Our Online Journal features original pieces written and edited by our Online staff at Columbia. They are not representative of any views held by the Columbia Undergraduate Law Review Editorial Board.
While most Americans would agree that one should not be blatantly discriminated against on the basis of sex, race, or religion, as an egalitarian maxim it becomes much more difficult to maintain when seemingly alterable and/or non-biological traits come under scrutiny. Defining aspects of a person such as language use, cultural practices, or body type, for example, leave open the debate over what characteristics are, in fact, given legal protection against discrimination.
Read MoreAs a few of the many diagnostic companies that are pioneers of medical innovation in the modern age, these pharmaceutical businesses are rolling out new, precise drug therapies at an unprecedented rate to combat specific medical issues by introducing diagnostic methods based on new technologies. The current age of biotechnology continues to challenge lawmakers as innovation unfolds faster than the current existing protective legislature. But no legal issue is more prominent in the biotechnological industry than ownership rights to these new developments.
Read MoreAs Michael Scott once learned, screaming “I declare bankruptcy!” into the void does not resolve a solvency problem. Yet a series of recent U.S. Supreme Court cases has revealed ambiguities in bankruptcy procedure within the American legal system. The core issue lies in the organizational difference between U.S. Bankruptcy Courts and other federal courts.
Read MoreBeyond the evident free speech questions that Iancu v. Brunetti poses, the case also has brought attention to the forms of evidence presented in court. In its argument in linking the name “Fuct” to its implied expletive counterpart, the USPTO provided an Urban Dictionary definition of ‘fuct,’which defined the term as the past tense of the verb ‘fuck,’’ finding the term to be ‘recognized as a slang and literal equivalent of the word “fucked,”’ with ‘the same vulgar meaning.’”
Read MoreIn August 2018, a New York City bill that required data-sharing between short-term apartment rental platforms and New York law enforcement was signed into law and scheduled to take effect in February. The new legislation mandated that home-sharing companies share troves of hosts’ personal information with the New York City Office of Special Enforcement (OSE) on a monthly basis. In response, Airbnb, the largest home-sharing platform in New York, filed for a preliminary injunction before the law was set to take effect.
Read MoreThis question posed by Mount Lemmon Fire District v. Guido is a microcosm of a much bigger issue. In recent years, the United States Supreme Court has been frequently tasked with filling in the holes left by incomplete legislation, a task of interpretation that readily encroaches on the law-writing duties entrusted to the Congress by the Constitution. Especially in the area of age discrimination regulation, the task of flushing out crucial details has been relegated to the courts. In order to properly understand this issue, some terms need to be defined.
Read MoreJury nullification is evidently a power exercised by jurors. The question remains how jurors can become informed of this right without facing legal punishments for attempting to influence a jury. Today, because of unclear and incomprehensive rulings on jury nullification, citizens have been arrested and charged with jury tampering when informing jurists of their de facto right to question a law.
Read MoreOn June 28th, 2018, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Gamble v. United States, a case questioning whether the “separate sovereigns” exception to the double jeopardy clause should be overruled.[1] The double jeopardy clause in the Fifth Amendment, which states “no person shall … be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life and limb,”[2] is generally understood to prevent multiple punishments for a singular offense. However, the Supreme Court has long held that state and federal governments can independently prosecute a defendant for the same offense because they are “separate sovereigns.”
Read More
