hetherington profile

Clinical Associate Professor & Wilbanks Child Endangerment and Sexual Exploitation Clinic Director Emma M. Hetherington was featured in The Independent regarding sex trafficking allegations at an Atlanta hotel. The article titled "Customers complained about prostitution at this hotel chain for years. The company claimed it didn’t see it" was written by Richard Hall and Alicja Hagopian and was published 7/8/24. The article was republished by other media outlets including Bloomberg Law and Yahoo! News.

orford

Assistant Professor Adam D. Orford was featured in The Current regarding the U.S. Supreme Court's Chevron deference doctrine decision. The article titled "Sapelo Residents Petition for Special Election" was written by Mary Landers and published 7/10/24.

orford

Assistant Professor Adam D. Orford was featured in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution regarding the U.S. Supreme Court's Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo decision. The article titled "Supreme Court upends federal regulation. What it means for Georgia" was written by Michael E. Kanell and Drew Kann and was published 7/3/24.

hetherington profile

Clinical Associate Professor & Wilbanks Child Endangerment and Sexual Exploitation Clinic Director Emma M. Hetherington was featured in The Independent regarding sex trafficking allegations at an Atlanta hotel. The article titled "She was forced to have sex with 8 men a day: Victims reveal the horrors of sex trafficking at more than 100 hotels" was written by Richard Hall and Alicja Hagopian and was published 7/8/24. The article was republished by other media outlets including Bloomberg Law and Yahoo! News.

beck resized

Marshall Chair of Constitutional Law Randy Beck has offered insight on the U.S. Supreme Court decisions regarding Moody v. NetChoice & NetChoice v. Paxton: “The Court remanded both cases for further proceedings, concluding that the lower courts had not conducted a sufficiently thorough analysis of the reach of the Texas and Florida laws to determine whether they were facially invalid under the First Amendment."