Fourteenth Amendment — Online Journal — Columbia Undergraduate Law Review

Consequences of Plea Bargaining: In Consideration of the Rights of the Accused

As Americans currently look to reform the nation’s criminal justice system, with its high incarceration rates and immense racial disparities, plea bargaining is an important consideration. In a plea bargain, also known as a plea deal, the defendant agrees to plead guilty or “no contest,” in exchange for the prosecutor to drop one or more charges, reduce a charge to a less serious offense, or recommend to the judge a specific sentence that is acceptable to the defense. In turn, this allows the defendant to receive a reduced sentence. [1] A plea bargain is a facet of the American criminal justice system that initially became commonplace in the 1920s in order to expedite the trial court process. The prevalence of plea bargaining is constantly being reexamined as the United States reconciles constitutional principles and legal precedent with historic prejudices in its criminal justice system.

State Limitations on Secular School Curriculum: How the Lemon Test Models Scrutiny Over State Discretion

As of July 2021, at least twenty-six states have legislated restrictions on the teaching of critical theory concepts in K-12 public schools. Of these states, seven have passed bills set to go into effect this year. Texas, Idaho, Oklahoma, Arizona, New Hampshire, Iowa, and Tennessee have enacted curriculum restrictions, district fines, and course credit stipulations in an attempt to regulate the discussion of race, gender, and sexuality in classrooms. [1] The fundamental legal question regarding these laws is whether states are entitled to such discretion in school curricula. Pressure is mounting for the U.S. Supreme Court to review these bans due to conflicting analyses in the lower courts.

After Sulfur and Flame: Anti-Sodomy Laws and the Fourteenth Amendment

On September 23, 2020, the American Civil Liberties Union of Idaho and accompanying civil rights parties filed Doe v. Wasden, a complaint for injunctive and declaratory relief before the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho. The plaintiff, an Idaho resident using the pseudonym John Doe, moved for a judgment to declare Idaho Code § 18-6605 facially unconstitutional. The state law in question, infamously labeled as Idaho’s Crime Against Nature statute, criminalizes consensual oral and anal sex. Doe’s conviction is a blatant violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause and patently disregards the Supreme Court’s 2003 ruling in Lawrence v. Texas.

Kahler v. Kansas (2020): Unjust Abolition of the Insanity Defense, or Criminal Justice Reform?

On November 28, 2009, following a divorce and an episode of severe depression, James Kahler drove to a family gathering where he shot and killed his ex-wife, two daughters, and their grandmother. At trial, he was convicted of four counts of first-degree murder. Despite Kahler’s history of mental illness, the defense was barred from using the insanity defense because Kansas state law denies its use when criminal intent can be proven.

Brian PerlsteinDecember 31, 2020Eighth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, Insanity Defense, Mental Illness

Bringing Sex Discrimination Under Strict Scrutiny: The Need for an Equal Rights Amendment

This year, the United States celebrated the 100th anniversary of the Nineteenth Amendment’s ratification. This amendment began a decades-long process of enfranchising women across the country. By enshrining, for both sexes, the right to vote, the Nineteenth Amendment formally recognized that women do indeed have a role in making political, legal, social, and economic decisions. However, while this amendment legitimized women’s presence in the public sphere, it did not fully grant them equal rights within it.