Division of Powers in Native America: How Constitutional Federalism is Maintained in McGirt v. Oklahoma
The state of Oklahoma prides itself on being the “Home of Native America” because of its rich Native American history and large sums of reservation land — but what is this historically Native state doing to protect its citizens that live on designated reservation land? The state of Oklahoma was recently overturned in the 2020 court ruling entitled McGirt v. Oklahoma. This case emerged after a member of the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, who was charged with multiple serious sex crimes, appealed his conviction by claiming that the state of Oklahoma had no jurisdiction in his case because of the location of his crimes — on Native land. In their historic decision siding against the state of Oklahoma, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that, due to upwards of 40% of Oklahoma’s geography being defined as Native reservation land, independent Native governments have sovereign power over criminal cases on their land. The palpable result of this ruling was the revoking of all involvement from state governments. This decision of tribal jurisdiction outraged many Oklahomans because of a skyrocket in criminal activity; Cherokee courts alone saw a rise from 100 criminal cases per year to 4,000 criminal cases per year. In addition to this extreme increase in crime, Oklahomans were outraged because they believed this decision was a breach of the constitutional right for federalism. Article I Section VIII of the Constitution states that power should be divided between central and regional powers. Because the state of Oklahoma would no longer hold any precedent over criminal proceedings, Oklahoma residents felt as if Native governments were being given too much power over these matters with none of the checks and balances that come from divisions of legal power. This poses the concern of whether or not McGirt v. Oklahoma (2020) has a constitutional precedent on the basis of federalism. When analyzing constitutional amendments, revisions of acts passed in favor of tribal jurisdiction, and more recent Supreme Court rulings, it is apparent that the McGirt v. Oklahoma decision is constitutionally in line with the definitions and demands of federalism.
Read More
Copyright Law: Fair Use vs. The Exploitation of Emerging Artists
Are new and upcoming artists protected from established artists copyrighting their music without credit, therefore devaluing their derivative works and hindering their career trajectory?
Copyright protection, derived from Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution, encourages artists to create new works, profit off of these works, and retain exclusive rights, such as the right to control how their work is used or reproduced. Tension arises when an artist wants to create a new work inspired by a produced piece. The courts have heard several cases on this issue, such as Campbell V. Acuff-Rose Music (1994), which determined how the four parameters in the Copyright Act of 1976 can be used to evaluate Fair Use, or if the reuse of original material is legal. However, this is left to the judges' subjectivity as courts rule on a case-by-case basis. Copyright infringement therefore is ruled in some cases, but slips through the cracks in others. Often, exploitation occurs when prominent artists claim that they have fairly transformed an original piece, using legal resources to combat allegations of theft from upcoming artists.
Read More
A Tale of Two Rulings: Analyzing the Anderson-Burdick Doctrine in Election Emergencies
On October 8th, 2024, as Hurricane Milton barrelled towards Florida’s Gulf Coast, Tampa Mayor Jane Castor urged her constituents to escape from imminent death. However, at another press conference barely twenty-four hours before Mayor Castor’s statement, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis insisted that "nothing" was inhibiting Floridians from meeting the voter registration deadline of October 7th. This discrepancy was noted by the League of Women Voters of Florida and the State’s NAACP chapter, and the two groups promptly filed an emergency motion to extend the registration deadline. The motion argued that the state government’s refusal to extend the deadline, in light of Hurricanes Milton and Helene, was potentially disenfranchising tens of thousands of Floridians. Yet, this is not a new nor unique case.
Read More
Undoing Roe: How Dobbs Brings Abortion Rights Back to the Ballot Box
The role of the judiciary has become a contentious debate in light of several controversial cases. Professor Richard Garnett asserts,“Judges do not have the power to enact legislation.” This statement, emphasized in the majority opinion of the precedent overturned by the Supreme Court, echoes a broader constitutional question: what powers truly belong to the judiciary? This question has come to the forefront as Dobbs v. Jackson (2022) overturned the landmark decision in Roe v. Wade (1973), which legalized abortion nationwide. The decision ignited debate over the Supreme Court’s role in defining fundamental rights—with some arguing that fundamental rights should be limited to those explicitly enumerated in the Constitution while others believe they can include rights implied by broader principles, such as privacy or dignity. This reveals longstanding tensions within American constitutional law.
Read More
Intent vs. Impact: The Legality of the EPA’s Disparate Impact Regulation
In April of 2024, twenty-three state attorneys general signed a petition calling for the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to cease its use of disparate impact regulations, citing concerns of unlawfulness and “racial engineering.” These disparate impact regulations are a set of administrative rules that prohibit any programs receiving EPA funding from causing disproportionate negative effects towards certain groups of people based on race, color, or national origin. Disparate impact regulations are distinct from, yet exist alongside, regulations that prohibit intentional discrimination. Like other federal agencies with similar policies, the EPA bases these regulations on Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. Title VI contains two relevant provisions: § 601, which bars any programs or activities receiving federal funding from discriminating based on race, color, or national origin, and § 602, which enables federal agencies to effectuate § 601 by implementing policies regulating the behavior of said programs or activities.
Read More
Reimagining COPPA: Safeguarding Children’s Privacy in the Digital Age
In 1998, Congress passed the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) in response to growing concerns over the dissemination of children’s personal information on the Internet. COPPA set privacy standards for websites directed toward children under thirteen, requiring websites to provide notice about data collection practices and to obtain verifiable parental consent before collecting a child’s personal information. At the time, this legislation was a groundbreaking move to protect children’s privacy in an emerging digital world. However, over two decades later, COPPA has proven inadequate in addressing the complex and evolving landscape of data collection technologies.
Read More
Bricks and Bridges: the Potential of Public Nuisance Law in Opioid Litigation
Mark Lanier in his closing statement of the landmark opioid litigation trial, Trumbull County v. Purdue Pharma L.P., pulled out a model bridge made of Legos. Lanier argued that one Lego could make the bridge topple down, attributing his anecdote to the many components of the opioid crisis: Though one misstep led to nationwide addiction, all are responsible in some way. Abuse of both prescription opiates and illicitly distributed pain medications has devastated American cities for decades and can be traced back to corporations marketing the “miracle drug” to vulnerable populations. The result of these corporations’ distribution and marketing of opioid products is still prevalent today, with opioid overdose deaths rising from 49,860 in 2019 to 81,806 in 2022. Opioid litigation in recent years has attempted to remedy the loss and damage caused by the epidemic worsened by opioid corporations. By applying public nuisance law, a doctrine not typically used in medical litigation, and targeting the responsibility of specific parties within the opioid distribution chain, plaintiffs may be able to successfully abate billions of dollars in damage.
Read More
A Tradition of Oversight: Domestic Violence and Firearm Regulation in the Wake of United States v. Rahimi
Survivors of domestic violence find themselves trapped in the painful paradox of experiencing imminent danger in the very places that should offer safety. Legal safeguards, such as court-issued restraining orders, aim to offer protection, yet survivors remain vulnerable—an especially lethal reality when domestic abusers have access to firearms. In United States v. Rahimi (2023), the U.S. Supreme Court examined the contentious intersection between the danger to public safety posed by intimate partner violence and one’s Second Amendment rights. Examining the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8)—a provision of the Gun Control Act that restricts firearm possession by individuals under domestic violence protective orders—requires balancing historical interpretations of firearm laws with the contemporary realities of domestic violence, an issue far more visible and recognized today than in the past.
Read More
The MTA and New York Public Authorities: Runaway Trains of Legal Liability
Every New Yorker has their own subway horror story: being packed like sardines on the 1 train after rush hour, getting stuck in a car without AC for 40 minutes, or encountering that one passenger who’s a little too comfortable talking to strangers. Yet a recent study revealed a more distressing scenario for the millions of commuters who rely on the Metropolitan Transit Authority’s (MTA) services daily: exposure to dangerous levels of air pollution, linked to lung cancer and heart disease. Iron-infused inhalable particles known as PM 2.5 are thrown up into the air as trains screech into stations, creating a toxic environment for waiting passengers. Inside the cabins, outdated air filtration systems struggle to suppress the pollution.
Read More
