Islamic Republic of Iran v. Canada: An Evaluation of the Terrorism Exception to State Immunity
In 2012, Canada enshrined the terrorism exception to state immunity in the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act (JTVA), an amendment to the State Immunity Act (SIA) which enables private plaintiffs to bring civil cases against states deemed sponsors of terrorism. These are currently the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Syrian Arab Republic. On June 27, 2023, Iran sued Canada before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), alleging that this legislation violates customary international law. The normative implications of the court’s future ruling are not limited to Canada. Although the United States has not accepted the jurisdiction of the ICJ, Congress passed the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) in 2016, which plaintiffs can utilize to bring claims against Iran, Syria, North Korea, and Cuba. Based on “the restrictive theory of state immunity,” precedent relative to the ICJ and various national courts, and international legal requirements including state practice and opinio juris, the terrorism exception to state immunity as presented in the JTVA seems to violate customary international law when terrorist activities are acta jure imperii.
Read More
Weaponization of Colonial-Era Sedition Law: The Future of India’s Free Speech
In May 2022, the Indian Supreme Court heard the case SG Vombatkere v Union of India, which prompted a temporary halt and review of the enforcement of the sedition law located in Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Instituted by the British in 1870, India’s sedition law is a remnant of colonial rule criminalizing publication or speech that incites hatred or contempt toward the nation’s government. The Supreme Court will soon hear debate over its constitutionality as measured by Article 19 (1)(a) of the Indian Constitution which states “all citizens have the right to freedom of speech and expression.” Section 124a of the IPC squashes dissent and expression within the world’s largest democracy; with its use now manipulated by India’s rising authoritarianism, its amendment is necessary and rooted in precedent.
Read More
An Analysis of Feds for Medical Freedom v. Biden: The Implications for the Strength of the Unitary Executive
This past March, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit blocked President Biden’s vaccine mandate for federal employees, upholding an injunction entered by a lower court against the Biden Administration in the case Feds for Medical Freedom et al. v. Biden. The decision comes nearly a year and a half after President Biden signed executive orders in September 2021 which mandated that federal employees receive vaccination against COVID-19 or face employment termination. In upholding the injunction, the Fifth Circuit Court ruled that President Biden lacked the jurisdiction to enact a vaccine mandate for all federal employees. As the Court explained in its majority ruling, the Chief Executive did not have sole authority over “private, irreversible medical decisions made in consultation with private medical professionals outside the federal workplace,” despite the government’s claims. By its nature, this jurisdictional argument over certain federal employment matters reopens the broader debate over the power of the President to make personnel changes within the executive branch of government. However, while the ruling came as a setback for the Biden Administration’s policies, the ruling is not necessarily a permanent defeat for robust executive authority more broadly speaking.
Read More
From Reconstruction to Reproductive Justice: An Interview with Professor Widney Brown on the Role of the Thirteenth Amendment in (Re)securing Abortion Rights
Content Warning: This article contains sensitive themes of abuse, sexual assault, and violence that may be distressing to some readers.
“I have borne thirteen children, and seen most all sold off to slavery, and when I cried out with my mother’s grief, none but Jesus heard me! And ain’t I a woman?”
Read More
An Analysis of United States v. Texas: The Commodification of Undocumented Individuals in a Federal and State Government Power Struggle
On November 29, 2022, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments for United States v. Texas. A decision from the Supreme Court is expected to be released in June 2023 to either reinstate the Mayorkas Memorandum or vacate it, which would render a larger number of undocumented immigrants subject to deportation by ICE. The case’s ruling will have broad implications for states’ ability to challenge federal immigration policy through the judiciary, including possibly making established legal precedent concerning undocumented immigrants more easily contestable by anti-immigration states.
Read More
A Matter of Trust: The Sherman Act in the Age of Technology
On January 24, 2023, the U.S. Attorney General and the Attorney Generals of eight other states filed U.S. and Plaintiff States v. Google against Google LLC, the parent company of Google, YouTube, Waze, Fitbit, and numerous other Internet services, for violating Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act in the field of digital advertising. This antitrust lawsuit comes as no surprise, as Google is a ubiquitous household name in its corner of the Internet. But how did this action come about, why is it happening now, and what precedent will it set for the future of Internet advertising?
Read More
If It Bleeds, It Leads… to Liability Concerns?: Gonzalez v. Google, Online Terror, and the Need for Section 230 Reform
On November 13th, 2015, extremist terrorists targeted stadiums, concerts, and restaurants across Paris killing 130 and wounding 494 people, including an American student, Nohemi Gonzalez, who was studying at the Strate School of Design in Sèvres for a semester. Under the Antiterrorism Act (ATA), American citizens are given the right to sue for damages caused by acts of international terrorism, and the family of Gonzalez decided to exercise this right, though their suit takes a new approach to that form of liability.
Read More
Overseeing the Overseer: The Unchecked Power of the CFPB
The CFPB, a consolidation of seven federal agencies, currently enforces most regulations related to consumer finance. Enforcing consumer protections often invites broad interpretation, giving the agency extensive power over many economic sectors. The agency issues rules, investigates consumer complaints, supervises entities regulated by consumer protections, and takes enforcement action. This power, it seems, has not come with proportional oversight. While the CFPB is not alone in having unaccountable authority granted by Congress, the bureau’s unique characteristics make its constitutionality dubious.
Read More
The State, Nation, and Genocide: How the UN could apply the Genocide Convention to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine
In justifying Russia’s violent invasion of Ukraine, Russia claims that Ukraine is not a nation — just a part of Russia to be reabsorbed. This denial of Ukrainian nationhood illustrates how the convention on “Genocide” leaves an exploitable, undefined legal ambiguity: Given that the central framing of the Russia-Ukraine war — according to both Russia and Ukraine — is the legitimacy of the Ukrainian people, if Ukraine brought claims against Russia, the argument should reflect attempts to eliminate the Ukrainian state (ie. the government) and therefore the Ukrainian nation (ie. the people). Currently, neither the Convention on Genocide nor Crimes Against Humanity prohibit the elimination of a state in order to annihilate a nation. However, if the state and the nation were explicitly linked, Russia’s denial of and attack on the Ukrainian state could be defined as genocide.
Read More
Article 49.3 in France: A Political Tool
On October 19, 2022, Prime Minister of France Elisabeth Borne invoked the government’s “engagement of responsibility,” ceasing legislative debate over the state budget in the National Assembly (l’Assemblée nationale). Less than 24 hours later, Borne triggered the provision once again, this time for the Social Security finance bill (PLFSS). In response, the second and third largest political groups in Parliament—the left-wing Nouvelle Union Populaire Écologique et Sociale (NUPES) coalition and the right-wing Rassemblement National (RN)—filed motions of no confidence, which would ultimately end up rejected by the majority of Parliament.
Read More
New York Civil Court Judge Breaks Precedent Regarding Polyamorous Relationships
The Civil Court of the City of New York’s Judge, Karen May Bacdayan, broke precedent last year in her ruling that polyamorous partners, called “non-traditional” family members, should not automatically be denied legal rights. On September 23, Judge Bacdayan held in West 49th St., LLC v. O’Neill that the third partner, respondent Markyus O’Neill, to married couple Scott Anderson and Robert Romano was allowed to renew a lease in Anderson’s name. In the United States, the rights of polyamorous couples are confusing and seemingly non-existent; however, the general consensus is that the married spouses retain legal rights that the other partners do not receive. Therefore, Judge Bacdayan’s ruling in West 49th St., LLC v. O’Neill could have a dramatic impact on future polyamorous relationship case law if recognized by upper courts both on a state and federal level, having the potential to set a precedent on an otherwise legally unrecognized group.
Read More
Terminations of the Paramount Decrees: A Greenlight for Monopolies
In August 2020, during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, New York federal court terminated the Paramount Consent decrees. The federal court’s termination of these decrees suggests the idea that they have little to no effect in regulating the current market despite the recent conglomerations of streaming services. This calls into question the purpose of terminating “legacy” antitrust judgments that seemingly have no present-day ramifications.
Read More
Where Creativity and Copyright Collide: AWF v. Goldsmith and the Fight Over Fair Use
On October 12, 2022, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. (AWF) v. Goldsmith, a case that could become the most consequential copyright infringement dispute in decades. Goldsmith owes its significance to its focus on the (admittedly elusive) standard of artistic “transformativity,” which has so far led the court to consider the transformative qualities of art ranging from Mork and Mindy to the Mona Lisa, Lord of the Rings, and, somehow, Syracuse University football games. It is the first non-digital fair use case the Court has heard in nearly 30 years and concerns a series of 16 Andy Warhol portraits of the late musical icon Prince, the inspiration for which came from a 1984 headshot by music photographer Lynn Goldsmith. Goldsmith alleges that Warhol, in creating art that existed outside of a prior licensing deal she had with the magazine Vanity Fair, violated the copyright of her work. AWF, who currently owns the rights to Warhol’s work, argues instead that the transformative nature of the paintings qualify them as fair use.
Read More
A Conservative Supermajority on the Supreme Court and its Impact on Affirmative Action
With the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Dobbs v. Jackson’s Women’s Health Organization (2022), where five Supreme Court justices voted to overturn the precedent set by Roe v. Wade (1973), the Court demonstrated a willingness to question, and even overturn, past precedent. Among the contentious cases for this term is Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, a case concerning affirmative action and discrimination in the college admissions process. Students for Fair Admissions will be the first affirmative action case the Court has decided since it largely upheld the use of race as a factor in college admissions decisions in 2016. However, the current makeup of the Court, of which three Trump-appointed justices have cemented a conservative supermajority, likely represents the end of the constitutionality of affirmative action, with Students for Fair Admissions being a key case in overturning past precedent.
Read More
Limits to the Scope and Enforceability of U.S.-Russia Sanctions
On February 22, 2022, the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC)’s issuance of the related Directive 1A under the Executive Order on Blocking Property (EO 14024) pioneered a series of sanctions impacting various entities (notably commercial) under U.S. jurisdiction. In the spring of 2022, the Special Russian Sanctions Authority Act of 2022 was introduced in the Senate and ultimately signed into law, legalizing the expansion of the existing sanctions against the assets of Russian political elites since the onset of the Russia-Ukraine war. In analyzing the application of U.S. contract law, professional codes of conduct for U.S. attorneys, and the limits of U.S. jurisdiction as it concerns these government sanctions, one may discover limitations to the long list of sanctions against Russian entities and their enforceability.
Read More
Paradox or Contradiction? Antitrust Law in Labor Markets
Earlier this year, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Justice Department (DOJ) launched a joint inquiry investigating the “impact of monopsony power, including in labor markets.” While monopoly describes a single producer or group thereof manipulating a market, monopsony is the condition of a single buyer doing the same. To conceptualize monopsony in labor markets, think of the “Company Town.” A single firm employs all or most workers in a town. The firm has no competition when hiring townsfolk. The townsfolk do not have an alternative venue for employment. This allows the firm to set wages with minimal to no negotiation as the sole buyer of labor, behaving as a monopsony. In labor markets, workers supply while firms purchase labor. Yet, there is reason to think that recent antitrust developments by the FTC will be another lame duck in Washington.
Read More
Divided We Fall: How Two Upcoming Supreme Court Cases Threaten to Derail Democracy
In just a few months, the Supreme Court will issue decisions on two pivotal cases that will determine the course of democracy in the United States. The challenges to voting rights presented in these cases threaten to diminish the voting power of large swaths of voters by potentially allowing for more gerrymandered congressional maps and giving states nearly unchecked regulatory power over elections, undermining an election system that should be impartial and democratic.
Read More
It’s Time We Defend the First Amendment on Social Media
Traditionally, the First Amendment has protected speech in public spaces. But when virtually all political expression takes place on privately owned forums, it becomes a governmental duty to defend that fundamental right when it is threatened, whether that be in the streets and in parks or on the internet. When Twitter disabled then-president Donald Trump’s account following the 2021 Capitol riot, reactions were mixed across the political spectrum. While some praised the move as responsible content moderation, others condemned it as just one instance among many of anti-conservative bias on social media platforms. Yet there was one thing everyone could agree on: the debate over the role of social media in politics was only just beginning.
Read More
Perpetuating Poverty: How Payday Loan Companies Take Advantage of Vulnerable Consumers
Jason Stinnett, a bankruptcy and consumer litigation attorney at a non-profit law firm in downtown Baton Rouge, Louisiana, is familiar with the devastating impacts of predatory payday lending. His clientele are mostly Black women, many of whom support families on less than $1,500 a month. To pay for basic living expenses like rent and groceries, some borrow from local consumer finance companies. It is easy to accumulate debt from these loans, but hard to escape it. The interest rates on payday loans in Baton Rouge can reach higher than 33%, and it is not uncommon for companies to sue borrowers for debts that amount to more than their yearly income.
Read More
Error 404: Digital Humanitarianism and the Mirage of Human Rights
In a period of increased state violence, geopolitical conflict and environmental catastrophes, there is a newfound urgency to improve the efficiency of humanitarian aid. As with most challenges in the twenty-first century, governments and organizations have turned to technology to address these issues. However, there is nothing inherently progressive about big data, and when examining its humanitarian consequences, big data collection threatens to undermine existing international human rights law (IHRL), namely; the right to privacy and equality.
Read More
