Artificial intelligence policy has often been characterized as a contest between those urging rapid innovation and those seeking greater regulation. A recently released statement entitled Pacing the Frontier suggests that this characterization may no longer be sufficient.

Signed by more than one thousand researchers and employees from leading AI organizations (including OpenAI, Anthropic, Google DeepMind, Meta, Microsoft, Amazon, and others) the statement does not advocate halting AI research. Instead, it urges governments to help develop the technical and institutional mechanisms needed to ensure that future advances remain under meaningful human oversight.

We started this term needing to make real choices about our budget. We made cuts. We didn’t get to do everything we wanted to do this year, and I won’t pretend otherwise. But we close this term with a balanced budget and a Section that is genuinely better off than the one that I inherited. Building off the hard work of past Chairs Tina Luongo and Sidney Butcher, that discipline is something I’m proud to hand to the next Chair. And even with those constraints, our programming grew, our resolutions grew; Committee participation is up across the board. That is the real health of this section.

MELBA’S VIDEO.

S. 3733, a bill to amend the Passport Act of June 4, 1920, to authorize certain public libraries to collect and retain a fee for the execution of a passport application as ordered reported by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on June 17, 2026. This bill would authorize the Department of State to restore the ability of nongovernmental public libraries to accept passport applications. The bill also would require the department to report to the Congress within 30 days of enactment on whether it has done so.

COST ESTIMATE,

Opinion Summaries Posted for Week Ending  July 24 ,2026

Criminal Law

Opinion Summaries Posted for Week Ending  July 17 ,2026

Criminal Law

The 2025 W&L Law Journal Rankings are now available!

Released on July 15, 2026, the 2025 Rankings provide citation data and calculated ranks for the top 400 U.S.-published law journals and the top 100 law journals published outside the United States. Journals ranked below these thresholds display “NR” (Not Ranked) for each data category and are listed alphabetically. The survey span of the 2025 ranking is five years (2021-2025). For more information about the new and previous rankings, please see our Methodology page.

The legislation recognizes that unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) have become increasingly valuable investigative tools while also raising significant privacy concerns. Until now, Ohio law addressed some warrant requirements for surveillance conducted from manned aircraft but did not specifically regulate drones. House Bill 251 fills that gap by extending traditional constitutional search principles to unmanned aerial surveillance.

Principal Provisions

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) plays a central role in informing Congress by providing independent, nonpartisan analyses of federal budgetary and economic issues. Over the past three months, the agency has issued a wide range of budget and economic analyses, cost estimates, and other analytical products in support of Congress throughout the legislative process.

Over the past three months, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has issued a wide range of budget and economic analyses, cost estimates, and other analytical products in support of Congress throughout the legislative process as discussed in

The CBO’s Quarter in Review: July 2006 linked to this post is a report that serves as a companion to CBO’s Recent Publications and Work in Progress (June 30, 2026), providing an overview of the agency’s recent publications as well as reports and studies scheduled for release in the coming months.

Opinion Summaries Posted for Week Ending  July 10 ,2026

Criminal Law

Few issues illustrate the continuing moral and legal debate over capital punishment more clearly than the sharply contrasting positions of Pope Leo XIV and Donald Trump. One approaches the death penalty primarily as a question of the inherent dignity of every human person; the other views it principally as an essential instrument of justice, punishment, and public safety.

This difference is not merely theological or political. It reflects two fundamentally different understandings of criminal justice, the purposes of punishment, and the role of government in responding to the most serious crimes.