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.

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.

“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.

In August 2017, a team of scientists at the Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU) successfully edited the DNA of a human embryo using CRISPR-Cas9, repairing a genetic defect that causes a debilitating disease. The excitement in the room was palpable as they witnessed a historic moment that could change the future of medicine. However, as they celebrated this scientific breakthrough, ethical questions loomed large. What if this powerful tool were used to create so-called “designer babies” or to enhance physical or cognitive traits? Who would regulate such profound capabilities?

 In June 2022, the United States Supreme Court decided on the case Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, ruling the United States Constitution does not guarantee women the right to an abortion. This landmark holding overturned decades worth of precedent set by Roe v. Wade (1973). Citing the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, the court in Roe recognized a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy with different standards of availability depending on the trimester. The Court decided Dobbs with a six-to-three vote, six conservative justices in the majority and the remaining three justices fervently dissenting. The decision returned the question of abortion accessibility to the states. 

The digital age fosters ingenious yet unprecedented developments, such as using generative AI to streamline typical human resource processes. More companies are using generative AI to source and select candidates, assess current employees, and determine layoffs. However, under the guise of great efficiency and innovation lies an even greater ethical and legal problem: the use of AI technology to hire, assess, and fire employees creates a system that violates workplace anti-discrimination laws, negatively impacting minority groups.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is poised to be the next major battleground for antitrust law, and the industry’s unprecedented expansion and high economic concentration pose a unique challenge to existing legal frameworks worldwide. The European Union (EU) stands out as a leader in the regulation of the digital economy, having already passed legislation that limits “gatekeeper” corporations (large digital platforms that provide core services like web browsing) in the form of the Digital Markets Act and bringing numerous suits against Big Tech companies for anticompetitive behavior.

In the past few months, a new tough-on-crime approach to justice has led Louisiana to pass legislation eliminating parole and resuming electric-chair executions — which have not been used since the state moved to lethal injections in 1991 — but in June, the state enacted a new law that threatens to set ethical standards of criminal justice back centuries. As of August 1, 2024, Louisiana is the first state to allow surgical castration as a punishment for sex crimes.

In the rapidly evolving realm of technology, generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) stands out as a revolutionary force, fundamentally altering industries and redefining our understanding of creativity. However, As AI experiences rapid growth and exerts a profound influence across various sectors, legal questions surrounding the patentability of AI-generated works have come to the forefront. This explosion in AI’s creative capabilities comes with a legal conundrum: can AI-generated art and ideas be subject to patent protection?

As of January 2024, the United States government formally recognizes five hundred and seventy four Native American tribes. While this may appear to be an insignificant, bureaucratic tally, federal recognition is actually quite important: in obtaining it, tribes become eligible for specialized benefits and an elevated degree of autonomy. As such, given the coveted nature of these privileges, it should come as no surprise that indigenous communities are in constant legal competition to secure them. In fact, in recent years, nearly every Supreme Court docket in recent memory has included at least one indigenous-related case. Most recently, the Court heard arguments in Arizona v Navajo Nation (2023), which dealt with the United States’ obligation to provide water to the Navajo tribe.

Following the publicized police murders of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and other Black Americans, there was a nationwide resurgence of Black Lives Matter protests in the summer of 2020. As community members organized marches and other forms of civil disobedience on social media, notably X (formerly known as Twitter), organizers grew concerned that law enforcement officers were using X as a medium to collect information on these protests. Specifically, they claimed that the information would be used in order to arrest participants or quell protests via social media surveillance. Surveillance is “the act of observing another in order to gather evidence” and is a frequent method used by law enforcement to gather evidence for an investigation. With the fears of covert surveillance via social media, Black American community members are now concerned about their privacy rights when engaging in protest, assembly, and expression–acts protected by the First Amendment. Law enforcement’s utilization of X and digital data from other social media sites as a form of surveillance should be considered a violation of the Fourth Amendment’s right to privacy of protestors.

When adopting their new constitution in 2008, Ecuador became the first country to recognize the legal personhood of nature, or Pachamama. Specifically, Chapter 7 “Rights of Nature” ensures the “maintenance and regeneration of [nature’s] life cycles, structure, functions and evolutionary processes” and calls for “[a]ll persons, communities, peoples and nations” to protect this right. This clause in the Constitution has provided a legal pathhood for the conservation of nature; theoretically, any person can act as a representative of Ecuador’s environment and file a lawsuit to prevent the harmful degradation of a specific body or region. 

Since the release of ChatGPT on November 30, 2022, classrooms and workplaces have been revolutionized by the widespread adoption of artificial intelligence (AI). Whether used for searching information, prompting creativity, or even homework solutions, it is on a fast track to becoming an integral part of our lives. However, as AI technologies continue to permeate different areas, it has also brought forth complex legal challenges, particularly in the sectors of intellectual property and antitrust law. While the current frameworks of copyright law sufficiently govern copyright issuance relating to artificial intelligence, the recent and ongoing AI lawsuit explosion raises important questions regarding copyright infringement disputes and concerns over fair competition within the generative AI space.

In contrast to the well-known copyright lawsuits in art disciplines such as music, it is rare to come across a copyright case in dance. Indeed, it was not until 1976 that choreography even became a category qualifying for copyright registration and protection. Although the limited copyright lawsuits in dance since 1976 have mostly involved defendants that were other choreographers or artists, the video game Fortnite has become a “plagiarizer” of dance moves causing choreographers to seek legal redress.

United States’  copyright laws were first established with a clear goal outlined in the United States Constitution: "...To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” Copyright law was enshrined in the Constitution as a way to motivate intellectual creativity and progress through legal protections, however, large pharmaceutical companies operating in United States’ markets have manipulated this fundamental principle of intellectual property to bolster their profit margins. By exploiting United States’ copyright law, these pharmaceutical companies depart from the original intent of the law, prioritizing economic gain over the greater well-being of humanity. Specifically, pharmaceutical companies have found ways to weaponize United States’ patent law and FDA policies. This manipulation of copyright law undermines its foundational ideals and compromises its intended purpose.

During the Supreme Court’s January 2024 session, Justices heard the oral argument for a case that could substantially transform the current landscape of administrative law. In Loper Bright Enterprises, Inc. v. Raimondo, the plaintiffs brought forth a challenge to the landmark Chevron Doctrine, which many believe lies at the core of the modern administrative state. The Chevron Doctrine holds that for issues of interpretations of ambiguous phrasing in legislation, deference is given to the federal agency rather than the courts. The plaintiff’s oral arguments support the criticism that the Chevron Doctrine is based on a fundamentally problematic rubric of first-stage and second-stage interpretation, supported not only by the language of the Chevron opinion itself but also other administration-deference-matter-related legal precedent. However, the interpretation of the non-delegation doctrine and the debate surrounding the separation of powers is a macro-scoped issue that necessitates the Chevron Doctrine in the first place. Instead, alternative interpretive frameworks of non-delegation can help both courts and society reconcile constitutionality with practical governance.

In the mountains of Chile, a little-known fourteen-year-long drought has been terrorizing Chileans, not to mention causing the country to almost lose one of its main water sources. The reason for this devastating loss, a dispute between Chile and its neighbor Bolivia, has left many with lingering questions about water rights. Bolivia has claimed for almost thirty years that the Silala River, which begins in Bolivia and then crosses over into Chile before flowing west into the Pacific Ocean, is solely for Bolivia’s use. Bolivia believes the waterway is only under its jurisdiction which prevents Chile from using the water without any compensation. Bolivia’s argument is supported by its claims that the Silala River was artificially created to flow into Chile in 1908. Chile, however, has argued that the Silala River is governed by international law, so it is an international waterway. This dispute was taken to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the case Chile vs. Bolivia (2022), where proceedings led the Court to surprisingly decide that the two countries actually agreed on the issue. The Court ruled that Bolivia and Chile did not fundamentally disagree on the issue, since they both wanted equitable use of the waterway. Therefore, an official decision was never made by the ICJ. Instead, the court simply urged the two countries to work together on issues such as these, a decision that poses significant legal problems for the future of international water laws.

Instigated by fear of foreign influence in state law, Ottoman Empire leadership employed policy mechanisms in order to legally legitimize the genocide of the Armenian population in 1915—"illegal process [made to] look legitimate by using the veil of the law." [1] As the state shifted the legal status of religious minorities throughout the 19th century, norms of classical Islamic law were co-opted for nationalistic propaganda. The Young Turks feared relinquishing legal sovereignty to foreign powers—foreign powers which appeared to empower Anatolian Armenians as proxies of influence. At the same time, foreign influence was unavoidable in the shaping of the Ottoman Empire's legal justification framework: German militaristic culture was used to support the creation of the Ottoman state's legal mechanism of deportation. This article   will explore examples of foreign influence—and refute conceptions of shari'a involvement—in legal mechanisms which justified the program of genocide: the Provisional Law of 1914, the ordinance for transit and food rationing standards, and the redistribution law.

Since its 1868 ratification, the Equal Protection Clause (of the Fourteenth Amendment) and the Eleventh Amendment have been at legal odds, particularly regarding the issue of balancing state autonomy and the powers of the federal government. Judges and legislators frequently grapple with this tension as one amendment prohibits states from implementing any laws that would infringe upon citizens’ rights and the other establishes judicial limits. Efforts to reconcile between the two amendments become further complicated when approaching areas such as state prisons, where inmates are subjected to the executive authority of the state as opposed to the federal government. For this reason, disabled inmates, including Deaf or hard-of-hearing prisoners, suffer as the state fails to provide rightful accommodations. The failure to accommodate properly for disabled inmates underscores the critical tension between state sovereignty and equal protection of all citizens.

On May 25th, 2020, the United States was shocked by the death of George Floyd at the hands of law enforcement, causing turmoil across the country and renewed calls for a second civil rights movement. On the legal front, the courts have been diligently making progress to end what is known as qualified immunity, the doctrine that protects law enforcement from being sued for violating a plaintiff’s rights, unless it is a clear constitutional violation. This year, the Supreme Court has been given another chance to make progress towards ending qualified immunity through a little-known case out of rural Ohio: Chiaverini v. City of Napoleon, Ohio. Though the circumstances given in the case are narrow, the context and timing of the case taken up by the nine justices could have wide repercussions in the movement to end qualified immunity, especially under malicious prosecution claims. Thus, a ruling in favor of the Plaintiffs (Chiaverini) would standardize malicious prosecution claims under the Fourth Amendment and protect citizens’ rights in the push to end qualified immunity.

The 2021 Northwest heat dome, a record-breaking weather event with temperatures reaching up to 120°F, resulted in over 650 deaths and hundreds of heat-related illnesses in the United States and Canada. Hitting the Pacific Northwest from late June to early July, the heat dome also had catastrophic effects on infrastructure, agriculture, wildlife, and flora. In response to the crisis, Multnomah County of Oregon sued seventeen fossil fuel companies, including ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, and Chevron in the Oregon Circuit Court. The county alleged that the defendants “rapaciously [sold] fossil fuel products and deceptively promote[d] them as harmless to the environment” even though they knew that their products would emit carbon pollution into the atmosphere and “would likely cause deadly extreme heat events like that which devastated Multnomah County.”

On November 11, 2021, North Dakota adopted new state legislative boundaries, completing its decennial redistricting cycle. While the map was largely uncontroversial, three districts drew intense scrutiny for their indigenous population compositions. A few months later, a coalition of tribes and Native American residents filed suit in the federal District Court of North Dakota, contending that the new boundaries diluted their collective voting power. In the ensuing case, which became known as Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians v Howe, the state vehemently rejected these accusations, offering myriad explanations in defense of their new lines. Most prominently, North Dakota argued that the coalition’s desire for another majority-minority seat would exceed the requirements imposed by the Supreme Court’s Thornburg v Gingles decision, which grants racial minorities certain protections in the redistricting process. In November 2023, Chief Judge Peter Welte comprehensively refuted this assertion, holding that the state’s legislative maps discriminated against two tribes. In its opinion, the District Court addressed how North Dakota failed to properly apply the Supreme Court’s precedent, noting how the legislature prevented “Native American voters from having an equal opportunity to elect candidates of their choice.” While many may interpret this decision as a straightforward application of Gingles, the ruling implicitly undermined future attempts to dilute indigenous voting strength. By emphasizing how geography, low turnout rates, and discrimination impact indigenous voters, the court demonstrated how tribal nations are entitled to districts that better accentuate their political concerns.

On June 27, 2023, The United States Supreme Court ruled to expand and reinforce state authority over registered corporations within a state’s respective jurisdiction. Per Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co. (2023), even if a lawsuit pertains to events occurring outside the state in which a corporation primarily operates, a corporation may be sued in said different state. As an attempt to determine the constitutionality of Pennsylvania state law under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, the case’s ruling concerns Pennsylvania’s contested Consent-by-Registration law. Consent by registration requires that corporations must agree to be sued in the state in which they are conducting business, prior to beginning operations. Thus, as was the case for Norfolk Southern Railway Co., even just as much as a railway built going through any territory in the state would obligate the firm to appear in the state’s court.

In a time marked by a rapidly changing sociopolitical landscape, the concept of “evolving standards of decency” has become increasingly pertinent, serving as a cornerstone for evaluating what is considered to be “cruel and unusual punishment” as noted in the United States Constitution. Among these practices, few are as contentious and deeply ingrained in the American legal system as the issue of capital punishment. By examining the historical context and legal precedence of capital punishment as well as its relevance today, it is asserted that, despite the Supreme Court's ruling in Gregg v. Georgia (1976), which upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty when used carefully and judiciously, abrogating Furman v. Georgia (1972), the evolving standards of decency render the application of capital punishment to be unconstitutional.

On June 30th, 2023, for the first time, the Supreme Court essentially ruled that it is acceptable for people and businesses to discriminate against same-sex couples. Through their decision in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, the Court explored the intersections between anti-discrimination law in public accommodations and the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment – and ultimately prioritized free speech. 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis infringes on civil rights laws using the First Amendment by potentially encouraging discrimination against LGBTQI+ Americans and weakening laws that have protected all Americans from discrimination.

President Biden has made antitrust enforcement a chief priority of his economic policy, dubbed “Bidenomics.” Signing Executive Order 14036, better known as “The Executive Order on Promoting Competition in the American Economy,” President Biden has directed the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) to take action towards reining in anti-competitive practices. This Executive Order (EO) includes more than 72 initiatives for multiple federal agencies, in what the Biden Administration hopes will “tackle some of the most pressing competition problems across our economy.” As a direct result of this EO, the DOJ’s Antitrust Division filed a Section 2 Sherman Antitrust Act offense (the actions a company takes to attain or keep monopoly power) against Google for allegedly “monopolizing multiple digital advertising technology products.” This is the first time in over twenty years that the DOJ has brought a Section 2 Violation of the Sherman Act. While the Biden Administration, DOJ, and FTC may be focused on curbing anti-competitive conduct in the technology sector, they may have overlooked a key yet recent contributor to monopolistic practices: the education sector, more specifically, the education testing non-profit: The College Board.

Since the Reagan era, inequality across the United States has reached an all-time high, with clashes over the issue increasingly erupting into the forefront. Over the past few years, however, various attempts to mitigate and even alleviate these economic inequalities have been unsuccessful. One of the main proposals to alleviate economic inequality has been the addition of a wealth tax. A wealth tax is distinct from other taxes such as capital gains taxes and federal income taxes because it seeks to tax unrealized income, meaning that it seeks to tax gains in wealth that aren’t realized from the sale of capital.

Affirmative action policy in higher education has been the center of extensive debates, drawing in both passionate advocates and critics who significantly influence discussions on college admissions policies. Consider a scenario where two equally-qualified students, distinguished by their racial background, compete for a coveted spot in a prestigious university. While one might assume that this situation leads to a fair evaluation of both individuals, affirmative action introduces a unique dimension by providing an advantage to a student from a marginalized community. This fact sparks controversy, raising questions about whether affirmative action effectively achieves its intended goals of promoting diversity and addressing historical inequalities or if it establishes an admissions standard that unfairly impacts certain students more than it benefits others.