By: Allison Wong ‘27
Volume X – Issue I – Fall 2024

I. INTRODUCTION

On June 27th, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) v. Jarkesy et al. in a 6-3 ruling in favor of the respondents. [1] George Jarkesy Jr. created hedge funds in 2007 and 2009 with the financial backing of Patriot28 LLC. [2] On March 22, 2017, SEC pursued legal action against Jarkesy et al. for alleged overvaluation and other fraudulent claims. [3] Based on guidelines set by the federal antifraud provisions as well as the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the SEC proceeded with an in-house adjudication process. [4] In response to the Administrative Law Judge’s decision to impose civil penalties, Jarkesy et al. petitioned the U.S. Fifth Circuit District Court of Appeals, where the decision was reversed and remanded. [5] The case brought up key issues regarding the Seventh Amendment right to trial by jury, the difference between public and private rights, the boundaries of common law, separation of powers, and the nondelegation doctrine. In turn, the SEC appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which focused specifically on the Seventh Amendment in the majority opinion. [6] SEC v. Jarkesy matters because it examines the ability of government agencies to uphold regulations as well as Congress’s ability to delegate that responsibility. In combination, the Fifth Circuit and SCOTUS decisions in this case broaden both the depth and scope of its impact. Although the SCOTUS decision in SEC v. Jarkesy appropriately categorizes securities law as a private rights and common law concern, it fails to consider the potentially devastating impacts of its precedent. Based on the practical limitations of governmental institutions, this case develops a legal fantasy that works towards not only dissecting but also dismantling the current regulatory state.

By: Rena Watanabe ‘25
Volume X – Issue I – Fall 2024

I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

The right to family integrity is a fundamental constitutional right under the Due Process clause that recognizes the ability for families to make their own decisions and live together without governmental interference. [1] Family integrity has become more visible in the immigration system, as increased border security coupled with a lack of pathways for lawful status has given rise to immigrant populations in the United States. Immigration courts handling child protection proceedings (including child asylum cases) grapple with life-altering decisions concerning children who are victims of domestic abuse, gender-based violence, child labor, and persecution in their home countries, sometimes perpetrated by their own family members. [2] The outcomes of these decisions can be life or death for children – they can either find safe shelter in the United States, or be deported and subjected to danger in their home countries. Yet, judges make such life-altering decisions that directly impact children’s safety, permanency, and connection to their family without considering their own voices and viewpoints.

By: Jesse Ward ‘26
Volume X – Issue I – Fall 2024

I. INTRODUCTION

Amidst a changing climate and global economy, balancing history and heritage with progress is a pressing challenge for any country, including the United States. How can the nation take care of its historic resources without hindering technological advancement? Historic preservation law, the legal framework that protects valuable historic buildings, objects, structures, and lands, is critical to that balance, and relies on one federal statute. In 1966, the United States Congress passed the single most important federal legislation about the past: the National Historic Preservation Actor NHPA. According to the law, projects by the federal government or that use federal funds and affect historically significant structures have to undergo review on their level of harm and mitigation efforts. [1]

By: Emma Staller ‘26
Volume X – Issue I – Fall 2024

I. INTRODUCTION

In December 2017, former United States President Donald J. Trump announced his decision to move the United States embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, describing it as “a long-overdue step to advance the peace process and to work towards a lasting agreement. [1] The official relocation of the embassy on May 14, 2018 prompted the State of Palestine to initiate legal proceedings against the United States before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), alleging violations of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of April 18, 1961. [2] This action swiftly and forcefully thrusted the ICJ into the global spotlight. Palestine has formally asked the Court to rule that the relocation of the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem violates the Vienna Convention and to issue a mandate requiring the U.S. to fulfill its obligations to prevent future violations, while ensuring such unlawful actions are not repeated. [3] This brings us to the present moment, marked by a significant impasse of profound implications as the world watches in anticipation for international judicial bodies, such as ICJ, to resolve the current standstill.

By: Timothy Son ‘27
Volume X – Issue I – Fall 2024

I. INTRODUCTION

What is a “treaty?” When is a treaty enforceable in the U.S. domestic courts? How should the treaties be interpreted? As much as the international law itself, the U.S. jurisprudence on international treaties has been ambiguous, if not, narrowly defined. The U.S. Constitution lays the actors responsible, including the judiciary authority over the treaties, however, it leaves a significant ambiguity in the enforcement of treaties in the U.S. domestic courts. Article II of the U.S. Constitution grants the President the treaty-making power with the consent and advice requirement from the Senate. [1] Article VI, known as the Supremacy Clause, states that all treaties “shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” [2] Finally, Article III, Section 2, Clause 1 provides that the judicial power will “extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority.” [3] This paper will argue that the Supreme Court’s role in international treaties—specifically in constitutionality, interpretation, and private enforcement of treaties—has been rarely standardized. Recent court cases flipped decades-long precedents on the basic assumptions of treaty interpretation and made abrupt changes in the authority of the President to make treaties, the Congress, and private enforcement.

By: Ria Sodhi ‘25
Volume X – Issue I – Fall 2024

I. INTRODUCTION

The US criminal justice system houses nearly 2 million people in 1,566 state prisons, 102 federal prisons, 2,850 local jails, 1,510 juvenile correctional facilities, 186 immigration detention facilities, 82 Indian country jails, military prisons, civil commitment centers, and state psychiatric hospitals. [1] Mass incarceration in the US keeps increasing at ungodly rates. The issue with the system is that it is no longer used for its purpose:to lock up those who commit crimes. Mass incarceration now reflects the system's complexity, arising from a range of factors and components that have made it a symptom rather than a cause. This paper argues that mass incarceration is a symptom of poverty and that, despite laws enacted to support those affected, they fail to endure due to the criminal justice system's vicious cycle. We are now using the system not to keep communities safe but to extract money from those who don't have those financial resources. This leads them to take dire actions just to take care of themselves and their families. Even if those formerly incarcerated make it out and have reformed, they face a lot of hardship and prejudice.

By: Tess O’Donoghue ‘28
Volume X – Issue I – Fall 2024

During the consequential 2023–2024 Supreme Court term, one key case received minimal media attention: City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, which essentially criminalized homelessness by allowing city governments to fine and jail the unsheltered homeless for sleeping in public. Oral arguments involved three main subjects of debate: the extent to which homelessness is involuntary and should be considered a protected status, whether the City’s response to homelessness constitutes “cruel and unusual” punishment, and how the law relates to the City’s policy-making authority. The majority held that “the enforcement of generally applicable laws regulating camping on public property does not constitute ‘cruel and unusual punishment’ prohibited by the Eighth Amendment.” [1]

By: Ava Malkin ‘27
Volume X – Issue I – Fall 2024

I. INTRODUCTION

In 1947, psychological experts Drs. Kenneth and Mamie Clark conducted an investigation, colloquially deemed the “doll test,” which played an integral role in the Brown v. Board of Education (1954) case and the future legal system, particularly in combination with social science research.

Conducted years before Brown made its way to the Supreme Court, this social scientific study used identical dolls of different races. These scholars explained that their results indicated decreased self- esteem, racial awareness, and internalization of value judgments in African American children, as young participants responded to questions in a way that outwardly favored white dolls over black ones. During Brown, Dr. Kenneth Clark utilized these findings in his testimony as evidence that African American students endured psychological harm—an impaired self-image—due to segregation, thereby arguing for a legal and psychological need for change. [1] The Court then cited this evidence as part of their decision in the Brown case; thus, the Clarks’ findings contributed to Brown’s overturning of the “separate but equal” doctrine from Plessy v. Ferguson (1896). [2]

By: Will Long ‘25
Volume IX – Issue II – Spring 2024

I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

On June 5, 2024, a unanimous panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (the Fifth Circuit) vacated the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) Private Fund Advisers; Documentation of Investment Advisor Compliance Reviews (the Final Rule). [1] The Final Rule threatened to expand reporting, disclosure, and prohibited certain types of preferential treatment of investors in private funds. [2] The Fifth Circuit’s decision to vacate the Final Rule, which would have cost $5.4 billion and required millions of hours of labor, [3] provides significant relief to private fund advisers.

By: Gillian Lee ‘25
Volume X – Issue I – Fall 2024

I. BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION

Fashion permeates through everyone’s lives beyond simply the clothes people wear. Fashion is a mode of self-expression and cultural movements, and is engrained in daily media. Even a picture of an individual can create an entire fashion discourse. Fashion can be used as a tool for social activism, such as printing words on clothing to spark critical discourse, or using styles to challenge gender roles. Fashion is also a significant part of the economy. In 2024, the apparel market generated $354.7 billion in the United States, and is projected to grow annually by 1.86%. [1] Fashion undoubtedly has different meanings and values to each individual–to people working in the fashion industry, fashion is intrinsic to their lives. Designers create new designs, spurring trends and new forms of expression.

By: Riley Kramer ‘28
Volume X – Issue I – Fall 2024

I. INTRODUCTION

Live Nation Entertainment is the world’s largest entertainment company; this conglomerate wields significant influence across various segments in the music industry, such as concert promotion, ticketing, artist management, and venue operations. Notably, Live Nation controls “more than 80 percent of major concert venues [and] over 400 big-name artists are locked into Live Nation’s management services” [1]. This extensive network allows Live Nation to leverage its business lines to maintain dominance in the industry. This domineering power has led many to label it as the “music behemoth.” This massive concentration of power raises critical concerns about whether LiveNation is engaging in unjust monopolistic practices. In late 2022, the US Department of Justice, along with 30 state and district attorneys generals, filed a civil suit against Live Nation Entertainment, alleging violations of Section 2 of the Sherman Act [2]. This lawsuit highlights the detrimental impact LiveNation’s practices may have on the music landscape, greatly affecting competitors, artists, and consumers alike.

By: Kaila Hall ‘25
Volume X – Issue I – Fall 2024

Last term, the Supreme Court, in McElrath v. Georgia, unanimously affirmed the irrefutability of a jury’s verdict and the Fifth Amendment’s protection against Double Jeopardy. This intricate case provides fascinating insight into the intersection of the insanity defense and the Fifth Amendment. Out of all 50 states, Georgia is the only one that has a “repugnancy” [1] law, meaning that a jury’s inconsistent verdict may essentially be discarded. In McElrath v. Georgia, this law is front and center in determining one man’s access to constitutional rights following the Georgia Supreme Court decision to disregard the trial jury’s verdict. In the unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court wholeheartedly defends McElrath’s Fifth Amendment rights while declaring the indisputability of a jury’s verdict.

By: David Gilmore ‘28
Volume X – Issue I – Fall 2024

I. INTRODUCTION

Capital punishment has long been a contentious topic, and its usage is intrinsically linked with the perception of those who commit the worst crimes. The Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution, often used to challenge the death penalty’s constitutionality, forbids the government from inflicting “cruel and unusual” punishments. [1] These challenges have led to exceptions where capital punishment has been held to be unconstitutional no matter the crime, such as for offenders who are juveniles or have an intellectual disability. Unrepresented in these protections are individuals with serious mental illness (SMI), despite meeting the exact same criteria. In order to ensure fair treatment in the justice system, an exception preventing the execution of offenders with a severe mental illness must be put in place, the creation of which is an increasingly pressing issue.

By: Emily Gill ‘26
Volume X – Issue I – Fall 2024

I. INTRODUCTION

The Formerly Incarcerated Reenter Society Transformed Safely Transitioning Every Person Act, or First Step Act, is a bipartisan crime bill enacted in 2018 under the 115th Congress. The Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) states that the goal of this act is to “reduce the size of the federal prison population while also creating mechanisms to maintain public safety.” [1] The objectives of the First Step Act are to reform prison and sentencing practices as a means for reducing crime, recidivism rates, and the incarcerated population. [2] As of 2016, the eight-year recidivism rate in federal prisons was 49.3%. [3] Due to such high rates of reoffending in the United States, a large portion of the crime rate is made up of repeat offenders. While the First Step Act has made great strides in reducing recidivism rates, especially compared to past crime bills, its lack of influence over state prison systems, racial discrepancies, and limitations to specific offenses are weaknesses that need to be addressed for the First Step Act to be entirely successful in it accomplishing its objectives.

By: Caitlin Gallagher ‘26
Volume X – Issue I – Fall 2024

I. INTRODUCTION

Homeschooling is often presented as an alternative option for parents who are looking for something more personalized and catered to their children’s needs than public schooling. For some families, this can absolutely be true. However, it seems that homeschooling can be a pathway for abuse, social isolation, and delayed development for many children. Take, for example, Hope, a woman who was homeschooled in the early 2000s in Minnesota. She describes her education as being severely limited - mostly she was given textbooks and was told to “teach herself through them”. Neither of her parents were qualified to educate her, and Hope and her four siblings were scarcely allowed to escape their physically, emotionally, and sometimes sexually abusive parents. In describing her nightmarish situation, Hope writes, “I don’t even know how many people knew we existed, since we were never allowed to make friends at a park, or go anywhere by ourselves, or ever, ever speak to an adult who wasn’t our parent.” [1]

By: Owen Finn ‘25
Volume X – Issue I – Fall 2024

I. INTRODUCTION TO THE FEDERAL RESERVE

In the 1800s and early 1900s, public distrust in the banking system led to frequent bank runs and financial crises. Between 1863 and 1910, there had been three major banking panics and eight more localized panics in the United States. [1] In response, the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was signed into law by Congress in order “to provide for the establishment of Federal reserve banks, to furnish an elastic currency, to afford means of rediscounting commercial paper, to establish a more effective supervision of banking in the United States, and for other purposes.” [2] The Federal Reserve Act lays out a central banking system with three key features: a central governing Board (called the Board of Governors today), a decentralized operating structure of twelve Reserve Banks, and a combination of public and private characteristics. [3] The twelve regional banks are spread across major cities like New York, Boston, Chicago, and Philadelphia.

The Fed is driven by two objectives. First, it aims to maintain stable prices, which means an annual inflation target of about 2%. Second, it seeks to achieve full employment; while the definition of full employment is up for debate, this typically means an unemployment rate of 4-5%. [4] The Fed works with Congress to set these targets. The Fed’s primary goal is to set interest rates at the optimal level to maintain low inflation and full employment. [5]

By: Robert Farbman ‘26
Volume X – Issue I – Fall 2024

I. INTRODUCTION

Zambia operates with two legal systems: a formal system based on British common law and a traditional system rooted in customary practices governed by tribal chiefs. The formal courts aim to provide consistent legal decisions based on legislature and judicial precedent, but are often inaccessible to rural populations due to geographical and resource limitations. [1] This manifests itself as a lack of physical resources at courts, a lack of courts in rural areas, and unaffordable legal representation, among other issues. [2] In contrast, traditional courts offer culturally relevant justice but can conflict with constitutional protections, especially regarding women's rights and human rights. [3] However, for most of Zambia’s primarily rural and impoverished population, traditional courts are often the first and only option for justice. [4]

By: Dominic Enright ‘27
Volume X – Issue I – Fall 2024

I. INTRODUCTION

In democratic governments, voting serves as both a foundational right and a powerful tool for citizens to shape policy. America’s founding, rooted in Enlightenment ideals, espoused liberty, justice, and equality for all men. However, a history marred by centuries of slavery, the entrenchment of Jim Crow laws, and pervasive systemic discrimination reveals stark deviations from these founding values. Significant legislative victories have been won to secure equal access to the ballot with the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) [1] standing as one of the most monumental achievements of the American Civil Rights Movement.

Despite federal and constitutional protections, voter disenfranchisement still persists, manifesting as racial and partisan gerrymandering. These twin forces erode the very essence of fair representation, undermining the promise of “one person, one vote.” [2] By manufacturing electoral boundaries centered around race or partisan lean, state lawmakers wield redistricting as a tool to minimize the voice of targeted demographics. Although the Roberts Supreme Court is characterized by its conservative judicial philosophy and aversion to federal oversight in state election laws, the decision in Allen v. Milligan (2023) reveals a somewhat surprising scenario in which conservative justices concurred with the liberal minority to affirm voting rights as underpinned by the VRA. This ruling ultimately points to a greater issue: the undeniable partisan influence in redistricting. A consequence of this extremely flawed system is the struggle to find reconciliation between states’ sovereignty and the push for civil liberties which has been extensively debated in the courts.

By: Max Ehrlich ‘26
Volume X – Issue I – Fall 2024

I. INTRODUCTION

“The First Amendment was never intended to protect an individual who burns a cross in the middle of the night in the fenced yard of an African-American family's home,” declared Hennepin County attorney Tom Foley during the oral argument for R.A.V. v. Saint Paul. [1] In a 9-0 decision, the Supreme Court disagreed. The majority explained in their decision that the government cannot proscribe speech based on viewpoint, no matter if it falls within a broader unprotected category of speech. Even if the St. Paul statute at issue only proscribed hate speech that fell into the category of fighting words, its inclusion of only fighting words espousing certain views made it unconstitutional. The case set the precedent that viewpoint-based restrictions on speech are facially invalid, even if they regulate a category of speech that would normally not be protected. [2]

This article’s analysis will begin in Part II with an examination of the majority’s argument. Then, Part III will explore the main concurring opinions and their use of the traditional categorical approach. Next, Part IV will delve into the concept of content-based under-inclusion, central to understanding the tension between the majority and dissent in RAV v. Saint Paul. Part V will argue that hate speech should be considered its own category of unprotected speech given the Court’s reasoning in Roth, Chaplinsky, and Wisconsin v. Mitchell. Finally, Part VI will consolidate these arguments into a two-pronged test for determining whether a hate speech regulation is valid.

By: Ben Denker ‘27
Volume X – Issue I – Fall 2024

I. INTRODUCTION

Since the 2020 election, Donald Trump’s repeated claims of election fraud have sown widespread doubt and concern about the integrity of U.S. elections. Indeed, polls show that up to a third of Americans believe President Biden was illegitimately elected. [1] These fears have led to an increase in support for voter ID requirements. Five states have enacted laws requesting some form of voter ID on election day: Ohio, Nebraska, Missouri, Arkansas, and North Carolina, bringing the total to 36 states. Different states have different forms of accepted IDs—Ohio only accepts driver's licenses or passports, while other states like North Carolina also accept Student IDs and military cards. [2] This increase in voter ID requirements post-2020 does not exist in a vacuum. Indeed, attempts to adjust election procedures in the name of election integrity have a deeper history necessary to contextualize recent efforts.

The Civil Rights movement in the mid-20th century helped mobilize the general public and politicians against Jim Crow laws, resulting in monumental legislation for voting rights. Among the most important legislation in ending the decades-long conquest for enfranchisement of black voters was the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson, the legislation prohibited discriminatory voting restrictions and required states to gain federal approval before changing voting laws. [3]

This paper will focus on the 21st-century interpretations of Sections 4 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.