bad actors. Dickinson is on Twitter at @gmdickinson.This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye and on Bluesky at @brianlfrye.bsky.social.

In this episode, Jonathon J. Booth, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Colorado Law School, discusses his draft article, "A New Satanic Panic." Booth begins by describing the "satanic panic" of the 1980s and early 1990s, during which many people were prosecuted for and even convicted of crimes associated with imaginary satanic rituals. He explains how the satanic panic began and why so many people found it compelling. And he argues that we should be wary of a new version of the satanic panic emerging today. Booth is on Twitter at @JBooth_history.This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye and on Bluesky at @brianlfrye.bsky.social.

In this episode, Sarah Fackrell (formerly Burstein), Professor and Co-Director of the Program in Intellectual Property Law at Chicago-Kent College of Law, discusses her article The Counterfeit Sham, which is published in the Harvard Law Review. Fackrell begins by explaining why counterfeiting is uniquely bad and why design patent infringement is different from counterfeiting. She then explains how some design patent plaintiffs are using counterfeit rhetoric to convince judges to give them litigation advantages that might be appropriate for plaintiffs in counterfeiting cases, but not in design patent infringement cases. Fackrell posts on Bluesky here.This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye.

In this episode, Samantha Alecozay, a practicing faculty member at St. Mary’s University School of law, and the founding attorney of Alecozay Law Firm, PLLC, discusses her forthcoming article, “The Small Business Killer: How FinCEN Enforcement of the CTA Could Destroy the Last Bastion of the American Dream,” which will be published by the Lincoln Memorial University Law Review. In the meantime, it’s available to download on SSRN.Alecozay describes the Corporate Transparency Act, which came into effect on January 1, 2024. The CTA is meant to create a national database of owner information for certain business entities with the goal of combating money laundering. But, as Alecozay details, the law both fails to target the most likely culprits and applies to a vast array of innocent businessowners. Failure to provide the detailed information requested may result in civil penalties of nearly $600 per day, and only a small portion of the millions of businesses affected are aware of the law’s requirement. Alecozay addresses the challenges of enforcing such a broadly applicable statute, as well as the potential for significant damages and disruption to businessowners caught unawares by the CTA’s requirements.This episode was hosted by Michael L. Smith, Assistant Professor of Law at St. Mary’s University School of Law. Smith is on Twitter (or “X”) at @msmith750, and is on BlueSky at @msmith750@bksy.social.