Ï㽶Ðã

The January 2025 issue of Boston College Law Review is now available. The issue features two articles by outside authors as well as four student notes. Summaries of the six pieces can be found below. The full texts are also .

by Jacob Hamburger

Over the past decade, state attorneys general have become emboldened to file lawsuits asking federal courts to invalidate executive actions on immigration. As a result, lower courts have grappled with complex questions of when states have Article III standing to sue the federal government. In its 2023 decision in United States v. Texas, the Supreme Court addressed these issues directly for the first time, holding that Texas lacked standing to challenge the Biden administration's civil immigration enforcement guidelines. But the Court reached this conclusion on narrow grounds, failing to provide a clear indication of when states might have standing in other immigration disputes. This Article provides a framework for state standing grounded in an analysis of immigration federalism. It argues that states have sovereign interests for standing purposes where the federal system grants them authority over the enforcement or regulation of immigration. By adopting a federalism-informed approach to standing, this Article seeks to promote state accountability and avoid undermining work relationships between state and federal government on immigration issues. 

by Evelyn Marcelina Rangel-Medina 

COVID-19 reshaped almost every aspect of economic activity and working life in the United States. It also amplified existing racial, gender, and eco- nomic disparities, significantly impacting working people. Specifically, low-wage essential workers of color experienced higher levels of exposure, long-term health complications, and COVID-19-related deaths than other workers. Thus, the episodic allocation of pandemic health risks tracks and illustrates inequalities that require more extensive solutions in the workplace. This Article demonstrates how race, gender, and citizenship shape the employment and life outcomes of essential workers who sustained the economy throughout the pandemic. Building on a health justice framework, it fills a gap in legal scholarship by identifying six employment-related factors compounding systemic inequalities. Profiling COVID-19-related lawsuits involving low-wage workers, it also analyzes the effectiveness of available legal remedies. In light of impending health and climate change pandemics, this Article provides actionable steps to protect the most vulnerable among us. 

by Trevor Fry

The simple swipe or tap of a credit card creates ripple effects that impact people and parties at every stage of the economic food chain. Throughout the last century, the credit card industry has been allowed to grow with practically no hindrance or foresight of its repercussions. Furthermore, the sector has been a well-documented engine of increasing financial inequality, representing an area of the economy that necessitates more forceful regulation. Legislation regarding the credit card industry has largely focused on increasing and clarifying consumer-facing disclosure and stamping out its most predatory practices; however, these laws have been unable to make meaningful progress in advancing financial equity. This Note argues that increased financial equity in this industry can be achieved by taxing the rewards that people earn from their credit cards as if those rewards were regular income. By engaging in such a taxing scheme, the U.S. Congress, the Internal Revenue Service, and the courts can set an effective example and signal that the credit card industry can no longer act as an unrestricted private marketplace operating outside the norms of taxation.

by William Wheeler

In 2002, in Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., the U.S. Supreme Court significantly changed patent law when it rejected the Federal Circuit’s absolute bar approach to prosecution history estoppel. The decision expanded the doctrine of equivalents by creating three exceptions to prosecution history estoppel. Of the three exceptions, however, the Court provided de minimis guidance on the tangential amendment exception, leaving the Federal Circuit to sort out when a narrowing claim amendment is only tangentially related to a claimed equivalent. This ambiguity has resulted in pronounced inconsistency among Federal Circuit panels in deciphering the scope of this exception. Differing judicial approaches in interpreting gaps within the prosecution history record have further compounded this inconsistency. Moreover, the nuanced challenges that patents in complex and evolving fields pose has led to a more lenient application of the exception in these fields compared to patents in other domains. Consequently, the jurisprudence stands in a state of disarray, lacking the essential clarity needed for equitable implementation. This Note argues that to rectify this ambiguity and align with the Festo decision, patentees should be allowed to present extrinsic evidence. Relying solely on intrinsic evidence, which often offers limited and unreliable information, has overly emphasized the notice function of the prosecution record. The Warner-Jenkins presumptions, combined with extrinsic evidence to challenge estoppel through tangentiality, presents a balanced approach, promoting fairness and equity among patentees.

by Carolyn Zaccaro

In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates sunscreen as an over-the-counter (OTC) drug and not a cosmetic, subjecting it to the agency’s OTC drug review process. In 1999, the FDA published a final set of standards for marketing sunscreens in the United States, called a monograph. Since its publication, the FDA has tried to amend the monograph with little success. Congress has also acted to ease the procedural burdens and hurdles the FDA faces in updating the monograph, but these attempts brought about little change in sunscreen regulations. The United States’ efforts to properly update the standards for sunscreen pale in comparison to other countries, such as those in the European Union and parts of Asia. There, sunscreens are regulated as cosmetics, and new sunscreen ingredients face a different review process, leading to approval of newer and more effective ingredients on an expedited basis. Meanwhile, the FDA has taken a risk-averse approach to sunscreens, and in particular, approvals of new sunscreen active ingredients, as they have consistently denied approvals for new ingredients due to insufficient safety data. This approach has impeded meaningful progress for sunscreens—the last time the FDA approved a new sunscreen active ingredient to be broadly used in sunscreens was in 1999. Some groups support the FDA’s risk-aversion, but others question whether such stringency actually benefits public health long-term. This Note argues that the FDA’s risk-averse approach improperly balances sunscreen safety with public health. To better serve the FDA’s mission of consumer protection, Congress should step in to fund public research or provide enticing incentives for industry stakeholders to encourage them to take up the costs associated with the rigorous, yet crucial, safety testing.

 by Solange Stamatos

Influencer marketing has rapidly evolved from a casual practice to an essential and increasingly regulated industry. The COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent global lockdowns accelerated this shift by confining consumers indoors and pushing them into a largely virtual world. In this digital landscape, influencer marketing emerged as a key strategy for brands seeking to enhance visibility and engagement. The saturation of social media spaces with influencer content has intensified the urgency around purchasing decisions and blurred the line between entertainment and commerce. Despite its effectiveness, influencer marketing raises significant concerns about deceptive practices—such as undisclosed sponsorships and misleading endorsements—that evade regulatory oversight and erode consumer trust. This Note argues that the Federal Trade Commission’s slow and reactive response to these practices inadvertently fosters unfair competition and compromises consumer loyalty. To protect consumers and strengthen the integrity of influencer marketing, this Note proposes a range of proactive regulatory strategies, including technological solutions, federal-state partnerships, voluntary certification, educational initiatives, and increased brand accountability.