The Supreme Court’s Unconstitutional Role in Rights of Action Under Bivens vs. Six Unknown Named Narcotics Agents
On June 21, 1971, the Supreme Court held in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Narcotics Agents that an implied right of action existed against federal officers for violation of one’s Fourth Amendment rights. [1] According to the court, the Constitution implied that individuals had a right to sue for monetary damages if they could prove that a federal official, acting under federal orders, subjected them to an unreasonable search or seizure. Bivens actions, then, provide an avenue for victims of constitutional violations to receive monetary redress for their grievances. In the decade following the Bivens decision, the Court expanded the precedent to apply to infringements on the Fifth and Eighth Amendments, including individual’s rights against self-incrimination and cruel and unusual punishment, respectively, by rewarding damages in two other cases: Davis v. Passman (1979) and Carlson v. Green (1980).
Read More
To Obstruct India’s Ongoing Muslim Genocide the Nation’s Courts Must Determine the Constitutionality of Right-Wing Love Jihad Laws
Muslims in India, the world’s largest democracy and second most populous nation, are currently facing a genocidal crisis. Constituting approximately 14 percent of India’s population, compared to the nation’s Hindu majority of 80 percent, Muslims living under the rule of India’s far-right, Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, have become direct targets of government measures put in place to prevent a “demographic imbalance,” in which Hindus no longer make up a majority of India’s population. These measures include religious leaders calling for mass killings, attacks on Muslim-owned businesses, and a series of laws and policies that outrightly target and exclude Muslims from Indian society. [1]
Read More
The Future of Progressive Originalism: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Interpretation of the Constitution
During her confirmation hearings in March 2022, Justice Jackson introduced herself to Congress as an originalist. [1] Legal originalism is a doctrine of judicial interpretation that follows the Constitution as it was initially intended to be understood at the time it was written. This doctrine is often associated with the Court’s more conservative justices, such as Justices Antonio Scalia and Clarence Thomas, who have used it to argue against abortion and gun rights. However, under Justice Jackson’s interpretation, originalism has taken on a new form—one that is lauded for its progressivism.
Read More
A Blow to Civil Rights: The Supreme Court’s Decision to Uphold Discrimination
During the civil rights protests of the 1960s, many pieces of legislation were passed to better secure rights for minority groups. Such legislation included the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Recently, however, civil rights legislation has come under attack with the Supreme Court’s decision in Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller P.L.L.C (2022). In Cummings, the Court ruled that emotional distress damages—obtainable through Title VI of the Civil Rights Act—are not recoverable. [1] The Court’s ruling erects new barriers in the paths of victims who simply want to feel whole after being discriminated against. Thus, the crux of civil rights legislation is suppressed as victims will not be able to seek justice even though “emotional injury is often the primary, and at times the only, harm caused by discrimination.” [2]
Read More
Taiwan’s Long (Impossible) Road from a De Facto to a De Jure Country: Is a New Constitution the Answer?
“Weeping in the wind, the orphan of Asia / There is scarlet mud on his yellowish face / There is White Terror in his dark pupils / And there is West Wind whistling the sad song in the East.” As Lo Ta-yu lamented in his song “The Orphan of Asia,” Taiwan in the 1980s suffered an identity crisis, drifting between the Nationalist Party’s urge to reclaim mainland China and the inhabitants’ will to put down roots on the island—all amidst the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) intensifying efforts to subjugate the island. An abandonment sentiment began to brew, and today, it has amplified in more concrete ways: the denied entry to the United Nations (UN), the constant terror of an imminent Chinese invasion, and the lack of recognition from the international community.
Read More
Poland’s Women’s Strike and the Legality of Radical Forms of Verbal Protest in Defense of Democratic Principles
They say desperate times call for desperate measures. Yet is this concept applicable in law? Women protesting against the unconstitutional abortion ban in Poland found out the hard way. On October 22, 2020, women in Poland were stripped of their rights to abortion. According to the new amendment to the Parliamentary Act on Family Planning, the Protection of Human Feti, and the Conditions Permitting the Termination of Pregnancy of January 7, 1993, the procedure is also penalized when carried out in accord with medical recommendations on embryo-pathological premises. [1]
Read More
The Lack of Arab American Categorization in the U.S. Census and its Legal Implications for Protection Against Discrimination
Arab Americans are categorized as “White” on the United States Census. Yet, the vast majority of reputable public opinion studies show that anti-Arab sentiment has rapidly grown in the past two decades, setting Arab Americans apart as a discriminated minority. After the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center, Arabs and Muslims faced a sharp increase in hate crimes and ingrained cultural distaste. Studies show that the media also played a role in establishing disingenuous narratives surrounding Arab Americans in the wake of 9/11. [1]
Read More
The Cost of a New Cold War: Loss of the Fourth Amendment
As the United States and China battle over global influence, some experts and politicians have begun calling the growing tension between the two superpowers a “new Cold War.” [1] American enmity towards the Chinese government has, unfortunately, affected the judgment of the U.S. intelligence community towards American citizens of Chinese descent, who have often been characterized as sympathizers and even spies of the Chinese government. On June 15, 2022, top intelligence officials, in a new Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) report, acknowledged that they may collect more phone calls from Chinese Americans in order to combat Chinese espionage. [2]
Read More
The ABCs of Worker Misclassification: Protecting The Labor Rights of App-Based Drivers
In November 2020, Californians voted to pass Proposition 22 (Prop 22), a ballot initiative to exclude ride-hail and food-delivery app-based workers from practically all employee rights under state law, including the right to a minimum wage, expenses reimbursement, and unemployment compensation. [1] The ballot initiative was largely a response to California Assembly Bill 5 (AB5), which required companies to extend employee classification to some gig workers who previously held independent contractor (IC) status.
Read More
