A Conservative Supermajority on the Supreme Court and its Impact on Affirmative Action
With the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Dobbs v. Jackson’s Women’s Health Organization (2022), where five Supreme Court justices voted to overturn the precedent set by Roe v. Wade (1973), the Court demonstrated a willingness to question, and even overturn, past precedent. Among the contentious cases for this term is Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, a case concerning affirmative action and discrimination in the college admissions process. Students for Fair Admissions will be the first affirmative action case the Court has decided since it largely upheld the use of race as a factor in college admissions decisions in 2016. However, the current makeup of the Court, of which three Trump-appointed justices have cemented a conservative supermajority, likely represents the end of the constitutionality of affirmative action, with Students for Fair Admissions being a key case in overturning past precedent.
Read More
Limits to the Scope and Enforceability of U.S.-Russia Sanctions
On February 22, 2022, the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC)’s issuance of the related Directive 1A under the Executive Order on Blocking Property (EO 14024) pioneered a series of sanctions impacting various entities (notably commercial) under U.S. jurisdiction. In the spring of 2022, the Special Russian Sanctions Authority Act of 2022 was introduced in the Senate and ultimately signed into law, legalizing the expansion of the existing sanctions against the assets of Russian political elites since the onset of the Russia-Ukraine war. In analyzing the application of U.S. contract law, professional codes of conduct for U.S. attorneys, and the limits of U.S. jurisdiction as it concerns these government sanctions, one may discover limitations to the long list of sanctions against Russian entities and their enforceability.
Read More
Paradox or Contradiction? Antitrust Law in Labor Markets
Earlier this year, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Justice Department (DOJ) launched a joint inquiry investigating the “impact of monopsony power, including in labor markets.” While monopoly describes a single producer or group thereof manipulating a market, monopsony is the condition of a single buyer doing the same. To conceptualize monopsony in labor markets, think of the “Company Town.” A single firm employs all or most workers in a town. The firm has no competition when hiring townsfolk. The townsfolk do not have an alternative venue for employment. This allows the firm to set wages with minimal to no negotiation as the sole buyer of labor, behaving as a monopsony. In labor markets, workers supply while firms purchase labor. Yet, there is reason to think that recent antitrust developments by the FTC will be another lame duck in Washington.
Read More
Divided We Fall: How Two Upcoming Supreme Court Cases Threaten to Derail Democracy
In just a few months, the Supreme Court will issue decisions on two pivotal cases that will determine the course of democracy in the United States. The challenges to voting rights presented in these cases threaten to diminish the voting power of large swaths of voters by potentially allowing for more gerrymandered congressional maps and giving states nearly unchecked regulatory power over elections, undermining an election system that should be impartial and democratic.
Read More
It’s Time We Defend the First Amendment on Social Media
Traditionally, the First Amendment has protected speech in public spaces. But when virtually all political expression takes place on privately owned forums, it becomes a governmental duty to defend that fundamental right when it is threatened, whether that be in the streets and in parks or on the internet. When Twitter disabled then-president Donald Trump’s account following the 2021 Capitol riot, reactions were mixed across the political spectrum. While some praised the move as responsible content moderation, others condemned it as just one instance among many of anti-conservative bias on social media platforms. Yet there was one thing everyone could agree on: the debate over the role of social media in politics was only just beginning.
Read More
Perpetuating Poverty: How Payday Loan Companies Take Advantage of Vulnerable Consumers
Jason Stinnett, a bankruptcy and consumer litigation attorney at a non-profit law firm in downtown Baton Rouge, Louisiana, is familiar with the devastating impacts of predatory payday lending. His clientele are mostly Black women, many of whom support families on less than $1,500 a month. To pay for basic living expenses like rent and groceries, some borrow from local consumer finance companies. It is easy to accumulate debt from these loans, but hard to escape it. The interest rates on payday loans in Baton Rouge can reach higher than 33%, and it is not uncommon for companies to sue borrowers for debts that amount to more than their yearly income.
Read More
Error 404: Digital Humanitarianism and the Mirage of Human Rights
In a period of increased state violence, geopolitical conflict and environmental catastrophes, there is a newfound urgency to improve the efficiency of humanitarian aid. As with most challenges in the twenty-first century, governments and organizations have turned to technology to address these issues. However, there is nothing inherently progressive about big data, and when examining its humanitarian consequences, big data collection threatens to undermine existing international human rights law (IHRL), namely; the right to privacy and equality.
Read More
International Criminal Court Jurisdiction Over ISIS Leaders
In early July 2022, the U.S. military killed the top Syrian leader of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) in a drone strike in northwestern Syria. While the U.S. has continued to destroy ISIS militarily, many international observers have called for the prosecution of certain ISIS leaders before the International Criminal Court (ICC). ISIS, as well as other major terrorist groups, has committed acts that seem to fall under the international law definitions of crimes against humanity, or even genocide, which are among the crimes that the ICC prosecutes.
Read More
Plea Deals: An Unconstitutional Bandaid for our Overburdened Justice System
Plea deals are like contracts; the defendant agrees to plead guilty in exchange for a more moderate sentence or for certain charges to be dropped. [1] Prosecutors are eager to offer this deal because it allows them to avoid taking the defendant to trial, a process that requires time and money. While this seems like a mutually beneficial process, in reality the plea deal system as it currently exists is unconstitutional because defendants are often coerced into pleading guilty and are required to waive key constitutional rights in the process.
Read More
State Secrets: How A Recent Supreme Court Decision Could Limit Judicial Independence
On March 3, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against suspected terrorist Abu Zubaydah in United States. v. Zubaydah, declaring the U.S. government could invoke an evidentiary rule called the state secrets privilege to withhold evidence related to his torture in the name of national security. [1] This decision will have significant repercussions for the balance of power between different branches of the American government. An example of excessive judicial deference, the ruling could lead to a significant expansion in executive influence over judicial proceedings. Crucially, such expansion could provide a basis for selective governmental accountability and consequently threaten individual access to justice.
Read More
Brackeen v. Bernhardt and the Future of Adoption in the United States
A three year old boy might be responsible for the transformation of a U.S. child welfare law aimed at protecting Native American culture and rights throughout the adoption process. The Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA), which was enacted by Congress in response to a crisis of separation amongst Native families, is set to be evaluated by the Supreme Court in October. [1] If this term’s Supreme Court decides to rule the Act unconstitutional, this decision would dismiss some tribal sovereignty over the adoption processes and would devastatingly exacerbate the marginalization of Native peoples.
Read More
Originalism, Dobbs, and the Unconstitutionality of Roe
In 2018, Mississippi passed the Gestational Age Act, which banned abortion after 15 weeks with only narrow exceptions. [1] Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the only licensed abortion provider in the state, challenged the law in a federal district court. [2] The district court struck down the Mississippi law, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the lower court’s decision. [3]
Read More
Critical Race Theory and Human Right Education: Where Domestic and International Concerns Meet
Throughout 2021 and 2022, legislators across the country banned Critical Race Theory from being taught in elementary, high schools, and public universities. In Oklahoma, House Bill 1775 banned conversations on race and gender that deal with implicit bias or the systemic effects of racism and sexism in America. Non-discrimination and examination of prejudice are essential to CRT to increase students’ awareness of their own rights, especially those that have been historically withheld, and spur discussion on respecting others’ rights. These principles are evident in the Human Rights Education and Training Treaty (HRET), and can be used as a mechanism to pressure the United States to uphold its agreement to the promotion of human rights through CRT. [1]
Read More
The Constitutionality of Campaign Finance Reform in Federal Election Comm’n v. Ted Cruz for Senate
One day before Election Day in 2018, Ted Cruz loaned his Senate campaign $260,000, which the campaign used to meet their financial obligations. Section 304 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) caps the amount of post-election contributions that can be used to pay back a candidate’s pre-election loans up to twenty days after the election at $250,000. Although the campaign was able to repay Cruz $250,000, they were not able to repay the remaining $10,000 before twenty days had elapsed. [1] The Cruz campaign sued the FEC under the First Amendment and won in front of a three-judge district court. The FEC then appealed directly to the Supreme Court, which heard oral argument in Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for Senate on January 19. [2] The campaign argued that Section 304 violates candidates’ First Amendment right to free speech in that the twenty day limit makes them uncertain whether loans they make to their campaigns will be repaid. Therefore, they are “forgoing the speech” that their loans “would purchase.” [3] On the other hand, the FEC argued that Section 304 protects a “substantial and legitimate” government interest in preventing corruption, and that the Court should trust Congress to create reasonable legislation about campaign funding. [4] The FEC is correct in that Section 304 satisfies any level of scrutiny, including strict scrutiny. A decision in the campaign’s favor would have the potential to make political corruption more likely and weaken the democratic system.
Read More
Monetary Compensation for Miranda Rights Violations
On April 20, 2022, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Vega v. Tekoh. [1] The case followed a criminal trial against Terence Tekoh, where a statement taken from him by Carlos Vega without his Miranda rights being read was admitted into the trial. Miranda rights stem from the landmark case Miranda v. Arizona (1966), which establishes that statements taken from a defendant in custody are only admissible if the defendant understands his right to remain silent and speak to an attorney before those statements were taken. [2] From this case, with some variation across jurisdictions, the Miranda warning was created: “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you.” [3] These rights were upheld by Dickerson v. United States (2000), which decided that Congress cannot overturn Miranda rights by passing a law. [4]
Read More
The Enigma of Public Safety: Debates over the Use of Kendra’s Law in New York City Subways
The beginning of New York City mayor Eric Adams’ administration has brought a variety of new rules and regulations, the most controversial being the “Subway Safety Plan.” [1] As of February 2022, New York City law enforcement officials will employ a “zero-tolerance policy” for violations of subway rules, including sleeping on the subway, an infraction that often applies to homeless people. In the status quo, those who violate subway policies are often subject to a New York state law named Kendra’s Law. Passed in 1999 in response to the death of 32-year-old Kendra Webdale who was pushed in front of the subway by a man suspected to be mentally ill, Kendra’s Law requires individuals to undergo involuntary outpatient treatment, potentially some form of medical treatment, but does not require them to be hospitalized. Adam’s plan expands the use of Kendra’s Law, but because Kendra’s Law violates constitutional principles of due process, it should instead be replaced with Daniel’s Law which better protects patients’ rights to be self-determined in the course of their medical treatment for mental health challenges.
Read More
The Individual or the Free Press: Who Does the Actual Malice Standard Protect?
On February 14, 2022, U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff dismissed former Alaskan governor Sarah Palin's defamation lawsuit against the New York Times. Palin and her legal team argue that a 2017 opinion editorial published in the Times accused her of inciting the 2011 mass shooting in Tucson, Arizona where, infamously, former representative Gabby Giffords was wounded. [1] James Bennet, the New York Times editorial page editor at the time of the Op Ed’s publication, described in the piece what he called a clear link between the shooting and Palin’s campaign ads, which depicted Giffords and other members of the Democratic Party under illustrations of a gun’s crosshairs. Palin's suit was dismissed, however, on the grounds that her legal team had not proved actual malice. Palin has since expressed the desire to take her case to the Supreme Court, an escalation that will surely invite a reconsideration of the actual malice standard and its precedent. In the wake of this renewed debate, however, it is crucial to remember the actual malice standard’s integral role as a function of free press protections. As such, the standard should be preserved in close to its original form.
Read More
