In a brightly lit classroom at the University of Nebraska at Omaha, the future of law is being written not by seasoned attorneys, but by undergraduate business students. Here, in Professor Destynie Sewell’s advanced legal studies research course, abstract concepts like algorithmic bias and patent ownership are pulled from tech headlines and dissected with the rigor of a Supreme Court brief. This isn’t a theoretical exercise. It’s a bootcamp for the next generation of professionals who will navigate and ultimately shape the rules governing our digital world.
“This is no small project,” Professor Sewell explains, her tone embodying the course’s demanding ethos. “They have to come up with a thesis, research that thesis, explain why the law is insufficient, who it harms, and how they think it can be made better. They are doing real legal research and real policy work.” For the past decade, this capstone project has been the culmination of UNO’s legal studies concentration, a 35-page gauntlet designed to mirror the intense analysis of law school. This year, Sewell focused that formidable energy on one domain: artificial intelligence.
Take senior Madalyn McKeone, who embarked on her research with a startling admission. “I didn’t even know what risk assessment tools were before this semester,” she says. Her paper confronts the growing use of proprietary AI systems to generate scores predicting a defendant’s risk of recidivism or failure to appear in court. As noted in analyses from sources like MIT Technology Review, these “black box” algorithms can influence bail, sentencing, and parole decisions, yet their inner workings are often shielded as trade secrets. McKeone’s argument cuts to a core constitutional principle. When defense counsel cannot access or challenge the data and logic behind a score, a defendant’s right to a meaningful defense is fundamentally compromised. “The more I researched, the more I realized how little public awareness there is,” McKeone observes. “AI is here to stay, and this is a pivotal time to be setting integrity with these tools.” Her academic journey—returning to school with a renewed purpose after personal challenges—found its focal point here, solidifying her plans for law school and advocacy.
Across the room, junior Grace Cyiza wrestled with a challenge from the opposite end of the innovation spectrum. Her research plunged into the tangled question of AI and inventorship, centered on the landmark case Thaler v. Vidal. In that dispute, a patent application listed an AI system called DABUS as the inventor, a move flatly rejected by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and courts. Cyiza’s work traced how patent law, built on centuries of precedent assuming a “natural person” as the inventor, is straining under the weight of modern machine collaboration. “Patent law has always assumed a natural mind,” Cyiza notes. “But when AI is being prompted, refining ideas and becoming part of the workflow, it creates a gray area.” Her analysis, informed by legal scholarship from outlets like Wired, explores the profound business implications. If AI cannot be an inventor, who owns the output of a machine that operates with significant autonomy? The answer will directly impact investment, startup formation, and national competitive advantage in fields like biotechnology and materials science.
Sewell’s mission transcends creating future lawyers. She sees legal studies in a business curriculum as foundational literacy for the 21st-century workplace. “Every company has legal issues,” she states. “Every company needs people who can recognize risk, understand regulation, and know when legal questions matter.” This philosophy transforms the classroom into a laboratory for applied critical thinking. Students learn to deconstruct complex systems, identify stakeholders and harms, and architect persuasive, evidence-based recommendations.
The course culminates not just in a paper, but in a defense. This spring, Sewell organized a symposium where students presented their findings to a formidable audience of faculty, alumni, tech professionals, and legal scholars. The goal was constructive confrontation. “The point was to hear their arguments and poke holes in them,” Sewell says. “That way, when we get to competitions this year, they’re prepared.” This process of peer and professional review sharpens their ideas, forcing students to anticipate counterarguments and fortify their logic. It’s a microcosm of the real-world policy arena, where ideas must withstand intense scrutiny.
The outcomes speak to the model’s power. Sewell’s students consistently earn national competition honors, and some have seen their policy proposals forwarded to federal agencies. But the deeper impact is personal. For some, the project confirms a calling to law. For others, it reveals the sheer scale of the challenge, offering a valuable dose of clarity. “I think for some students, it’s the first time they realize they can actually affect policy change,” Sewell reflects. “If you had told them as freshmen that one day they’d be writing their own policy proposal, they might not have believed you.”
The experience leaves an indelible mark on how students perceive the structures around them. McKeone talks about gaining the confidence to dissect legal issues, regardless of her ultimate career path. Cyiza emphasizes the unexpected intersections the field reveals. “Be open,” she advises. “There is so much that comes from just having the willingness to ask questions.” In an era where technology perpetually outpaces regulation, this is the crucial skill. We are all living in Sewell’s classroom now, facing daily questions about data privacy, algorithmic fairness, and intellectual property. The work at UNO suggests that the solutions won’t come solely from Silicon Valley engineers or Washington lawmakers. They will emerge from the kind of interdisciplinary, ethically grounded thinking being practiced in Omaha, where students are learning not just to interpret the rules, but to draft them for a world they are poised to lead.
- Real legal research and policy work
- Understanding algorithmic bias
- Exploring AI and inventorship
- Decoding complex legal systems
- Engaging with technological advancement
- Gaining skills for the 21st-century workplace
| Student Name | Research Focus | Key Challenges |
|---|---|---|
| Madalyn McKeone | Risk Assessment Algorithms | Access to data and logic |
| Grace Cyiza | AI and Inventorship | Natural person assumption in patent law |
