The Future of Open-Dialogue in the Immigration System

The Trump Administration created Performance Quota Policies in 2018—a policy incentivizing judges to order more immigrant removals by threatening their job security—challenging the validity of the immigration system. This precedent persists in the Biden Administration as the Department of Justice (DOJ) passed directives in February 2024 restricting Immigration judges from speaking to the media, public, and congress without governmental approval. Therefore, a legal dilemma arises that questions the constitutionality of restricting the speech of immigrant judges and the implications of how this form of censorship impacts the immigrant community.

Read More
Maximus Posada
The Department of Justice's role in stimulating minority homeownership: A Continuation of The Fair Housing Act's Legacy

United States v. OceanFirst Bank (D.N.J.) and United States v. Citadel Federal Credit Union (E.D. Penn.) are two cases where banks and credit unions were found to be intentionally avoiding, or redlining, communities of color. In response, the Department of Justice has worked to eliminate financial discrimination. The resolutions met in both cases are part of the ongoing judicial effort to combat redlining and housing discrimination in America. These two cases and the initiative itself are representative of progressive trends in homeownership and wealth for communities of color in the United States. 

Read More
Jacques Sangwa
Unpaid Labor and the Presumption of Innocence: An Analysis of Ruelas v. County of Alameda

            On April 22, 2024, the California Supreme Court issued its opinion in Ruelas v. County of Alameda, ruling that non-convicted (pretrial) incarcerated individuals working in county jails for private companies are not entitled to minimum wage or overtime compensation under California law. The Court concluded that pretrial incarcerated individuals employed under the contract between Aramark Correctional Services LLC. and Santa Rita Jail in Alameda County (established July 1, 2024)—which enabled non-incarcerated individuals to perform uncompensated labor in the jail’s industrial kitchen—were not entitled to lost wages or overtime premiums. Advocacy groups, including the ACLU, have criticized the opinion, arguing that it perpetuates the exploitation of incarcerated individuals. Despite the controversy surrounding the Ruelas v. County of Alameda opinion, the California Supreme Court acknowledged that the current laws governing non-convicted incarcerated labor are outdated, suggesting that California lawmakers should revisit them. By highlighting the ambiguity in the California Labor Code and the inadequacy of existing legislative proposals, the Court’s decision demonstrates the urgent need for legislative action to protect the labor rights of non-convicted incarcerated individuals.

Read More
Chelsey Giraldo
Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos and the Future of Transnational Gun Trafficking Liability

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos during the 2024-2025 docket season. The decision of the lawsuit will determine whether U.S. gun manufacturers can be held liable for armed crimes committed outside of U.S. territory by Mexican crime rings using their weapons. The specific rationale provided by the Mexican government, the respondent of the case, is that Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. is guilty of proximate causation as well as aiding and abetting Mexican cartels in committing violence against the Mexican state. Given U.S. gun manufacturers’ knowledge that they are selling to known arms suppliers to Mexican cartels, coupled with the monetary burdens assumed by the Mexican government in response to increased gun violence across the country, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act’s “predicate exemption” indicates that the U.S. gun manufacturers listed in the lawsuit are not exempt from legal consequence. As such, should the Supreme Court rule in favor of the Mexican government, its decision would be warranted.

Read More
David Huerta
Presumptive Immunity in an Age of Legal Turmoil

Alexander Hamilton argued that a “feeble Executive implies a feeble execution of the government.” Hamilton’s radical conception of a strong executive pales in comparison to the strength of the modern American president. Through a series of cases, the Supreme Court has incrementally bestowed greater authority upon the executive branch. Trump v United States is not necessarily a departure from the Court’s trajectory of expanding immunity even though it exceeds the limits of prior Court precedent. This case crucially extends immunity from criminal prosecution to the President on all official acts, not solely acts that are explicitly described in the Constitution. Precedent cases do not mention the doctrine of presumptive immunity. Presumptive immunity halts prosecutors from pursuing charges against a President unless a criminal injunction against a specific action would not impose on the President’s crucial duties. The Trump v United States decision grants absolute immunity, or a ban against pursuing prosecution for the President’s actions, from criminal litigation for acts within the President’s constitutionally prescribed duties. It also allows the President to take on additional “official” duties and then claim presumptive immunity from prosecution for these acts. In creating a new doctrine of presumptive immunity, the Court’s decision in Trump v United States did not create a high enough standard of immunity for criminal cases when one examines the case through the lens of criminal and civil penalties.

Read More
Isabella Sacca
Striking a Balance: Worker’s Rights and Employer Retaliation in Hawaii’s Nursing Negotiations

In October 2024, Administrative Law Judge Anita Baman Tracy found Hawai’i Pacific Health and Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women & Children guilty of implementing coercive rules, in which the hospital engaged in unfair labor practices by enforcing a dress code policy that prohibited wearing logos in patient care areas. Hospital administration forced employees to remove union solidarity stickers and pins from their badges and uniforms in patient care areas. The Hawai’i Nurses Association (HNA) OPEIU Local 50 Union filed numerous charges on November 15, 2023, alleging bad faith bargaining, repudiation and modification of contract, and coercive rules. Due to this ruling, all HPH hospitals had to rescind any disciplinary actions against employees for violating this unlawful dress code and propagate official notices to employees by the National Labor Relations Board. This notice stated that the respective hospitals had violated federal labor law. It reassured employees of their federal rights, including the right to unionize, bargain collectively, and participate in protected activities. While this ruling did not find Kapi’olani Hospital guilty of bad faith bargaining or modification of contract, it did find that they attempted to suppress unionization or solidarity with the union.

Read More
Jasmine Lianalyn Rocha
Which Price is Right: The Constitutionality of Lowering Drug Prices

In 2021, 32.5% of US adults younger than 65 with diagnosed diabetes reported insulin rationing, 20% of which reported doing so because of cost. Insulin rationing is a dangerous practice in which diabetics cut back on their insulin use because they can’t afford their prescribed dosage. The price of prescription drugs has long been an issue in America and only recently has there been any initiative to put a price cap on pharmaceutical drugs. The 340B Drug Pricing Program allows eligible healthcare organizations to purchase prescription drugs at a discount from pharmaceutical manufacturers, which helps hospitals care for low-income patients and communities. Since 2023, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, Xavier Becerra, has been negotiating prices directly with participating manufacturers for single-source Medicare drugs without generic competition, or any drugs that are the only treatment for a specific condition, through the 340B Drug Pricing Program. In response to this attempt to lower drug prices, numerous pharmaceutical companies and lobbying groups have gone to court claiming these negotiations are unconstitutional. While some of these cases are ongoing, a couple have been decided in favor of the US Department of Health and Human Services, creating an important precedent for the future of the pharmaceutical industry in America and the accessibility of life-saving medicine.

Read More
Harshini Sadanala
The Environmental Protection Agency: Federal Regulatory Power vs. State Autonomy

Since its establishment in 1970, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has served as a federal body dedicated to protecting the environment. Throughout its history, the EPA has championed climate initiatives through the implementation of various regulations and provisions. Most significantly, the EPA has gained authority to fight against climate change, specifically air pollution, through the Clean Air Act. The Clean Air Act, established in 1970 and later amended in 1990 to reflect changing times, was created to give the EPA the jurisdiction to regulate air pollutants, specifically greenhouse gas emissions, and to set and achieve National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) through state implementation plans (SIPs). State Implementation Plans are documents and regulations that are utilized by states to enforce the NAAQS and to honor the requirements set in the Clean Air Act. Past Supreme Court orders, such as Massachusetts v. EPA, have highlighted the success of the Clean Air Act and its regulatory power. Conversely, current Supreme Court proceedings, most notably the Ohio v. EPA case, have contradicted the precedent regarding the scope of power designated to the EPA through the Clean Air Act.

Read More
Leah Druch
Decoding Big Tech: The Efficacy of the Sherman Antitrust Act

The Sherman Antitrust Act was designed to protect consumers and uphold democratic principles by preventing monopolistic control over the American economy. Enacted by Congress in 1890, its purpose was to curb the power of large corporations, promote economic liberty for individuals, and ensure that the U.S. democratic system remains accountable to the people rather than dominated by big business. The act outlawed “every contract, combination, or conspiracy to trade” and prohibited any “monopolization, attempted monopolization, or conspiracy or combination to monopolize.” Over time, the Supreme Court and Congress have extended the act’s reach, notably with the reinstatement of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Clayton Act, which effectively extends the Sherman Act, defining specific properties of mergers and acquisitions, discriminatory prices, and tying agreements. Now in our modern day, the act is up against major tech companies, as seen in the U.S. v. Google case (2023). 

Read More
Marina Keller
The Issue Of Impartiality: 6th Amendment Considerations in the Debate Over the Constitutionality of Capital Punishment

On November 15, 2024, the Texas Supreme Court paved the way for the execution of Robert Leslie Roberson III. In 2003, Roberson, a neurodivergent man, was convicted on murder charges stemming from the shaken baby syndrome death of his 2-year-old daughter. The court’s ruling followed an eleventh-hour stay of execution issued by the Texas House of Representatives, which subpoenaed Roberson in a final bid to delay his execution. In recent weeks, Roberson’s case has attracted a litany of media attention and spurred a dramatic effort to secure Roberson a new trial due to the controversial science underlying his conviction. Though widely accepted within the pediatric community, biomechanical experts have long questioned the legitimacy of shaken baby syndrome diagnoses. Mr. Roberson’s life now depends on Article 11.073 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. Known as the “junk science writ,” the statute presents an unprecedented legal avenue “allowing prisoners to challenge potential wrongful convictions by showing that changes in the field of forensic science…seriously undermined the integrity of the criminal trials resulting in their convictions.”

Read More
Thatcher Anderson
Rising Tides, Rising Obligations: The ICJ's Role in Climate Governance

On August 16, 2024, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) sent a press release that 62 written comments have been filed under their advisory proceedings on the Obligations of States in Respect of Climate Change by United Nations Member States, Non-United Nations Member entities, and international organizations. This press release came after the Vanuatu ICJ Initiative, driven by Vanuatuan youth groups focusing on climate activism, prompted the Government of Vanuatu to bring this case to the International Court of Justice (ICJ). According to the U.S. National Science Foundation, by 2060, sea levels are projected to rise by a meter, which will make small Pacific Islands, like the Republic of Vanuatu, unstable by permanently damaging their groundwater supplies. This comes after it was determined that these islands are only responsible for 0.03% of global greenhouse gas emissions. If the comments on this proceeding are accepted, they could reinforce the obligations of United Nations Member States, Non-United Nations Member entities, and international organizations to take concrete steps against climate change. These obligations, as mandated by international laws and treaties, such as the Paris Agreement, are crucial for protecting present and future generations, particularly those of endangered nations, such as the Republic of Vanuatu.

Read More
Adanur Nas
Loper Bright v. Raimondo as a positive-feedback-loop for judicial activism

“When does an alpha amino acid polymer qualify as a protein?” Associate Justice Elena Kagan raised in her dissent to Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, more (in)famously known as the case that overruled the Chevron deference. Kagan posited this question in a series of examples to which the scientific and technical expertise of agencies would be needed to interpret ambiguous statutory language. Loper glosses over this precedent, dangerously allowing judges ultimate interpretive primacy comparable to policy-making. Ironically, the case was decided under the premise of defending the law from agency aggrandization. By overruling Chevron, the court seized power beyond the scope allowed by the U.S.’s system of checks and balances

Read More
Aliyyah Hamid
In Chevron We Trust? How Overturning the Chevron Doctrine Dooms the Fight for Student Debt Cancellation

The state of student debt in the United States remains in limbo as the Missouri district court has halted the Biden Administration from implementing their plans, claiming lack of legal authority and a need for Congressional approval. Under the Higher Education Act of 1965, the Biden Administration claims that the Department of Education does have the legal authority to “compromise, waive, or release” student debt. However, even despite the language being rather clear, Biden’s student debt forgiveness and repayment plans are likely to be struck down, especially given the overturning of the Chevron Doctrine in June 2024. Established in 1984 by the Supreme Court, the Chevron Doctrine was a legal principle that required courts to defer to an agency's interpretation of a statute if that interpretation was reasonable. Analyzing Missouri v. U.S. Department of Education reveals that the recent removal of the Chevron Doctrine will further hinder the Department of Education's ability to cancel student debt, despite its clear and stated power to do so in various legal statutes. This analysis delves into the judicial challenges Biden’s program has faced and examines the implications of the Missouri lawsuit.

Read More
Aissatou Diallo
Canada’s Notwithstanding Clause: Not Standing With Fundamental Rights

On February 29, 2024, the Court of Appeal of Quebec issued a judgment on the constitutionality of Bill 21 (An Act Respecting the Laicity of the State) that immediately sparked outrage among civil liberties advocates. The controversial bill, passed by the National Assembly of Quebec in 2019, bans teachers, law enforcement officers, judges, and some other public employees from wearing religious symbols at work. This most recent ruling not only upheld the bill but also overturned an exemption that the Superior Court of Quebec had previously granted to staff of English schools in 2021. The dispute will likely move to the Supreme Court of Canada, with several organizations filing for leave to appeal. The Court of Appeal of Quebec’s ruling on Bill 21 ultimately highlights the manner in which the ambiguous language of Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms enables the violation of basic rights across Canada.

Read More
Angela Lu
Social Media Bans: Balancing the Rights of Youth, Parents, and Governments

From TikTok dance challenges to live footage of global events, social media is an information distribution powerhouse, inevitably occupying the phones of all age demographics. However, this status is tainted by the widespread concern over its overconsumption primarily among younger people. In 2023, the National Institutes of Health published a research report that hypothesized strong correlations between social media usage and youth mental health concerns. As a result, many state legislatures have felt compelled to enact legislation restricting social media accessibility. State-issued bans that target minors between the ages of 13 and 18 infringe on the Fourth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, which protects parental rights to make decisions relating to their children’s care and education. In addition, state governments’ efforts to restrict social media usage in education reveal viewpoint discrimination that threatens free speech rather than effectively addressing youth mental health challenges.

Read More
Stephen Lin
The Safety of Rwanda Act: Impacts on the Principle of Non-Refoulement and Refugeeism

The “Safety of Rwanda Act”, also referred to as the UK-Rwanda Migrant Deal or the MEDP (Migration and Economic Development Partnership), was passed by the United Kingdom (UK) Parliament on April 25, 2024, despite the UK Supreme Court holding that the deal was unlawful in November of 2023. This Migrant Deal controversially legalized the deportation of asylum seekers, who entered the UK illegally, to Rwanda. This received backlash from the public and legal scholars, who claimed that the MEDP could place asylum seekers in unsafe living conditions and put their livelihoods at risk.

Read More
Leah Druch
Employee or Independent Contractor? A Legal Analysis of Uber’s Worker Misclassification

Uber stands as a tangible representation of the fruits of modern-day technological innovation, yet the company continues to exploit its drivers who are paramount to its success. As of May 2024, Uber holds over 75 percent of the U.S. ridesharing market, with 149 million active users and 1.5 million drivers in the United States alone. With the sheer ubiquity of Uber’s services, something as fundamental as the status of Uber’s workers as “employees” or “independent contractors” should not still be up for debate. Uber’s reluctance to properly define their workers as either has directly resulted in their maltreatment, robbing them of proper employment benefits. Through a closer analysis of the Fair Labor Standards Act (1938) and the Employee or Independent Contractor Classification Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (2024) passed by the Department of Labor, it is clear that Uber’s workers are not economically independent enough from Uber to be considered independent contractors. Thus, Uber’s workers should be provided with the essential employee benefits granted under the Fair Labor Standards Act, such as paid sick leave and health insurance.

Read More
Audrea Chen
The Criminalization of Homelessness: Assessing the Eighth Amendment's Implications on Public Camping Law Enforcement

This past January, the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear the City of Grants Pass v. Johnson (2024). This pivotal case accuses an Oregon City of “cruel and unusual punishment” in its enforcement of anti-homelessness laws. To bar individuals who are involuntarily homeless from public camping directly violates the prohibitions against "cruel and unusual punishments" within the 8th Amendment. Upholding this constitutional right is crucial in navigating how homeless people are treated under the law.

Read More
Ileane Barrera
Solitary Confinement and Prison Labor: Exploring the Legal Ambiguity Surrounding Cruel and Unusual Punishment

Boasting the largest incarceration rate in the world, the United States’ treatment of its nearly two million prisoners has been the basis for legal scrutiny since the country’s inception. The vagueness of the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution has allowed for constant redefinition of how “cruel and unusual punishment” towards prisoners is understood throughout America. For instance, in the Supreme Court case Estelle v. Gamble (1976), a prisoner’s work-related injury caused him to be punished and denied adequate medical attention. As a result, the court ruled that the prisoner’s constitutional rights had been violated, creating the  precedent that the deprivation of necessary services or items to prisoners also qualified as cruel and unusual. More famously, the highly contentious issue of capital punishment has been either permitted or prohibited in prisons across state lines due to rulings regarding the Eighth Amendment; the absence of widespread legal consistency allowing for the injection of moral beliefs in decisions. For far too long, the ambiguity of the phrase “cruel and unusual punishment” has wrongfully protected many American prison systems from legal accountability for a multitude of mistreatments against prisoners–-including, but not limited to–a lack of basic worker’s rights and subjugation to solitary confinement.

Read More
Lukas Roybal
Know Your Rights (And the Climate’s): Held v. State of Montana as a Catalyst for Enforcing State-Level Green Amendments

Held v. State of Montana is a landmark climate case, decided in August of 2023, in which it was ruled that youth in the state of Montana have the right to a “stable climate system” and that Montana has the duty as a state to act forcibly to reduce climate emissions. While Held marks a turning point for climate justice in Montana, it throws into sharp focus the historic inaction of state governments when it comes to climate change. Its calls for Montana to protect the climate system for the sake of its citizens are important but do not adequately address the processes that would need to occur to thoroughly mitigate this problem in the present and the future. When it comes to litigation against the government, we need to ensure that the victories in the courthouse are eventually preserved in the law, protecting them from changing administrations and securing their place in influencing the country’s future.

Read More