by Shaun Manning
We know that Daredevil’s double life as attorney Matt Murdock presents several challenges and opportunities (as well as some sticky ethical questions), but when should other superheroes lawyer up? Come to think about it, what laws do — or even can — apply to the superpower community?
Jack Phoenix, a public librarian specializing in comics and the author of Maximizing the Impact of Comics in Your Library, assembled a team of panelists to discuss the thorny legal issues that may arise in a comic book universe — and assigned them a side to argue like a high school debate. Ignition Press Director of Marketing Breanna Sarpy teamed with writer and former lawyer David M. Booher to contest with writer Kyle Higgins and Gamal Hennessy, an attorney specializing in comics.
Apropos of the new Superman movie, Phoenix’ first legal quandary was, “Is Krypto a dog or legally an exotic pet?” Hennessy and Higgins were given “dog,” while Sarpy and Booher had “exotic pet.”
Hennessy “Krypto is a breed of dog,” Hennessy began. “In most states you don’t create a new law for each breed of dog.”
Higgins, who has written for Krypto, added, ‘I know Krypto, I’ve talked to Krypto. He identifies as a dog.”
“We are filing a change of venue to Texas,” Booher responded.
Sarpy noted that, even if Krypto is a dog, he may still legally be an exotic pet, citing the example of certain breeds of felines. “You can’t have a lion at home,” she said. ”Yes, he is a canine, but he is not a regular canine; he can fly.”
“Is he a canine? What is his DNA?” Booher added. He continued that it may come down to public policy areas, since if Krypto is not trainable he presents a danger.
“It’s more a problem of the owner if they are not good dogs,” Higgins said.
“If he were to disobey you, he could throw you into the stratosphere. You would be yeeted into the universe,” Booher retorted. There was then a bit of crosstalk about whether you would actually want your dog to fly.
By audience applause, Krypto was declared an exotic pet.
Next on the docket: If Professor Xavier read someone’s mind and found out they committed a crime, should that evidence be admissible in court? Booher and Sarpy argued yes. Hennessy and Higgins, no.
“This is a search and seizure issue,” Booher conceded, but in Professor X’s world he’s not the only one who can read minds so there is less reasonable expectation of privacy. “Any of those lurid thoughts .. those would not be protected and would be admissible,” he said.
“You have a 5th amendment right not to incriminate yourself,” Hennessy said. “This is the textbook definition of unreasonable search and seizure.” While Professor X would not be able to testify against you, “he could write a really nasty blog about you.”
“If you were in the proximity of Professor Xavier and had that thought, that’s on you,” Sarpy said. “Why would you put yourself in that position, if Professor X is right over there I’m going to have this bad thought.”
Higgins replied, “Any judge except for a few in Florida or Texas would throw this out.”
When put to the jury, only one person clapped for yes, a clear victory for Hennessy and Higgins’ argument that the evidence is not admissible.
“I respect it,” Sarpy said.
The third case posed the question of whether extraterrestrials like Superman, Thor, and Hawkman would be considered humans and citizens, and if not, do they have any rights at all?
Immediately an audience member shouted, “Who’s president?”
According to Hennessy, Superman and powerful beings like him “would be considered human for public policy reasons,” which he explained means “there may not be a law. but it would make sense.”
He said that a nation might grant them citizenship in the hopes they would use their abilities “for the good of the United States,” but if they are not citizens, “What are we gonna do about it? You gonna send ICE after Superman?”
Since the government effectively can’t enforce its immigration laws against superhumans, either by removing or incarcerating them, there is a clear benefit to making them citizens.
Continuing on this line, Higgins added, “Do you believe in a functional democracy?” Then they have rights. In addition to the “carrot” of national heroes using their powers for good, he said, there’s also the “stick,” which would be a nation’s position in the metahuman arms race that would exist in a world like the DC or Marvel universes. “If you are telling Superman, Hawkman, and Thor you are not welcome here, someone else is going to take them in.”
Taking up the other side of this thread, however, Booher suggests that under Higgins’ scenario, Hawkman could negotiate for best citizenship deal. “How much do you give up to these metahumans so that they protect us?” He cited The Boys universe, where “heroes” would extort the U.S. to be its bodyguards.
Hennessy responded, though, that all a country could really offer is the benefits that normal citizens enjoy. “There is nothing we can offer them in terms of food or security,” he said. “What are we going to offer them, Bitcoin?”
Higgins noted, though, that the United States now has a “gold citizen card” that “lets you skip the line,” and that having superpowers would have much the same effect as paying that $5 million fee.
Sarpy began her follow-up comment by stating that she would argue the side she’d been given and that this doesn’t reflect her personal views. “If they cannot be hurt or contained, they cannot adhere to our laws,” she said following the caveat. “Why don’t we have some sort of accord with them. They can be ambassadors from where they’re from.” Hennessy describes this as “observer status,” similar to the Vatican, and explains that under Sarpy’s scenario they couldn’t vote for president but can exist in society.
Building on this, Booher suggests that rather than thinking of the metahumans as individuals representing, say, Krypton or Asgard, they could be considered collectively as a single country.“Treat them as a negotiating partner like we do with other countries with dangerous weapons.”
Phoenix, the moderator, then brought up the United States’ foundling statute, stating that if an infant is found on U.S. soil they are a citizen and asked how this may affect the panelists’ argument. He brought up the John Byrne version of Superman, who rather than rocketing to earth as a baby was “hatched” on U.S. soil.
“Then he would be a natural born citizen,” Higgins said, before reconsidering. “Actually, I have never heard of a human hatching, so if you were hatched you are not human.”
The verdict by applause strips Kal-El of legal status.
Phoenix’s fourth scenario cited Jonathan Hickman’s “Time Runs Out” storyline, in which Namor destroys an alternate universe to save his. The question, then, is can Namor be tried for genocide?
Sarpy, taking the Yes position along with Booher, began by stating that beings in both universes have a right to exist. “I’m sorry, that sucks to suck, but you should not have to destroy another universe to save your own,” she said.
Booher added that the question is one of self defense and defense of others. “How much destruction can you inflict on others?” He said that you cannot sacrifice one race of beings to save another, because this puts Namor in the position to choose who lives and who dies.
On the “Namor did nothing wrong” side, Hennessy said that the question again comes down to public policy. “If you are going to have a set of laws that would allow the destruction of your universe, what is the purpose of those laws?” Presumably the other universe would have the same laws. “Their legal protections are for that universe,” he said, adding, “We should not be telling people who have the ability to save us from ultimate destruction, ‘don’t do that.’”
Higgins, supporting his teammate Hennessy, noted that, “Everyone is still alive in our universe.” He also wonders, “Who is aware that Namor did this if the other universe is gone?”
Hennessy suggests, though, that as in Marvels, if there’s a newspaper that follows superhero exploits, “Everybody knows that Namor did this.” But who’s going to want to put Namor in jail for saving the universe? He described the situation as an existential threat where “they’ve got to do what they’ve got to do,” and perhaps superheroes in alternate reality “need to get off their ass and save their universe”
Team No wins by applause (by a lot).
The final question asked the legal minds, who owns the rights to the Avengers name in the MCU–Sam Wilson or the Thunderbolts. None of the panelists had seen Thunderbolts* so they spoke more generally about trademark law. Hennessy said it would come down to “whoever files first in the category of goods and services that the Avengers are offering.” They could both file for different services but that could cause confusion.
“What would probably happen at that point is that representatives from Stark Industries would say, “hey wait a minute, we paid for the building, we paid for the planes,” and challenge the filing. Hennessy continued. “Sam Wilson would lose that fight.”
Booher suggested Sam might retire from superheroics and form a business as Avengers Asphalt. To which an audience member shouted, “That’s America’s asphalt!”
With the score tied 2-2, Phoenix called for a show of applause to determine which team won overall. The verdict: Higgins and Hennessy made their case.
Stay tuned to The Beat for more coverage from SDCC ’25.
SDCC COVERAGE SPONSORED BY MAD CAVE
