U.S. Constitutional Law — Online Journal — Columbia Undergraduate Law Review

Media and the Right to a Fair Trial: Juror Impartiality in the Information Age

A 2021 study by Pew Research Center found that nearly 90% of Americans use the internet, social media, or smartphones regularly to access the news. [1] The proliferation of online information is particularly influential in high publicity cases—cases that involve terrorism or violent crime, garnering high levels of national media attention—in which juries may be skewed by the media they consume. In United States v. Tsarnaev (2021), the case of the Boston Marathon bomber currently on appeal in the U.S. Supreme Court, the risks of media bias are especially clear. In Tsarnaev’s case and similarly high publicity cases, trial judges ought to exercise more rigorous voir dire questioning on media consumption in order to protect defendants’ Sixth Amendment right to a “trial by an impartial jury.”

The Unconstitutionality of Real ID Legislation and Its Effects on Undocumented Immigrants in the U.S.

On September 11, 2001, the United States experienced the deadliest terrorr attack in its history. In turn, the events of 9/11 have had a lasting legacy on American immigration policies, leading to the creation of the erDepartment of Homeland Security (DHS), which is in charge of Customs and Border Protection, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). [1] Moreover, in 2005, Real ID legislation was introduced at the federal level as a post-9/11 policy to aid in combating future terrorist attacks. This legislation was passed as a way to standardize drivers’ licenses throughout the U.S. by setting minimum guidelines individual states would need to follow to grant identification and driving permits, including requiring the verification of legal status for every applicant. [2]

Current Events | How A Forthcoming Supreme Court Decision Could Trigger A New Era of Weakened Gun Laws

This past November, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments for New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, a case challenging a strict New York state gun law. This marks the first time the Court has taken up a major Second Amendment case in more than a decade. After two hours of questioning, a majority of justices seemed poised to strike down the law, which restricts citizens from carrying concealed handguns outside the home unless they prove a heightened or unique need, known as a “proper cause,” to do so. [1] Considering the Court’s recent 6-3 conservative supermajority, the justices will likely rule the New York law unconstitutional. In turn, the New York case could have lasting ramifications, endangering current restrictions on guns in public spaces such as bars, sports stadiums, and subways, and ushering in a new era of weakened gun control laws, increased litigation, and constitutional questions regarding where and when one can carry a gun in public.

Current Events | Supreme Court (In)action on Texas’s S.B. 8: The Growing Vulnerability of Abortion Rights

Last month, plaintiffs in Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson filed an emergency request to block Texas’s new law prohibiting nearly all abortions. [1] On September 1, the Supreme Court denied their request, allowing the nation’s most restrictive abortion law to go into effect. To fully grasp this case’s significance, it is necessary to examine the content of the Court’s decision, the dissents, and the key legal questions that the judgment leaves behind.