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 The result is a fragmented, inconsistent landscape where outdated privacy laws are being applied by courts ill-equipped to police the complexities of modern technologies.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
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
