Online Journal — Columbia Undergraduate Law Review

Decolonizing the Supreme Court: Expanding Tribal Adjudicating Authority Over Non-Member Disputes

Despite the fact that in the last twenty nine years, the Supreme Court has ruled against tribal interests in 72% of the fifty-five cases it heard that dealt with this matter, the current Court is beginning to come back to the ideology of Marshall in Worcester, ruling in favor of tribal interests. Through recent rulings in cases involving treaties where land disputes arose between tribes and the United States government, there is growing precedent being established for a renewed increase in tribal authority over nonmember disputes in civil courts.

fall 2019Bella MannrayNovember 14, 2019tribal law, tribal sovereignty, tribal adjudication Comment

Is Universal Constitutional? Exploring the Implications of the Affordable Care Act Cases

The PPACA established and mandated a standard minimum for care, regulated health coverage practices and entities, and expanded public Medicare and Medicaid programs. The statute further established a legislative precedent that has been resoundingly evoked by the healthcare policy platforms of candidates such as Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden over a decade later. At the same time, the PPACA has proven remarkably controversial, drawing criticism for its emphatic incentivization of public healthcare at the state level and mandation of coverage at the individual level. As evidenced by the dozens of consequential lawsuits brought before the Roberts Court as a result of the PPACA, the future of universal healthcare remains legally contentious.

fall 2019Alexander LiebeskindNovember 14, 2019public health, Affordable Care Act, universal healthcare, health policyComment

Dynamex and Gig Worker Classification: Only a California Dream?

Gig economy worker classification has become a major political issue, and the California Supreme Court’s 2018 decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County in favor of a delivery driver appeared to have generated a key turning point in the controversy. While the ruling created a more favorable threshold for independent contractors seeking to be reclassified as employees, this article will argue that the Dynamex decision was largely made possible by idiosyncrasies of the California legal system and that labor advocates’ hopes of similar changes at the federal level will likely require Congressional action.

fall 2019Mark GyourkoNovember 14, 2019Comment

Whose Stairway? Led Zeppelin Copyright Case Returns to Ninth Circuit

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.

fall 2019Angela YeNovember 14, 2019Copyright, music copyright, Led Zeppelin, Intellectual PropertyComment

Espinoza v. Montana (2019): Should My Public Tax Dollars Pay for Your Religious Private School Education?

Founding Father Thomas Jefferson interpreted the First Amendment as the building of a wall between church and state. Reynolds v. United States (1878), a Supreme Court of the United States case that outlawed polygamy, affirmed Jefferson’s interpretation that the objective of the establishment clause of the First Amendment was to establish a clear separation between church and state. Although this intention was clarified, the Court has since continuously struggled to define what this separation entails and how to properly identify the scope of the freedom of religious expression.

fall 2019Rachel HalpernNovember 14, 2019Religious Education, Establishment Clause, Espinoza, First Amendment

Retroactive Verdicts: The Future of Criminal Justice Reform?

On October 16, 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States heard Mathena v. Malvo, a complex case with the potential to completely reform the criminal justice system. While a multitude of recent cases have addressed life without parole, Malvo’s case is unique because it implicates the use of retroactive verdicts in criminal justice cases. If the Court rules in Malvo’s favor, it would open the door to thousands of criminal justice cases being revisited due to their now-unconstitutional sentencing practices.