Canada’s Notwithstanding Clause: Not Standing With Fundamental Rights
On February 29, 2024, the Court of Appeal of Quebec issued a judgment on the constitutionality of Bill 21 (An Act Respecting the Laicity of the State) that immediately sparked outrage among civil liberties advocates. The controversial bill, passed by the National Assembly of Quebec in 2019, bans teachers, law enforcement officers, judges, and some other public employees from wearing religious symbols at work. This most recent ruling not only upheld the bill but also overturned an exemption that the Superior Court of Quebec had previously granted to staff of English schools in 2021. The dispute will likely move to the Supreme Court of Canada, with several organizations filing for leave to appeal. The Court of Appeal of Quebec’s ruling on Bill 21 ultimately highlights the manner in which the ambiguous language of Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms enables the violation of basic rights across Canada.
Read More
Social Media Bans: Balancing the Rights of Youth, Parents, and Governments
From TikTok dance challenges to live footage of global events, social media is an information distribution powerhouse, inevitably occupying the phones of all age demographics. However, this status is tainted by the widespread concern over its overconsumption primarily among younger people. In 2023, the National Institutes of Health published a research report that hypothesized strong correlations between social media usage and youth mental health concerns. As a result, many state legislatures have felt compelled to enact legislation restricting social media accessibility. State-issued bans that target minors between the ages of 13 and 18 infringe on the Fourth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, which protects parental rights to make decisions relating to their children’s care and education. In addition, state governments’ efforts to restrict social media usage in education reveal viewpoint discrimination that threatens free speech rather than effectively addressing youth mental health challenges.
Read More
The Safety of Rwanda Act: Impacts on the Principle of Non-Refoulement and Refugeeism
The “Safety of Rwanda Act”, also referred to as the UK-Rwanda Migrant Deal or the MEDP (Migration and Economic Development Partnership), was passed by the United Kingdom (UK) Parliament on April 25, 2024, despite the UK Supreme Court holding that the deal was unlawful in November of 2023. This Migrant Deal controversially legalized the deportation of asylum seekers, who entered the UK illegally, to Rwanda. This received backlash from the public and legal scholars, who claimed that the MEDP could place asylum seekers in unsafe living conditions and put their livelihoods at risk.
Read More
Employee or Independent Contractor? A Legal Analysis of Uber’s Worker Misclassification
Uber stands as a tangible representation of the fruits of modern-day technological innovation, yet the company continues to exploit its drivers who are paramount to its success. As of May 2024, Uber holds over 75 percent of the U.S. ridesharing market, with 149 million active users and 1.5 million drivers in the United States alone. With the sheer ubiquity of Uber’s services, something as fundamental as the status of Uber’s workers as “employees” or “independent contractors” should not still be up for debate. Uber’s reluctance to properly define their workers as either has directly resulted in their maltreatment, robbing them of proper employment benefits. Through a closer analysis of the Fair Labor Standards Act (1938) and the Employee or Independent Contractor Classification Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (2024) passed by the Department of Labor, it is clear that Uber’s workers are not economically independent enough from Uber to be considered independent contractors. Thus, Uber’s workers should be provided with the essential employee benefits granted under the Fair Labor Standards Act, such as paid sick leave and health insurance.
Read More
The Criminalization of Homelessness: Assessing the Eighth Amendment's Implications on Public Camping Law Enforcement
This past January, the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear the City of Grants Pass v. Johnson (2024). This pivotal case accuses an Oregon City of “cruel and unusual punishment” in its enforcement of anti-homelessness laws. To bar individuals who are involuntarily homeless from public camping directly violates the prohibitions against "cruel and unusual punishments" within the 8th Amendment. Upholding this constitutional right is crucial in navigating how homeless people are treated under the law.
Read More
Solitary Confinement and Prison Labor: Exploring the Legal Ambiguity Surrounding Cruel and Unusual Punishment
Boasting the largest incarceration rate in the world, the United States’ treatment of its nearly two million prisoners has been the basis for legal scrutiny since the country’s inception. The vagueness of the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution has allowed for constant redefinition of how “cruel and unusual punishment” towards prisoners is understood throughout America. For instance, in the Supreme Court case Estelle v. Gamble (1976), a prisoner’s work-related injury caused him to be punished and denied adequate medical attention. As a result, the court ruled that the prisoner’s constitutional rights had been violated, creating the precedent that the deprivation of necessary services or items to prisoners also qualified as cruel and unusual. More famously, the highly contentious issue of capital punishment has been either permitted or prohibited in prisons across state lines due to rulings regarding the Eighth Amendment; the absence of widespread legal consistency allowing for the injection of moral beliefs in decisions. For far too long, the ambiguity of the phrase “cruel and unusual punishment” has wrongfully protected many American prison systems from legal accountability for a multitude of mistreatments against prisoners–-including, but not limited to–a lack of basic worker’s rights and subjugation to solitary confinement.
Read More
Know Your Rights (And the Climate’s): Held v. State of Montana as a Catalyst for Enforcing State-Level Green Amendments
Held v. State of Montana is a landmark climate case, decided in August of 2023, in which it was ruled that youth in the state of Montana have the right to a “stable climate system” and that Montana has the duty as a state to act forcibly to reduce climate emissions. While Held marks a turning point for climate justice in Montana, it throws into sharp focus the historic inaction of state governments when it comes to climate change. Its calls for Montana to protect the climate system for the sake of its citizens are important but do not adequately address the processes that would need to occur to thoroughly mitigate this problem in the present and the future. When it comes to litigation against the government, we need to ensure that the victories in the courthouse are eventually preserved in the law, protecting them from changing administrations and securing their place in influencing the country’s future.
Read More
Islamic Republic of Iran v. Canada: An Evaluation of the Terrorism Exception to State Immunity
In 2012, Canada enshrined the terrorism exception to state immunity in the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act (JTVA), an amendment to the State Immunity Act (SIA) which enables private plaintiffs to bring civil cases against states deemed sponsors of terrorism. These are currently the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Syrian Arab Republic. On June 27, 2023, Iran sued Canada before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), alleging that this legislation violates customary international law. The normative implications of the court’s future ruling are not limited to Canada. Although the United States has not accepted the jurisdiction of the ICJ, Congress passed the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) in 2016, which plaintiffs can utilize to bring claims against Iran, Syria, North Korea, and Cuba. Based on “the restrictive theory of state immunity,” precedent relative to the ICJ and various national courts, and international legal requirements including state practice and opinio juris, the terrorism exception to state immunity as presented in the JTVA seems to violate customary international law when terrorist activities are acta jure imperii.
Read More
Weaponization of Colonial-Era Sedition Law: The Future of India’s Free Speech
In May 2022, the Indian Supreme Court heard the case SG Vombatkere v Union of India, which prompted a temporary halt and review of the enforcement of the sedition law located in Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Instituted by the British in 1870, India’s sedition law is a remnant of colonial rule criminalizing publication or speech that incites hatred or contempt toward the nation’s government. The Supreme Court will soon hear debate over its constitutionality as measured by Article 19 (1)(a) of the Indian Constitution which states “all citizens have the right to freedom of speech and expression.” Section 124a of the IPC squashes dissent and expression within the world’s largest democracy; with its use now manipulated by India’s rising authoritarianism, its amendment is necessary and rooted in precedent.
Read More
An Analysis of Feds for Medical Freedom v. Biden: The Implications for the Strength of the Unitary Executive
This past March, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit blocked President Biden’s vaccine mandate for federal employees, upholding an injunction entered by a lower court against the Biden Administration in the case Feds for Medical Freedom et al. v. Biden. The decision comes nearly a year and a half after President Biden signed executive orders in September 2021 which mandated that federal employees receive vaccination against COVID-19 or face employment termination. In upholding the injunction, the Fifth Circuit Court ruled that President Biden lacked the jurisdiction to enact a vaccine mandate for all federal employees. As the Court explained in its majority ruling, the Chief Executive did not have sole authority over “private, irreversible medical decisions made in consultation with private medical professionals outside the federal workplace,” despite the government’s claims. By its nature, this jurisdictional argument over certain federal employment matters reopens the broader debate over the power of the President to make personnel changes within the executive branch of government. However, while the ruling came as a setback for the Biden Administration’s policies, the ruling is not necessarily a permanent defeat for robust executive authority more broadly speaking.
Read More
From Reconstruction to Reproductive Justice: An Interview with Professor Widney Brown on the Role of the Thirteenth Amendment in (Re)securing Abortion Rights
Content Warning: This article contains sensitive themes of abuse, sexual assault, and violence that may be distressing to some readers.
“I have borne thirteen children, and seen most all sold off to slavery, and when I cried out with my mother’s grief, none but Jesus heard me! And ain’t I a woman?”
Read More
An Analysis of United States v. Texas: The Commodification of Undocumented Individuals in a Federal and State Government Power Struggle
On November 29, 2022, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments for United States v. Texas. A decision from the Supreme Court is expected to be released in June 2023 to either reinstate the Mayorkas Memorandum or vacate it, which would render a larger number of undocumented immigrants subject to deportation by ICE. The case’s ruling will have broad implications for states’ ability to challenge federal immigration policy through the judiciary, including possibly making established legal precedent concerning undocumented immigrants more easily contestable by anti-immigration states.
Read More
A Matter of Trust: The Sherman Act in the Age of Technology
On January 24, 2023, the U.S. Attorney General and the Attorney Generals of eight other states filed U.S. and Plaintiff States v. Google against Google LLC, the parent company of Google, YouTube, Waze, Fitbit, and numerous other Internet services, for violating Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act in the field of digital advertising. This antitrust lawsuit comes as no surprise, as Google is a ubiquitous household name in its corner of the Internet. But how did this action come about, why is it happening now, and what precedent will it set for the future of Internet advertising?
Read More
If It Bleeds, It Leads… to Liability Concerns?: Gonzalez v. Google, Online Terror, and the Need for Section 230 Reform
On November 13th, 2015, extremist terrorists targeted stadiums, concerts, and restaurants across Paris killing 130 and wounding 494 people, including an American student, Nohemi Gonzalez, who was studying at the Strate School of Design in Sèvres for a semester. Under the Antiterrorism Act (ATA), American citizens are given the right to sue for damages caused by acts of international terrorism, and the family of Gonzalez decided to exercise this right, though their suit takes a new approach to that form of liability.
Read More
Overseeing the Overseer: The Unchecked Power of the CFPB
The CFPB, a consolidation of seven federal agencies, currently enforces most regulations related to consumer finance. Enforcing consumer protections often invites broad interpretation, giving the agency extensive power over many economic sectors. The agency issues rules, investigates consumer complaints, supervises entities regulated by consumer protections, and takes enforcement action. This power, it seems, has not come with proportional oversight. While the CFPB is not alone in having unaccountable authority granted by Congress, the bureau’s unique characteristics make its constitutionality dubious.
Read More
The State, Nation, and Genocide: How the UN could apply the Genocide Convention to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine
In justifying Russia’s violent invasion of Ukraine, Russia claims that Ukraine is not a nation — just a part of Russia to be reabsorbed. This denial of Ukrainian nationhood illustrates how the convention on “Genocide” leaves an exploitable, undefined legal ambiguity: Given that the central framing of the Russia-Ukraine war — according to both Russia and Ukraine — is the legitimacy of the Ukrainian people, if Ukraine brought claims against Russia, the argument should reflect attempts to eliminate the Ukrainian state (ie. the government) and therefore the Ukrainian nation (ie. the people). Currently, neither the Convention on Genocide nor Crimes Against Humanity prohibit the elimination of a state in order to annihilate a nation. However, if the state and the nation were explicitly linked, Russia’s denial of and attack on the Ukrainian state could be defined as genocide.
Read More
Article 49.3 in France: A Political Tool
On October 19, 2022, Prime Minister of France Elisabeth Borne invoked the government’s “engagement of responsibility,” ceasing legislative debate over the state budget in the National Assembly (l’Assemblée nationale). Less than 24 hours later, Borne triggered the provision once again, this time for the Social Security finance bill (PLFSS). In response, the second and third largest political groups in Parliament—the left-wing Nouvelle Union Populaire Écologique et Sociale (NUPES) coalition and the right-wing Rassemblement National (RN)—filed motions of no confidence, which would ultimately end up rejected by the majority of Parliament.
Read More
New York Civil Court Judge Breaks Precedent Regarding Polyamorous Relationships
The Civil Court of the City of New York’s Judge, Karen May Bacdayan, broke precedent last year in her ruling that polyamorous partners, called “non-traditional” family members, should not automatically be denied legal rights. On September 23, Judge Bacdayan held in West 49th St., LLC v. O’Neill that the third partner, respondent Markyus O’Neill, to married couple Scott Anderson and Robert Romano was allowed to renew a lease in Anderson’s name. In the United States, the rights of polyamorous couples are confusing and seemingly non-existent; however, the general consensus is that the married spouses retain legal rights that the other partners do not receive. Therefore, Judge Bacdayan’s ruling in West 49th St., LLC v. O’Neill could have a dramatic impact on future polyamorous relationship case law if recognized by upper courts both on a state and federal level, having the potential to set a precedent on an otherwise legally unrecognized group.
Read More
Terminations of the Paramount Decrees: A Greenlight for Monopolies
In August 2020, during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, New York federal court terminated the Paramount Consent decrees. The federal court’s termination of these decrees suggests the idea that they have little to no effect in regulating the current market despite the recent conglomerations of streaming services. This calls into question the purpose of terminating “legacy” antitrust judgments that seemingly have no present-day ramifications.
Read More
Where Creativity and Copyright Collide: AWF v. Goldsmith and the Fight Over Fair Use
On October 12, 2022, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. (AWF) v. Goldsmith, a case that could become the most consequential copyright infringement dispute in decades. Goldsmith owes its significance to its focus on the (admittedly elusive) standard of artistic “transformativity,” which has so far led the court to consider the transformative qualities of art ranging from Mork and Mindy to the Mona Lisa, Lord of the Rings, and, somehow, Syracuse University football games. It is the first non-digital fair use case the Court has heard in nearly 30 years and concerns a series of 16 Andy Warhol portraits of the late musical icon Prince, the inspiration for which came from a 1984 headshot by music photographer Lynn Goldsmith. Goldsmith alleges that Warhol, in creating art that existed outside of a prior licensing deal she had with the magazine Vanity Fair, violated the copyright of her work. AWF, who currently owns the rights to Warhol’s work, argues instead that the transformative nature of the paintings qualify them as fair use.
Read More
