Flawed Treaties or Legal Safeguards? Examining the Prospects for Increased Tribal Rights
As of January 2024, the United States government formally recognizes five hundred and seventy four Native American tribes. While this may appear to be an insignificant, bureaucratic tally, federal recognition is actually quite important: in obtaining it, tribes become eligible for specialized benefits and an elevated degree of autonomy. As such, given the coveted nature of these privileges, it should come as no surprise that indigenous communities are in constant legal competition to secure them. In fact, in recent years, nearly every Supreme Court docket in recent memory has included at least one indigenous-related case. Most recently, the Court heard arguments in Arizona v Navajo Nation (2023), which dealt with the United States’ obligation to provide water to the Navajo tribe.
Read More
Social Media Surveillance of the Black Lives Matter Movement and the Right to Privacy
Following the publicized police murders of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and other Black Americans, there was a nationwide resurgence of Black Lives Matter protests in the summer of 2020. As community members organized marches and other forms of civil disobedience on social media, notably X (formerly known as Twitter), organizers grew concerned that law enforcement officers were using X as a medium to collect information on these protests. Specifically, they claimed that the information would be used in order to arrest participants or quell protests via social media surveillance. Surveillance is “the act of observing another in order to gather evidence” and is a frequent method used by law enforcement to gather evidence for an investigation. With the fears of covert surveillance via social media, Black American community members are now concerned about their privacy rights when engaging in protest, assembly, and expression–acts protected by the First Amendment. Law enforcement’s utilization of X and digital data from other social media sites as a form of surveillance should be considered a violation of the Fourth Amendment’s right to privacy of protestors.
Read More
The Legal Protection of Pachamama: The Implications of Environmental Personhood in Ecuador
When adopting their new constitution in 2008, Ecuador became the first country to recognize the legal personhood of nature, or Pachamama. Specifically, Chapter 7 “Rights of Nature” ensures the “maintenance and regeneration of [nature’s] life cycles, structure, functions and evolutionary processes” and calls for “[a]ll persons, communities, peoples and nations” to protect this right. This clause in the Constitution has provided a legal pathhood for the conservation of nature; theoretically, any person can act as a representative of Ecuador’s environment and file a lawsuit to prevent the harmful degradation of a specific body or region.
Read More
Legal Frontiers: Navigating the Complex Landscape of Generative AI Regulation
Since the release of ChatGPT on November 30, 2022, classrooms and workplaces have been revolutionized by the widespread adoption of artificial intelligence (AI). Whether used for searching information, prompting creativity, or even homework solutions, it is on a fast track to becoming an integral part of our lives. However, as AI technologies continue to permeate different areas, it has also brought forth complex legal challenges, particularly in the sectors of intellectual property and antitrust law. While the current frameworks of copyright law sufficiently govern copyright issuance relating to artificial intelligence, the recent and ongoing AI lawsuit explosion raises important questions regarding copyright infringement disputes and concerns over fair competition within the generative AI space.
Read More
Stolen Dance Steps in Fortnite’s Fortune: Resisting Ineffective Choreography Copyright Protection in Hanagami v. Epic Games, Inc.
In contrast to the well-known copyright lawsuits in art disciplines such as music, it is rare to come across a copyright case in dance. Indeed, it was not until 1976 that choreography even became a category qualifying for copyright registration and protection. Although the limited copyright lawsuits in dance since 1976 have mostly involved defendants that were other choreographers or artists, the video game Fortnite has become a “plagiarizer” of dance moves causing choreographers to seek legal redress.
Read More
A Legal Analysis of Big Pharma’s Evasion and Weaponization of Copyright Law
United States’ copyright laws were first established with a clear goal outlined in the United States Constitution: "...To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” Copyright law was enshrined in the Constitution as a way to motivate intellectual creativity and progress through legal protections, however, large pharmaceutical companies operating in United States’ markets have manipulated this fundamental principle of intellectual property to bolster their profit margins. By exploiting United States’ copyright law, these pharmaceutical companies depart from the original intent of the law, prioritizing economic gain over the greater well-being of humanity. Specifically, pharmaceutical companies have found ways to weaponize United States’ patent law and FDA policies. This manipulation of copyright law undermines its foundational ideals and compromises its intended purpose.
Read More
The Chevron Doctrine: Who Gets to Decide What a “Source” is?
During the Supreme Court’s January 2024 session, Justices heard the oral argument for a case that could substantially transform the current landscape of administrative law. In Loper Bright Enterprises, Inc. v. Raimondo, the plaintiffs brought forth a challenge to the landmark Chevron Doctrine, which many believe lies at the core of the modern administrative state. The Chevron Doctrine holds that for issues of interpretations of ambiguous phrasing in legislation, deference is given to the federal agency rather than the courts. The plaintiff’s oral arguments support the criticism that the Chevron Doctrine is based on a fundamentally problematic rubric of first-stage and second-stage interpretation, supported not only by the language of the Chevron opinion itself but also other administration-deference-matter-related legal precedent. However, the interpretation of the non-delegation doctrine and the debate surrounding the separation of powers is a macro-scoped issue that necessitates the Chevron Doctrine in the first place. Instead, alternative interpretive frameworks of non-delegation can help both courts and society reconcile constitutionality with practical governance.
Read More
The Inefficiency of International Water Law: How Did This Impact Chile v. Bolivia?
In the mountains of Chile, a little-known fourteen-year-long drought has been terrorizing Chileans, not to mention causing the country to almost lose one of its main water sources. The reason for this devastating loss, a dispute between Chile and its neighbor Bolivia, has left many with lingering questions about water rights. Bolivia has claimed for almost thirty years that the Silala River, which begins in Bolivia and then crosses over into Chile before flowing west into the Pacific Ocean, is solely for Bolivia’s use. Bolivia believes the waterway is only under its jurisdiction which prevents Chile from using the water without any compensation. Bolivia’s argument is supported by its claims that the Silala River was artificially created to flow into Chile in 1908. Chile, however, has argued that the Silala River is governed by international law, so it is an international waterway. This dispute was taken to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the case Chile vs. Bolivia (2022), where proceedings led the Court to surprisingly decide that the two countries actually agreed on the issue. The Court ruled that Bolivia and Chile did not fundamentally disagree on the issue, since they both wanted equitable use of the waterway. Therefore, an official decision was never made by the ICJ. Instead, the court simply urged the two countries to work together on issues such as these, a decision that poses significant legal problems for the future of international water laws.
Read More
Genocide Under the Ottoman State: Nationalistic Co-Optation of Classical Legal Paradigms and Responses to Western Interference
Instigated by fear of foreign influence in state law, Ottoman Empire leadership employed policy mechanisms in order to legally legitimize the genocide of the Armenian population in 1915—"illegal process [made to] look legitimate by using the veil of the law." [1] As the state shifted the legal status of religious minorities throughout the 19th century, norms of classical Islamic law were co-opted for nationalistic propaganda. The Young Turks feared relinquishing legal sovereignty to foreign powers—foreign powers which appeared to empower Anatolian Armenians as proxies of influence. At the same time, foreign influence was unavoidable in the shaping of the Ottoman Empire's legal justification framework: German militaristic culture was used to support the creation of the Ottoman state's legal mechanism of deportation. This article will explore examples of foreign influence—and refute conceptions of shari'a involvement—in legal mechanisms which justified the program of genocide: the Provisional Law of 1914, the ordinance for transit and food rationing standards, and the redistribution law.
Read More
