The San Miguel gate, located in the Tohono O’odham Nation (“People of the Desert”; hereafter TON), has allowed tribal members to continue to roam in the lands of the Sonoran Desert that is now divided between the U.S. and Mexico. Passage through San Miguel was for several years not complicated and allowed passage both by foot and by vehicle. The first major closure occurred in late 2016, when a unnamed Mexican private property owner (PPO) built an additional gate and fencing on his own accord and closed passage off via vehicles, allegedly because of private concerns related to drug cartels. TON members brought this issue to the Mexican consulate, whose response was that “[they were] not able to enforce or to directly investigate such matters.” TON members protested the closure, as several family members could no longer visit each other, pilgrimages to sacred sites became difficult to arrange, and access to groceries became restricted. Tribal members are still allowed in by-foot, but opening of the gate is sporadic and has contributed to several adverse effects. Vehicles have continued to be banned since 2016 and CBP enforces this request, assumingly on the private property owner’s behalf.

My parents live in a small neighborhood composed of five sets of three adjoining houses. Each trio of houses faces the road, and each house has a courtyard in the back. The courtyards are connected by gates that allow contractors, such as landscapers, and visitors to pass through from one end of the row to the other. The middle courtyard is blocked off from the street on both sides, and there is no alley or road touching the courtyards that would allow another mode of entry other than through the front of the house. Consequently, the neighborhood homeowners’ association (HOA) requires that all connecting gates remain unlocked.

I was raised in a ranching town within a small HOA-regulated neighborhood. As a kid, I spent countless afternoons playing tennis on our neighborhood court. Just beyond the court stretched an open field that all the homeowners shared as common property. But the portion of the field closest to the court told a different story. One of our neighbors had enclosed it with a fence, built horse stables, and kept his horses there. He maintained the enclosure, controlled access to it, and used the space as if it were his own.

Generative AI has brought a number of gifts and burdens to the world, particularly in the field of intellectual property law. AI has challenged norms about what can be patented, who (or what) can create artwork, what rights of publicity celebrities have to defend themselves regarding AI imitations of their likeness, and where those rights and limits begin and end.

Tuvalu’s sinking raises questions about the private property interests of Tuvaluan property owners. Using American property law as a reference point, we can uncover approaches to answer whether Tuvalu’s national status can be preserved under a theory of property.

“I would never wish to incorporate this technology into my work at all. I strongly feel that [AI] is an insult to life itself.” —Hayao Miyazaki

Studio Ghibli is a Japanese animation company established in 1985 by artist Hayao Miyazaki. Studio Ghibli crafted a distinguishable artistic style of animation with international appeal. Today, the studio is worth $245 million and maintains strict licensing and film distribution rights throughout North America, Europe, and Asia.