Online Journal — Columbia Undergraduate Law Review

The Fall of Chevron: How One SCOTUS Ruling Will Transform the Congressional Landscape

After many months of anticipation since its initial consideration in January, the Supreme Court finally released a decision in June 2024 for Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. ___ (2024). This case has been watched closely by both legal scholars and average citizens for its deep effects on the regulation of businesses, healthcare, taxes, and many other facets of everyday life. Upon its release, the decision struck down a long-standing precedent set by Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 (1984), which has been used as the basis for administrative law arguments for forty years. Immediately following the decision, dozens of popular news sources covered the implications of this case, including how it resulted in a shift of power from federal agencies to courts and why these courts may not be equipped to decide the technical issues that they will now face going forward. These popular sources focused their discussions on deference and who was newly responsible for determining matters of ambiguity, yet few considered Loper Bright’s broader implications in the legal and political world. While the new precedent set by this case certainly raises questions concerning how well-equipped these courts are to handle the issues they will now face, the changes resulting from Loper Bright will be far more complex than a mere change in deference, and its changes will be felt across the legal world. The overturning of the Chevron deference by Loper Bright not only changes the legal powers of courts and agencies in interpreting statutes of ambiguous nature, but it will also significantly slow down the rulemaking process, introduce further politicization, and present a severe barrier for future bills to be passed.

Paige LawrieMarch 5, 2025Chevron, Loper Bright, expert opinion, federal rule of evidence 702, deference

Cryptocurrency at a Crossroads: Navigating Securities Law, Anti-Money Laundering, and Federal Oversight in a Decentralized Economy

In 2008, amidst a global financial meltdown, someone calling himself Satoshi Nakamoto—who has kept his identity a secret to this day—published a paper introducing the idea of Bitcoin. [1] Before Nakamoto’s foundational document of cryptocurrency, there was no functioning blockchain. Bitcoin, like other cryptocurrencies, is an “electronic coin.” It exists on a public ledger called a “proof-of-work chain” (PoW) blockchain, where transactions are verified by “miners,” or programmers who solve complex computational puzzles to add new transactions to the existing chain. [2] Each successful verification adds a block to the blockchain, which is publicly accessible and ensures that the transfer of funds is tamper-proof. This process is decentralized, meaning it can happen anywhere worldwide.

This article explores the limitations of current U.S. regulatory frameworks—securities laws, anti-money laundering (AML) rules, and tax enforcement—in addressing the unique challenges posed by decentralized cryptocurrencies. Examining cases such as SEC v. LBRY, United States v. Harmon, and IRS v. Coinbase reveals the urgent need to develop a nuanced “Digital Asset Framework” (The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has developed the “Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework” (CARF), which is a global initiative aimed at promoting the automatic exchange of information between countries to tackle emerging tax evasion risks related to cryptocurrency and digital assets. While CARF is an acronym related to digital assets, it pertains explicitly to reporting standards rather than a general evaluation framework. Therefore, no formal acronym is currently used for “Digital Asset Framework” in cryptocurrency.) to balance innovation, privacy, and accountability in this transformative sector, which drives innovation through decentralized technologies, emphasizes privacy in peer-to-peer transactions, and challenges traditional notions of accountability. These cases underscore this struggle as regulatory agencies seek to balance privacy, tax compliance, and innovation with the need for oversight in a rapidly evolving digital economy.

Yoona LeeMarch 5, 2025Cryptocurrency Regulation, Securities Law, Digital Assets

What a Structural Remedy for Google Means: Implications for Consumers

In the last decade, Google has become synonymous with the internet itself, its search engine serving as the primary gateway for billions of users to access information, commerce, and utilities. Google’s unparalleled dominance in the digital marketplace – particularly in search and advertising – has made the company a focal point of legal scrutiny, provoking inquiry from regulators worldwide. In the United States, this scrutiny has culminated in two ongoing antitrust cases brought by the Department of Justice (DOJ), representing the most significant antitrust challenges to a tech giant since United States v. Microsoft in 1998.

Cruel and Unusual Loophole: Local Level Criminalization of Being Unhoused

Local government is big government — its allotted power affects every single American. The United States’ municipal governments employ around 14 million people, more than federal and all state governments combined. These mass political bodies are primarily governed by Home Rule or Dillon’s Rule, and evolving legal limitations of both theories define local government authority. The recent Supreme Court decision in City of Grants Pass v. Johnson removes a barrier for local governments looking to expand power, creating a political body that can maneuver legal challenges presented by the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause through Home Rule favorability.

Liam DreyerJanuary 15, 2025

Paid by AI: Algorithmic Wage Discrimination in the Gig Economy

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has been articulated to be the next revolutionary force within various areas of the law including antitrust, privacy, education, and labor law. However, AI’s specific implementation in the gig economy, such as personalizing wages for individual workers like rideshare drivers, may reverse groundbreaking decisions and pose new challenges in the evolving landscape of labor law protections for gig workers. Soon, it may influence labor in its entirety. The use of recent technological developments for the extraction and processing of data gives way to concerns about the reduction of privacy in the workplace as well as continued discrimination against gig workers contrary to major decisions by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Atlanta Opera, Inc., for instance, classified gig workers as covered employees, granting them common-law protection. Despite this and similar rulings, the implementation of algorithmically personalized wages highlights the gaps in federal policy and law that fail to account for the nuanced and unconventional workplaces of the gig economy. Addressing this will require, in addition to ongoing efforts by workers and worker advocates, recognizing gig workers as covered employees, increasing legislation, and enforcing antitrust laws to curb employers’ algorithmic use of tools.

Wena TengJanuary 15, 2025

Life, Liberty, and Property: An Analysis of Squatters’ Rights & Adverse Possession Amid a Housing Crisis

New York City has always been known as the site of change, ambition, and hope. Now, it faces a profound crisis: New York City cannot house its people. The city’s towering skyline hides a grim reality—shelter, the most basic human necessity, has become a luxury beyond reach for many. This housing crisis casts a shadow not only over current residents but also over the thousands who dream of calling the city home. Forbes projects that by 2032, New York City will fall short by 500,000 housing units. New York City hardly stands alone; this problem prevails across the United States.

Reese TaylorJanuary 5, 2025

Judicial Favoritism: How the Roberts Court Shields White Collar Criminals

The Roberts Court has handed down a slew of consequential decisions since Donald Trump came into office, with the most recent critical cases being Snyder v. United States (2024) and Securities Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy (2023). These decisions represent a shifting attitude towards white-collar criminal prosecution––one where the onus is on prosecutors and regulatory agencies to go above and beyond, while financial criminals can more easily get away with their fraudulent acts. In Snyder, the Court ruled on the issue of bribing public officials; it held that there is a difference between bribes and gratuities, or tips, so the federal bribery statute cannot apply in the case of gratuities given for past actions that were never stipulated in a quid pro quo agreement. Similarly, in Jarkesy the Court sidestepped Congress and held that securities fraud cases must be heard by an Article III court with a jury instead of in an administrative hearing, as it typically would through the SEC. All in all, the Roberts Court has similarly decided in Percoco v. United States (2023), Kelly v. United States (2020), and McDonnell v. United States (2016). The Roberts Court has established a position of leniency towards white collar criminals, as demonstrated by its Trump-era rulings which limit the scope of prosecutorial authority and narrow interpretation of fraud statutes.

Katherine GrivkovJanuary 5, 2025

Agency Overreach or Necessary Regulation? A Comparative Look at the Scope of the Clean Water Act

In 2024, the Clean Water Act (CWA) returned to the forefront of environmental law amid a new legal controversy within the Supreme Court. On October 16, the City and County of San Francisco challenged the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the Supreme Court over a pollution discharge permit reissued by the agency. This case comes in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Price Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024) to overrule the precedent of Chevron Deference, which allowed courts to defer the interpretation of ambiguous statutes to relevant agencies. In the past, the CWA has faced four separate challenges related to the definition of “waters of the United States” (WOTUS), representing a larger trend of reigning in the Act’s jurisdiction. Ultimately, the Supreme Court’s decisions in these cases were made with deference to the agency’s ecological judgments. However, ongoing questions regarding the scope of the CWA in the absence of Chevron Deference have become increasingly prevalent at the Supreme Court. Most recently the Supreme Court addressed these questions in the case of The City and County of San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency (2024). The Supreme Court’s pending decision, if based in legal precedent, will likely further restrict the agency’s interpretation of the law. This can potentially leave many formerly regulated waters unprotected by the CWA, with significant consequences for both water quality and flood prevention.

Brandon SahlyJanuary 5, 2025

The Aftermath of Judiciary Misjudgement: How SCOTUS Opened the Window for Resurgence of Voter Suppression

In 2020, the presidential election garnered the highest voter turnout in the 21st century, with an increase in ballots from 2016 to 2020 that totaled 17 million. Additionally, 69% of voters in 2020 used nontraditional voting methods, such as mail-in and early voting. With the outcome of the 2024 presidential election looming, the accessibility of nontraditional voting methods, specifically absentee ballots, is in danger as legislators and political groups seek to restrict these methods operating under the pretense of protecting election security, removing errors and delays, and the claimed “illegality” of these methods. Conservatives in states like Missouri and Pennsylvania have led legal challenges to limit widespread access to absentee ballots as statistics show Democrats are more likely to vote by mail. Recent state-level cases reveal attempts to suppress absentee ballot access, a development facilitated by the Supreme Court’s unsubstantiated ruling in Shelby County v. Holder (2013). The holding in this case disproportionately affects marginalized communities in the form of stricter ID requirements and more stringent mail-in conditions, especially in areas with historically low voter turnout.

Arjun RatanJanuary 5, 2025