March 31, 2026
Dear Readers,
We are excited to present the Winter 2026 Issue of Volume XXXII of the Richmond Journal of Law & Technology (JOLT). The theme for our second issue is Seeing and Being Seen – Visibility, Surveillance, and the Law, including three articles that discuss innovative and timely topics at the intersection of law and technology.
Our first article is written by Daphne Singer, a third-year law student at American University Washington College of Law and the Note & Comment Editor for the American University Law Review. Ms. Singer’s article examines trade dress law under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act as a tool for protecting visual identity in the luxury goods market. Using David Yurman v. Mejuri, the article analyzes how courts assess secondary meaning, functionality, and likelihood of confusion, and ultimately concludes that David Yurman likely could not satisfy the elements required to prevail on its trade dress infringement claim. In doing so, the article illuminates the limits of legal protection for aesthetic distinctiveness and asks what it means for a brand’s “look” to belong to it.
The second article is authored by Olivia Sharp, a third-year law student at the University of Colorado School of Law. Ms. Sharp’s article discusses the Supreme Court decision in TikTok. v. Garland, which upheld restrictions on foreign corporate ownership by applying a more relaxed “intermediate” level of judicial review rather than strict scrutiny. Ms. Sharp examines the case’s legislative history and national security implications moving forward, arguing for a more rigorous strict scrutiny analysis to ensure that the infrastructure of modern communication is not inadvertently dismantled. The article asks how much visibility a foreign government should be permitted to have into American digital life, and how much power Congress should have to decide.
Our third article comes from Kira Johnson, a third-year law student at the University of Richmond School of Law and the Copy Editor for JOLT. Ms. Johnson’s article brings to light the constitutional issues of video surveillance. Specifically, she argues that although electronic monitoring is often presented as a humane alternative to incarceration, it frequently extends punishment through constant surveillance, financial strain, and psychological harm without meaningfully reducing recidivism. Using Richmond, Virginia as a case study, it contends that these systems disproportionately burden poor communities of color and suggests that less invasive, community-based alternatives would better support rehabilitation and fairness.
I would like to thank our amazing authors for their impact and contributions to our journal and the legal field through their scholarship. Second, thank you to the JOLT Staff, Editorial, and Executive Boards for the hard work you put in to make this Issue possible, with a special shout out to my Copy Editors, Tori Lahnston and Kira Johnson. Finally, a special thank you to Lara Ballout and the rest of the incoming Executive Board of Volume 33.
On behalf of JOLT’s Staff, Editorial, and Executive Board of Volume 32, we hope you enjoy Issue Two.
Chelsea Marie Mojica
Executive Editor, Volume XXXII
ARTICLES
By: Daphne Singer
Judicial Underreach: Tiktok Inc. v. Garlands’s Implications For National Security And Free Speech
By: Olivia Sharp
Richmond Electronic Monitoring: The City Sees You While You’re Sleeping
By: Fakira D. Johnson