In May, the Supreme Court heard two cases on whether presidential electors can be legally required to follow their state’s popular vote. Colorado Department of State v. Baca and Chiafalo v. Washington concern electors in Colorado and Washington State, respectively, who broke state law by casting their ballots for someone other than 2016 Democratic Presidential Nominee Hillary Clinton, who won the popular vote in both states in the 2016 election. Such electors who are pledged to vote for a certain candidate by state law but vote otherwise are known as “faithless electors.”
Read More
Workplace protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity are inconsistent through the U.S., and two critical issues are now in front of the Supreme Court. Based on the Court’s past interpretations of Title VII, and on the inherent role of sex in discrimination based on sexual orientation and transgender identity, the Supreme Court should find that Title VII prohibits discrimination based on sexuality and discrimination based on transgender identities.
Read More
As Skidmore v. Led Zeppelin weaves a circuitous path through the courts, its final ruling will carry significant implications for both copyright law and the music industry. Nevertheless, the confusion and disagreement among courts in previous decisions on the Led Zeppelin case exemplify recurring problems in music copyright law that should be resolved: namely, jurors are often given imprecise instructions on interpreting music and it is unclear what constitutes as an infringement of a song.
Read More
On February 14, 2019, thirteen LGBTQ couples filed coordinated lawsuits in district courts in Japan in an attempt to legalize same-sex marriage. [1] At the time of these lawsuits, Japan had not recognized same-sex marriage or civil unions. As Asian countries begin discussing protection of LGBTQ rights, the legal basis of denying same-sex marriage has come under scrutiny. While the government has interpreted the Japanese Constitution as allowing marriage only between a man and a woman, the text itself and the intent of the text contains no such specifications.
Read More
In 2014, six institutions received approximately $5.3 million total for the purpose of educating the public on Internet privacy. [1] This was not spurred by a kind donation or an altruistic, astute public relations move; rather, the District Court for the Northern District of California ordered Google to do so as part of the settlement of a class action lawsuit in which these institutions had no part. This practice of distributing money from class action settlements to third-party non-profit organizations is known as cy pres (pronounced “sigh pray”), [2] and Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that these settlements must be “fair, reasonable, and adequate.”
Read More
On 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