Undoing Roe: How Dobbs Brings Abortion Rights Back to the Ballot Box
The role of the judiciary has become a contentious debate in light of several controversial cases. Professor Richard Garnett asserts,“Judges do not have the power to enact legislation.” This statement, emphasized in the majority opinion of the precedent overturned by the Supreme Court, echoes a broader constitutional question: what powers truly belong to the judiciary? This question has come to the forefront as Dobbs v. Jackson (2022) overturned the landmark decision in Roe v. Wade (1973), which legalized abortion nationwide. The decision ignited debate over the Supreme Court’s role in defining fundamental rights—with some arguing that fundamental rights should be limited to those explicitly enumerated in the Constitution while others believe they can include rights implied by broader principles, such as privacy or dignity. This reveals longstanding tensions within American constitutional law.
Read More
Intent vs. Impact: The Legality of the EPA’s Disparate Impact Regulation
In April of 2024, twenty-three state attorneys general signed a petition calling for the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to cease its use of disparate impact regulations, citing concerns of unlawfulness and “racial engineering.” These disparate impact regulations are a set of administrative rules that prohibit any programs receiving EPA funding from causing disproportionate negative effects towards certain groups of people based on race, color, or national origin. Disparate impact regulations are distinct from, yet exist alongside, regulations that prohibit intentional discrimination. Like other federal agencies with similar policies, the EPA bases these regulations on Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. Title VI contains two relevant provisions: § 601, which bars any programs or activities receiving federal funding from discriminating based on race, color, or national origin, and § 602, which enables federal agencies to effectuate § 601 by implementing policies regulating the behavior of said programs or activities.
Read More
Reimagining COPPA: Safeguarding Children’s Privacy in the Digital Age
In 1998, Congress passed the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) in response to growing concerns over the dissemination of children’s personal information on the Internet. COPPA set privacy standards for websites directed toward children under thirteen, requiring websites to provide notice about data collection practices and to obtain verifiable parental consent before collecting a child’s personal information. At the time, this legislation was a groundbreaking move to protect children’s privacy in an emerging digital world. However, over two decades later, COPPA has proven inadequate in addressing the complex and evolving landscape of data collection technologies.
Read More
Bricks and Bridges: the Potential of Public Nuisance Law in Opioid Litigation
Mark Lanier in his closing statement of the landmark opioid litigation trial, Trumbull County v. Purdue Pharma L.P., pulled out a model bridge made of Legos. Lanier argued that one Lego could make the bridge topple down, attributing his anecdote to the many components of the opioid crisis: Though one misstep led to nationwide addiction, all are responsible in some way. Abuse of both prescription opiates and illicitly distributed pain medications has devastated American cities for decades and can be traced back to corporations marketing the “miracle drug” to vulnerable populations. The result of these corporations’ distribution and marketing of opioid products is still prevalent today, with opioid overdose deaths rising from 49,860 in 2019 to 81,806 in 2022. Opioid litigation in recent years has attempted to remedy the loss and damage caused by the epidemic worsened by opioid corporations. By applying public nuisance law, a doctrine not typically used in medical litigation, and targeting the responsibility of specific parties within the opioid distribution chain, plaintiffs may be able to successfully abate billions of dollars in damage.
Read More
A Tradition of Oversight: Domestic Violence and Firearm Regulation in the Wake of United States v. Rahimi
Survivors of domestic violence find themselves trapped in the painful paradox of experiencing imminent danger in the very places that should offer safety. Legal safeguards, such as court-issued restraining orders, aim to offer protection, yet survivors remain vulnerable—an especially lethal reality when domestic abusers have access to firearms. In United States v. Rahimi (2023), the U.S. Supreme Court examined the contentious intersection between the danger to public safety posed by intimate partner violence and one’s Second Amendment rights. Examining the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8)—a provision of the Gun Control Act that restricts firearm possession by individuals under domestic violence protective orders—requires balancing historical interpretations of firearm laws with the contemporary realities of domestic violence, an issue far more visible and recognized today than in the past.
Read More
The MTA and New York Public Authorities: Runaway Trains of Legal Liability
Every New Yorker has their own subway horror story: being packed like sardines on the 1 train after rush hour, getting stuck in a car without AC for 40 minutes, or encountering that one passenger who’s a little too comfortable talking to strangers. Yet a recent study revealed a more distressing scenario for the millions of commuters who rely on the Metropolitan Transit Authority’s (MTA) services daily: exposure to dangerous levels of air pollution, linked to lung cancer and heart disease. Iron-infused inhalable particles known as PM 2.5 are thrown up into the air as trains screech into stations, creating a toxic environment for waiting passengers. Inside the cabins, outdated air filtration systems struggle to suppress the pollution.
Read More
Upholding Democratic Legitimacy Under Martial Law: Ukraine’s Legal Mandate for the 2024 Presidential Election
What obligations does a country under war have to democracy? The question remains unanswered for Ukraine. In the case of Ukraine’s 2024 presidential election, the impact of martial law on the democratic process is particularly ambiguous. Currently, Ukraine is an aspiring liberal democracy; however, this contentious position depends on Ukraine’s commitment to upholding the democratic values of its peers. In its attempts to join international institutions such as the European Union (EU) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), Ukraine has strived to demonstrate its increasingly democratic governing mechanisms. However, after the escalation of the Russo-Ukrainian War in 2022, the Ukrainian government instituted martial law, which continues to present a dilemma for the Ukrainian people. Despite their understanding that wartime actions require increased legal flexibility, Ukrainian citizens are also entitled to democratic norms and privileges. Accordingly, Ukraine has a legal imperative to hold its 2024 presidential election because the cancellation of its election violates several international covenants and treaties and violates its own martial law due to the unlawful seizure of power.
Read More
Parental Rights: Florida's Flawed Defense of Book Bans
Historically, the sunshine state has been America’s hotspot for beach-goers and citrus farmers, and now, adding to that list is a new accolade—the epicenter of America’s book ban craze. In 2023, nearly two thousand, seven hundred titles were targeted for restriction or removal in the state, almost double the state with the second-most challenges. The frequency of these bans is likely due to the ease of the removal process which was enacted and implemented by the Florida Senate’s House Bill 1069 (HB 1069). However, it seems some parents are resisting the censorship craze. In June 2024, three Florida parents filed a lawsuit in federal court against the Florida Board of Education. The plaintiffs allege that the State Review Process instituted by HB 1069 violates the First Amendment ban on viewpoint discrimination. These plaintiffs face opposition from state politicians and parent groups, both of which utilize the diction of ‘parental rights’ to establish a basis for their involvement in regulating student curricula. Such uses of ‘parental rights’ usually refer to a nebulous set of rights not defined in any legal context.
Read More
Motherhood before Girlhood: A Look into Women and Girls’ Access to Education in Mozambique
“Girlhood” is the decisive period of a young woman’s life in which she learns about her beliefs, the world around her, and most importantly, herself. For many young girls, this phase is propelled by having social experiences, developing familial relationships, and obtaining a consistent education to be properly equipped for the next chapter of their lives. Whether a young girl decides to pursue motherhood or search for an occupation or both, education is a crucial factor in a girl’s development. In Mozambique, going to school is a milestone for many girls and young women due to the social barriers that prevent them from regularly attending school, if at all. Since the country holds the fifth highest rate of child marriage in the world and the highest rate of child pregnancy in East and Southern Africa, many young women are forced to sacrifice their education to raise their family. In failing to provide safe, accessible education to its youth population, particularly its young women, Mozambique has violated the Convention on the Rights of the Child. While the country has attempted to alleviate these obstacles through signing treaties, declarations, and reincorporating alternative policies, these challenges have persisted and further hindered girls’ access to education.
Read More
