Which Price is Right: The Constitutionality of Lowering Drug Prices
In 2021, 32.5% of US adults younger than 65 with diagnosed diabetes reported insulin rationing, 20% of which reported doing so because of cost. Insulin rationing is a dangerous practice in which diabetics cut back on their insulin use because they can’t afford their prescribed dosage. The price of prescription drugs has long been an issue in America and only recently has there been any initiative to put a price cap on pharmaceutical drugs. The 340B Drug Pricing Program allows eligible healthcare organizations to purchase prescription drugs at a discount from pharmaceutical manufacturers, which helps hospitals care for low-income patients and communities. Since 2023, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, Xavier Becerra, has been negotiating prices directly with participating manufacturers for single-source Medicare drugs without generic competition, or any drugs that are the only treatment for a specific condition, through the 340B Drug Pricing Program. In response to this attempt to lower drug prices, numerous pharmaceutical companies and lobbying groups have gone to court claiming these negotiations are unconstitutional. While some of these cases are ongoing, a couple have been decided in favor of the US Department of Health and Human Services, creating an important precedent for the future of the pharmaceutical industry in America and the accessibility of life-saving medicine.
Read More
The Environmental Protection Agency: Federal Regulatory Power vs. State Autonomy
Since its establishment in 1970, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has served as a federal body dedicated to protecting the environment. Throughout its history, the EPA has championed climate initiatives through the implementation of various regulations and provisions. Most significantly, the EPA has gained authority to fight against climate change, specifically air pollution, through the Clean Air Act. The Clean Air Act, established in 1970 and later amended in 1990 to reflect changing times, was created to give the EPA the jurisdiction to regulate air pollutants, specifically greenhouse gas emissions, and to set and achieve National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) through state implementation plans (SIPs). State Implementation Plans are documents and regulations that are utilized by states to enforce the NAAQS and to honor the requirements set in the Clean Air Act. Past Supreme Court orders, such as Massachusetts v. EPA, have highlighted the success of the Clean Air Act and its regulatory power. Conversely, current Supreme Court proceedings, most notably the Ohio v. EPA case, have contradicted the precedent regarding the scope of power designated to the EPA through the Clean Air Act.
Read More
Decoding Big Tech: The Efficacy of the Sherman Antitrust Act
The Sherman Antitrust Act was designed to protect consumers and uphold democratic principles by preventing monopolistic control over the American economy. Enacted by Congress in 1890, its purpose was to curb the power of large corporations, promote economic liberty for individuals, and ensure that the U.S. democratic system remains accountable to the people rather than dominated by big business. The act outlawed “every contract, combination, or conspiracy to trade” and prohibited any “monopolization, attempted monopolization, or conspiracy or combination to monopolize.” Over time, the Supreme Court and Congress have extended the act’s reach, notably with the reinstatement of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Clayton Act, which effectively extends the Sherman Act, defining specific properties of mergers and acquisitions, discriminatory prices, and tying agreements. Now in our modern day, the act is up against major tech companies, as seen in the U.S. v. Google case (2023).
Read More
The Issue Of Impartiality: 6th Amendment Considerations in the Debate Over the Constitutionality of Capital Punishment
On November 15, 2024, the Texas Supreme Court paved the way for the execution of Robert Leslie Roberson III. In 2003, Roberson, a neurodivergent man, was convicted on murder charges stemming from the shaken baby syndrome death of his 2-year-old daughter. The court’s ruling followed an eleventh-hour stay of execution issued by the Texas House of Representatives, which subpoenaed Roberson in a final bid to delay his execution. In recent weeks, Roberson’s case has attracted a litany of media attention and spurred a dramatic effort to secure Roberson a new trial due to the controversial science underlying his conviction. Though widely accepted within the pediatric community, biomechanical experts have long questioned the legitimacy of shaken baby syndrome diagnoses. Mr. Roberson’s life now depends on Article 11.073 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. Known as the “junk science writ,” the statute presents an unprecedented legal avenue “allowing prisoners to challenge potential wrongful convictions by showing that changes in the field of forensic science…seriously undermined the integrity of the criminal trials resulting in their convictions.”
Read More
Rising Tides, Rising Obligations: The ICJ's Role in Climate Governance
On August 16, 2024, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) sent a press release that 62 written comments have been filed under their advisory proceedings on the Obligations of States in Respect of Climate Change by United Nations Member States, Non-United Nations Member entities, and international organizations. This press release came after the Vanuatu ICJ Initiative, driven by Vanuatuan youth groups focusing on climate activism, prompted the Government of Vanuatu to bring this case to the International Court of Justice (ICJ). According to the U.S. National Science Foundation, by 2060, sea levels are projected to rise by a meter, which will make small Pacific Islands, like the Republic of Vanuatu, unstable by permanently damaging their groundwater supplies. This comes after it was determined that these islands are only responsible for 0.03% of global greenhouse gas emissions. If the comments on this proceeding are accepted, they could reinforce the obligations of United Nations Member States, Non-United Nations Member entities, and international organizations to take concrete steps against climate change. These obligations, as mandated by international laws and treaties, such as the Paris Agreement, are crucial for protecting present and future generations, particularly those of endangered nations, such as the Republic of Vanuatu.
Read More
Loper Bright v. Raimondo as a positive-feedback-loop for judicial activism
“When does an alpha amino acid polymer qualify as a protein?” Associate Justice Elena Kagan raised in her dissent to Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, more (in)famously known as the case that overruled the Chevron deference. Kagan posited this question in a series of examples to which the scientific and technical expertise of agencies would be needed to interpret ambiguous statutory language. Loper glosses over this precedent, dangerously allowing judges ultimate interpretive primacy comparable to policy-making. Ironically, the case was decided under the premise of defending the law from agency aggrandization. By overruling Chevron, the court seized power beyond the scope allowed by the U.S.’s system of checks and balances
Read More
In Chevron We Trust? How Overturning the Chevron Doctrine Dooms the Fight for Student Debt Cancellation
The state of student debt in the United States remains in limbo as the Missouri district court has halted the Biden Administration from implementing their plans, claiming lack of legal authority and a need for Congressional approval. Under the Higher Education Act of 1965, the Biden Administration claims that the Department of Education does have the legal authority to “compromise, waive, or release” student debt. However, even despite the language being rather clear, Biden’s student debt forgiveness and repayment plans are likely to be struck down, especially given the overturning of the Chevron Doctrine in June 2024. Established in 1984 by the Supreme Court, the Chevron Doctrine was a legal principle that required courts to defer to an agency's interpretation of a statute if that interpretation was reasonable. Analyzing Missouri v. U.S. Department of Education reveals that the recent removal of the Chevron Doctrine will further hinder the Department of Education's ability to cancel student debt, despite its clear and stated power to do so in various legal statutes. This analysis delves into the judicial challenges Biden’s program has faced and examines the implications of the Missouri lawsuit.
Read More
Canada’s Notwithstanding Clause: Not Standing With Fundamental Rights
On February 29, 2024, the Court of Appeal of Quebec issued a judgment on the constitutionality of Bill 21 (An Act Respecting the Laicity of the State) that immediately sparked outrage among civil liberties advocates. The controversial bill, passed by the National Assembly of Quebec in 2019, bans teachers, law enforcement officers, judges, and some other public employees from wearing religious symbols at work. This most recent ruling not only upheld the bill but also overturned an exemption that the Superior Court of Quebec had previously granted to staff of English schools in 2021. The dispute will likely move to the Supreme Court of Canada, with several organizations filing for leave to appeal. The Court of Appeal of Quebec’s ruling on Bill 21 ultimately highlights the manner in which the ambiguous language of Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms enables the violation of basic rights across Canada.
Read More
Social Media Bans: Balancing the Rights of Youth, Parents, and Governments
From TikTok dance challenges to live footage of global events, social media is an information distribution powerhouse, inevitably occupying the phones of all age demographics. However, this status is tainted by the widespread concern over its overconsumption primarily among younger people. In 2023, the National Institutes of Health published a research report that hypothesized strong correlations between social media usage and youth mental health concerns. As a result, many state legislatures have felt compelled to enact legislation restricting social media accessibility. State-issued bans that target minors between the ages of 13 and 18 infringe on the Fourth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, which protects parental rights to make decisions relating to their children’s care and education. In addition, state governments’ efforts to restrict social media usage in education reveal viewpoint discrimination that threatens free speech rather than effectively addressing youth mental health challenges.
Read More
The Safety of Rwanda Act: Impacts on the Principle of Non-Refoulement and Refugeeism
The “Safety of Rwanda Act”, also referred to as the UK-Rwanda Migrant Deal or the MEDP (Migration and Economic Development Partnership), was passed by the United Kingdom (UK) Parliament on April 25, 2024, despite the UK Supreme Court holding that the deal was unlawful in November of 2023. This Migrant Deal controversially legalized the deportation of asylum seekers, who entered the UK illegally, to Rwanda. This received backlash from the public and legal scholars, who claimed that the MEDP could place asylum seekers in unsafe living conditions and put their livelihoods at risk.
Read More
Employee or Independent Contractor? A Legal Analysis of Uber’s Worker Misclassification
Uber stands as a tangible representation of the fruits of modern-day technological innovation, yet the company continues to exploit its drivers who are paramount to its success. As of May 2024, Uber holds over 75 percent of the U.S. ridesharing market, with 149 million active users and 1.5 million drivers in the United States alone. With the sheer ubiquity of Uber’s services, something as fundamental as the status of Uber’s workers as “employees” or “independent contractors” should not still be up for debate. Uber’s reluctance to properly define their workers as either has directly resulted in their maltreatment, robbing them of proper employment benefits. Through a closer analysis of the Fair Labor Standards Act (1938) and the Employee or Independent Contractor Classification Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (2024) passed by the Department of Labor, it is clear that Uber’s workers are not economically independent enough from Uber to be considered independent contractors. Thus, Uber’s workers should be provided with the essential employee benefits granted under the Fair Labor Standards Act, such as paid sick leave and health insurance.
Read More
The Criminalization of Homelessness: Assessing the Eighth Amendment's Implications on Public Camping Law Enforcement
This past January, the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear the City of Grants Pass v. Johnson (2024). This pivotal case accuses an Oregon City of “cruel and unusual punishment” in its enforcement of anti-homelessness laws. To bar individuals who are involuntarily homeless from public camping directly violates the prohibitions against "cruel and unusual punishments" within the 8th Amendment. Upholding this constitutional right is crucial in navigating how homeless people are treated under the law.
Read More
Solitary Confinement and Prison Labor: Exploring the Legal Ambiguity Surrounding Cruel and Unusual Punishment
Boasting the largest incarceration rate in the world, the United States’ treatment of its nearly two million prisoners has been the basis for legal scrutiny since the country’s inception. The vagueness of the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution has allowed for constant redefinition of how “cruel and unusual punishment” towards prisoners is understood throughout America. For instance, in the Supreme Court case Estelle v. Gamble (1976), a prisoner’s work-related injury caused him to be punished and denied adequate medical attention. As a result, the court ruled that the prisoner’s constitutional rights had been violated, creating the precedent that the deprivation of necessary services or items to prisoners also qualified as cruel and unusual. More famously, the highly contentious issue of capital punishment has been either permitted or prohibited in prisons across state lines due to rulings regarding the Eighth Amendment; the absence of widespread legal consistency allowing for the injection of moral beliefs in decisions. For far too long, the ambiguity of the phrase “cruel and unusual punishment” has wrongfully protected many American prison systems from legal accountability for a multitude of mistreatments against prisoners–-including, but not limited to–a lack of basic worker’s rights and subjugation to solitary confinement.
Read More
Know Your Rights (And the Climate’s): Held v. State of Montana as a Catalyst for Enforcing State-Level Green Amendments
Held v. State of Montana is a landmark climate case, decided in August of 2023, in which it was ruled that youth in the state of Montana have the right to a “stable climate system” and that Montana has the duty as a state to act forcibly to reduce climate emissions. While Held marks a turning point for climate justice in Montana, it throws into sharp focus the historic inaction of state governments when it comes to climate change. Its calls for Montana to protect the climate system for the sake of its citizens are important but do not adequately address the processes that would need to occur to thoroughly mitigate this problem in the present and the future. When it comes to litigation against the government, we need to ensure that the victories in the courthouse are eventually preserved in the law, protecting them from changing administrations and securing their place in influencing the country’s future.
Read More
Islamic Republic of Iran v. Canada: An Evaluation of the Terrorism Exception to State Immunity
In 2012, Canada enshrined the terrorism exception to state immunity in the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act (JTVA), an amendment to the State Immunity Act (SIA) which enables private plaintiffs to bring civil cases against states deemed sponsors of terrorism. These are currently the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Syrian Arab Republic. On June 27, 2023, Iran sued Canada before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), alleging that this legislation violates customary international law. The normative implications of the court’s future ruling are not limited to Canada. Although the United States has not accepted the jurisdiction of the ICJ, Congress passed the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) in 2016, which plaintiffs can utilize to bring claims against Iran, Syria, North Korea, and Cuba. Based on “the restrictive theory of state immunity,” precedent relative to the ICJ and various national courts, and international legal requirements including state practice and opinio juris, the terrorism exception to state immunity as presented in the JTVA seems to violate customary international law when terrorist activities are acta jure imperii.
Read More
Weaponization of Colonial-Era Sedition Law: The Future of India’s Free Speech
In May 2022, the Indian Supreme Court heard the case SG Vombatkere v Union of India, which prompted a temporary halt and review of the enforcement of the sedition law located in Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Instituted by the British in 1870, India’s sedition law is a remnant of colonial rule criminalizing publication or speech that incites hatred or contempt toward the nation’s government. The Supreme Court will soon hear debate over its constitutionality as measured by Article 19 (1)(a) of the Indian Constitution which states “all citizens have the right to freedom of speech and expression.” Section 124a of the IPC squashes dissent and expression within the world’s largest democracy; with its use now manipulated by India’s rising authoritarianism, its amendment is necessary and rooted in precedent.
Read More
An Analysis of Feds for Medical Freedom v. Biden: The Implications for the Strength of the Unitary Executive
This past March, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit blocked President Biden’s vaccine mandate for federal employees, upholding an injunction entered by a lower court against the Biden Administration in the case Feds for Medical Freedom et al. v. Biden. The decision comes nearly a year and a half after President Biden signed executive orders in September 2021 which mandated that federal employees receive vaccination against COVID-19 or face employment termination. In upholding the injunction, the Fifth Circuit Court ruled that President Biden lacked the jurisdiction to enact a vaccine mandate for all federal employees. As the Court explained in its majority ruling, the Chief Executive did not have sole authority over “private, irreversible medical decisions made in consultation with private medical professionals outside the federal workplace,” despite the government’s claims. By its nature, this jurisdictional argument over certain federal employment matters reopens the broader debate over the power of the President to make personnel changes within the executive branch of government. However, while the ruling came as a setback for the Biden Administration’s policies, the ruling is not necessarily a permanent defeat for robust executive authority more broadly speaking.
Read More
From Reconstruction to Reproductive Justice: An Interview with Professor Widney Brown on the Role of the Thirteenth Amendment in (Re)securing Abortion Rights
Content Warning: This article contains sensitive themes of abuse, sexual assault, and violence that may be distressing to some readers.
“I have borne thirteen children, and seen most all sold off to slavery, and when I cried out with my mother’s grief, none but Jesus heard me! And ain’t I a woman?”
Read More
An Analysis of United States v. Texas: The Commodification of Undocumented Individuals in a Federal and State Government Power Struggle
On November 29, 2022, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments for United States v. Texas. A decision from the Supreme Court is expected to be released in June 2023 to either reinstate the Mayorkas Memorandum or vacate it, which would render a larger number of undocumented immigrants subject to deportation by ICE. The case’s ruling will have broad implications for states’ ability to challenge federal immigration policy through the judiciary, including possibly making established legal precedent concerning undocumented immigrants more easily contestable by anti-immigration states.
Read More
A Matter of Trust: The Sherman Act in the Age of Technology
On January 24, 2023, the U.S. Attorney General and the Attorney Generals of eight other states filed U.S. and Plaintiff States v. Google against Google LLC, the parent company of Google, YouTube, Waze, Fitbit, and numerous other Internet services, for violating Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act in the field of digital advertising. This antitrust lawsuit comes as no surprise, as Google is a ubiquitous household name in its corner of the Internet. But how did this action come about, why is it happening now, and what precedent will it set for the future of Internet advertising?
Read More
