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.
Read More
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.
Read More
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.
Read More
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.
Read More
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.
Read More
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.
Read More
The Salvadoran State of Emergency: A Comparative Analysis of Methods for Constitutional
On March 27, 2022, the Legislative Assembly of El Salvador granted President Nayib Bukele’s request to declare a national state of emergency, informally declaring war on gangs in line with the iron fist policies that have dominated Latin American politics for decades. This legislative power is enshrined in the second section of Title II, Chapter I of the Salvadoran constitution, which limits the length of the state of emergency to 30 days. However, as of October 2024, it has been re-declared over twenty-four times. Under it, two percent of the adult population has been incarcerated, with human rights abuses, including arbitrary arrests, suspension of due process and free speech, and alleged prison torture, becoming institutionalized. This same pattern of state of emergency declarations and constitutional and human rights law deterioration has been seen throughout the region, including in Venezuela and Honduras. However, this backsliding can not only be attributed to antidemocratic leaders but also the language of provisions for states of emergency and the broader way in which national constitutions incorporate international laws. These two factors are crucial in determining the survivability of human rights. Serving as a useful counterexample to the Salvadoran case is South Africa’s constitution and case law, which was created in part to address the apartheid regime’s abuse of states of emergency.
Read More
Shattered Standards: The End of Chevron Deference and Its Impact on Data Privacy and AI Regulation
As technology permeates every aspect of modern life, the legal frameworks meant to protect individual privacy are struggling to address the rapid advancements in digital tracking and artificial intelligence (AI). The recent dismantling of the Chevron deference has only exacerbated this legal uncertainty by shifting interpretive authority from specialized federal agencies to the state judiciary. The result is a fragmented, inconsistent landscape where outdated privacy laws are being applied by courts ill-equipped to police the complexities of modern technologies. Without uniform federal guidance, businesses are forced to navigate a patchwork of state rulings, while consumers are left vulnerable to privacy breaches. With only 20 out of 50 states having enacted privacy legislation, the removal of Chevron deference will open significant regulatory gaps, as increased legal scrutiny of federal agencies decreases their regulatory power. This leaves the correct application of legislation to court interpretation, creating fragmented privacy protections that harm consumers and businesses across multiple jurisdictions.
Read More
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.
Read More
