The Implications of Denying Healthcare to Inmates: Originalism and the Supreme Court
As the United States continues to grapple with the meaning and interpretation of its Constitution, issues relating to abortion, affirmative action, and, most recently, the issue of healthcare for incarcerated individuals have grown increasingly contentious. The same originalist approach that has been deployed to challenge the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling could also be used to curtail the healthcare rights of those who are incarcerated, thus directly contravening the provisions of the Eighth Amendment and disregarding the legal precedents established by the 1976 Supreme Court decision in Estelle v. Gamble. The constitutional right to healthcare for incarcerated individuals, as established through Estelle v. Gamble, maintained that failing to provide "adequate medical care" violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. The case involved a respondent state inmate who claimed he had been subjected to "cruel and unusual punishment" following inadequate back injury treatment. The district court dismissed the prisoner's pro se complaint, which had previously maintained that an "allegation of inadequate medical care was insufficient to be classified as a cause of action" under the Eighth Amendment. Nonetheless, the U.S. Court of Appeals of the 5th Circuit reversed and reinstated the complaint, ultimately granting the defendants' certiorari petition and establishing that denial of healthcare equated to "cruel and unusual punishment." Ultimately, the notion of "deliberate indifference" set a legal definition that prohibits ignoring the plight of prisoners who require healthcare, translating into a mandate meant to provide all persons in custody with access to medical care. Beyond healthcare, Estelle's significance lies in that the Court contended that prison conditions could amount to "cruel and unusual punishment," proposing a more focused approach to providing care for incarcerated individuals.
Read More
The Supreme Court’s Verdict of Allen v. Milligan: A Pivotal Moment in the Battle for Voting Rights and Representation
Marking a turning point in legal history, the ruling in the recent Supreme Court case Allen v. Milligan has been hailed as both “historic and significant” by Deuel Ross, the plaintiff’s attorney. On June 8, 2023, this case, which revolved around an Alabama congressional redistricting map drawn by a Republican-dominated legislature, was brought out of the lower district court. In a state where one in four voters are Black, yet only one Black representative held a position out of the seven representatives, the fairness of the district lines was under question. An analysis of the population distribution within the lines found that Black voters were dominant in one sole district, whereas the rest of the Black population was meticulously spread out in other districts. The areas with the most Black residents had more voting power than the single district, which prevented Alabama from having more than one Black representative. In Allen v. Milligan, in a 5-4 ruling, both conservative and liberal judges upheld Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) in an attempt to alleviate the effects of racial discrimination. The Court found that, given Alabama’s racially polarizing voting, the map had to be redrawn. Although served with a glimpse of hope, the Court declined the request from Black Alabama voters and organizations for the lines to be redrawn with the intention of having proportional Black representation. Thus, while the discriminatory effects were addressed, they were not alleviated. By using an outdated method to determine the districting of lines while viewing the Constitution as a “color-blind” document, the Court failed to fully address a critical and ongoing issue that the VRA has originally intended to solve.
Read More
Navigating Uncharted Waters: Redefining Liability in the Age of Climate Migration
As climate-induced migration intensifies, individuals and communities are relocating around the world due to the increasingly dangerous effects of climate change. Those affected by this phenomenon, often referred to as “climate migrants” or “climate refugees,” frequently find themselves without formal legal recognition. This oversight deprives them of the protections that these frameworks allege to offer, leaving many vulnerable amid this global dilemma. While climate migrants navigate a treacherous path, it becomes evident that society’s legal safeguards fall short. The inability to formally recognize climate refugees and the absence of effective resettlement mechanisms highlight these deficiencies, as do gaps in equitable climate justice compensation and the enforcement of international cooperation. To address these issues, there is a pressing need for new legislation tailored to the intricacies of climate-induced migration—laws that prioritize clear resettlement strategies, fair compensation measures, and enhanced global collaboration, all reinforced by stringent enforcement. Beyond merely protecting climate migrants, these reforms are essential to bolster the resilience and well-being of the global community facing an unparalleled environmental crisis.
Read More
Dangers of Unregulated Charities: Revising Nonprofit Corporate Governance
he address of the fake charity “American Cancer Society of Michigan” led to a rented mailbox on Staten Island in New York City—hundreds of miles away from Michigan. Beginning in 2014, this rented mailbox became the “home” to seventy-six fake charities, all approved by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), under which the regulatory system for U.S. charities falls. Despite warnings from the real American Cancer Society about these sound-alike groups, the IRS approved them anyway. Ian Hosang, who created the seventy-six fake charities, is accused by New York prosecutors of operating a charity fraud that stole over $150,000 through soliciting donations for supposed cancer charities. Many of these fake charities started with the words “American Cancer Society,” “American Cancer Foundation,” and “United Way,” despite Hosang’s lack of affiliation with the actual American Cancer Society and United Way.
Read More
Disparate Impact: The Natural Disaster Aid Inequities Storm On
As the Atlantic Hurricane season continues through the summer to the end of November, communities in the Southern United States are readying themselves for what the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has suggested will turn out to be a “near-normal” season. While stocking up on emergency items and tracking the paths of the hurricanes coming their way, some households are also bracing themselves for a more complicated storm of events that may follow hurricane season – the steps towards gaining financial recovery and aid. These very steps and their uneven responses between bodies of applicants reflect and magnify the inadequate measures taken by government agencies involved with natural disaster response, such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), to alleviate crisis, thus highlighting their culpability for disparate impact.
Read More
Playing Legal Ping-Pong: Schrems I, II, and Perhaps III
In both the United States and European Union, protection of personal data is an essential right. Transatlantic data exchanges are projected to form the foundation of over $1 trillion in yearly trade and investment for multinational companies. Despite its lucrative potential and the United States’ reliance on transatlantic transfers of personal data for national security, the legality of such transfers has yet to be clearly outlined. Since the Court of European Justice’s ruling in Data Protection Commissioner v. Facebook Ireland Limited and Maximillian Schrems (colloquially known as Schrems II), the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield has been deemed invalid and companies with U.S. and EU presences have been left without necessary compliance regulations that allow them to legally transfer data internationally. When the Court invalidated the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield, it failed to replace it with a clear alternative. This has created challenges for international businesses and governments as none of the parties know to whom to defer for regulatory compliance inquiries. While on July 10, 2023, the EU Commission and the Biden Administration agreed upon an EU-U.S. Data Protection Framework, it is unlikely that this agreement will be legally binding. Should the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) overturn this framework, all policy proposals must start over. The debacle not only highlights differences in data protection standards and surveillance practices between the two regions but also the inadequate commonplace of international organizations deciding on ‘legal’ frameworks without judicial approval.
Read More
Religious Freedom or Religious Indoctrination? The Constitutionality Behind the First Religious Charter School in the US
After deliberating for three hours, a small committee in Oklahoma made a decision that would irrevocably blur the lines of what constitutes the separation of church and state. The ruling – the approval of a state-funded Catholic charter school – was the first ever approval of a taxpayer funded religious institution in United States history. Following the verdict, many have called into question whether this decision is an act of “religious freedom” or a violation of the fundamental rights granted by the first amendment. The school, St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, which is set to open next fall, is unconstitutional on the grounds that it violates the Oklahoma Constitution, the United States Constitution, and the Oklahoma Charter School Act. Further, previous court case precedents such as Locke v. Davey (2004) and Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002) clarify how this decision oversteps boundaries regarding governmental entanglement in religion.
Read More
The Demise of Affirmative Action: The Consequences of an Anti-Precedent Supreme Court
In 1954, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that separate cannot be equal in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, thus commencing a nearly century-long mission of advancing equitable education in the United States. This past June, the Supreme Court turned its back on its legacy by ruling affirmative action policies unconstitutional in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc v. Presidents and Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc v. University of North Carolina. Having emerged in the tail-end of the Civil Rights Movement, affirmative action policies were developed to rectify the consequences of historical discrimination against people of color by enabling employers and schools to consider race favorably among applicants. Although affirmative action has existed since the 1800s, it took its current form through an Executive Order by President John F. Kennedy in 1961 (Order 10925) in an effort to promote equal opportunity in employment. Universities soon began voluntarily applying affirmative action policies to their admissions during and after the Civil Rights Movement. Since then, affirmative action has served as a bedrock of equality initiatives and has proven itself to be an unparalleled tool to achieving diversity.
Read More
Self-determination in Flux: Kosovo’s Independence in International Law
In the winter of 2008, the United Nations General Assembly submitted a request for an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice on whether “the unilateral declaration of Independence of Kosovo” was in accordance with international law. The representatives of Serbia argued that Kosovo’s independence not only violated the historical and territorial integrity of Serbia, but also that the declaration as a political action from the “Assembly of Kosovo” had contravened the regulations set forth by UN Security Council Resolution 1244 (1999). Among other things, the opponents of independence were concerned that if Kosovo “unilaterally declared independence” based on the notion of self-determination through the means of secession, other regions and territories worldwide would be emboldened to pursue similar political aspirations, thus infringing the Helsinki Final Act of 1975, which gave precedence to territorial integrity over self-determination. Yet, based on the legal history of much of the last century, and several post-1990 legal cases: (i) Kosovo had a legal right to independence based on an existing precedent, namely federal units declaring independence after the dissolution of Yugoslavia; and (ii) the declaration did not breach the sovereignty of Serbia since the relevant UNSC Resolutions did not explicitly prohibit it.
Read More
