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 More
Menstrual equity, a term coined in the mid-twentieth century by feminist activists, has gained traction in mainstream media with the rise of intersectional dialogue and women’s empowerment. Contemporary feminists have taken this initiative a step further, and have recently begun the zealous advocacy for menstrual equity in the wake of the infamous ‘tampon tax’ - a tax levied on feminine hygiene products due to the fact that they do not meet the “basic necessity” tax exemption.
Read More
It is estimated that in 2017, nearly 809,700 children under the age of 18 were arrested in the United States for crimes including burglary, arson, drug abuse, and homicide. [1] This statistic displays an intensifying debate in America: the treatment of children in the criminal justice system. While these youths were clearly convicted for violating the law, what remains unclear in the law is how these children should be distinguished from their adult criminal counterparts.
Read More
The practice of students calling upon their First Amendment right to free speech when attempting to protest on school grounds has a long history in the United States. One of the most widely known cases of this premise is Tinker v. Des Moines (1969), when several students faced school suspension due to wearing armbands in protest of the Vietnam War—and subsequently filed a lawsuit against their school district. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled in a 7-2 majority that the school’s punishment of the students violated their First Amendment rights on the grounds that, “...the students did not lose their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech when they stepped onto school property.”[1]
Read More
The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) was created by Congress in 1925 in order to validate the enforceability of arbitration agreements. These agreements are informal, streamlined adjudications that were intended to resolve disputes by replacing the cumbersome trial process.[1] While this concept appears relatively clear-cut, there have been numerous instances of litigation surrounding the validity and enforceability of mandatory arbitration. What seems to be a simplified resolution process has instead become a dangerous obstacle wherein the rights of consumers to take companies to court via lawsuits are limited.
Read More