Online Journal — Columbia Undergraduate Law Review

License to Kill? Self-defense, Sovereignty, and the Laws of War in the U.S. Assassination of Qasem Soleimani

On January 3, 2020, two cars, a Toyota Avalon and a Hyundai Starex, lay in the middle of an access road, engulfed in flames. The convoy was the victim of a U.S. military drone used to carry out precision strikes against known terrorists in the region. But this time, the remotely piloted craft had a unique target: Qasem Soleimani, commander of Iran’s Quds Force, the clandestine operations wing of the Islamic Republic’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). The demise of Soleimani and his entourage shortly after they landed in Baghdad International Airport immediately launched a global debate over the legality of his execution. Mainstream outlets, including CNN, BBC, and Times teetered between calling it a “killing” and an “assassination.” [1] Others, including the U.S. Department of State, vehemently disagreed, instead deeming it a “defensive strike” supported by “very solid intelligence.” [2]

Soleimani’s killing is anything but a clear-cut case. Questions of its legality and legitimacy rest on nuanced and competing understandings of some of the greyest zones of international law. While the United States justifies the attack as a lawful act of self defense against an imminent threat, critics, including prominent legal scholars, cite its occurrence on Iraqi soil, its preemptive and extrajudicial nature, and its disproportionate effect as evidence of its illegality or, at the least, its lack of legitimacy within international legal frameworks. I argue that the strike on Soleimani cannot withstand scrutiny under three lenses of international law: it failed to meet the “imminent threat” standard for self-defense, it violated Iraq’s sovereignty, and it breached fundamental humanitarian legal principles of distinction and proportionality.

Fragmented Grounds: Chevron’s Collapse and Geographical Disparity in U.S. Asylum Law

Asylum seekers in the United States face a precarious pathway to humanitarian protection, shaped by institutional fragmentation and interpretative discretion. For nearly four decades until June 2024, U.S. courts were required to defer to interpretations issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) under the doctrine of Chevron deference. This legal rule gave federal agencies, such as the BIA, the primary authority to interpret ambiguous legal provisions in immigration law that determine eligibility for asylum. Despite its varying success in promoting national uniformity in the application and interpretation of asylum law provisions, Chevron deference served as a structural safeguard, by allowing agencies with subject-matter expertise, like the BIA, to guide the development of immigration law rather than leaving key questions to vary circuit by circuit. Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024), overturning Chevron, courts now have greater autonomy to interpret these provisions—such as the definition of “persecution”—without binding deference to agency. [1] Yet, even before the loss of Chevron deference, U.S. courts showed significant differences in interpretation and turn in decisions on asylum claims, especially, between circuits whose regions exhibit different political leanings across the country.

Kiana MehanianMay 27, 2025Immigration law, Asylum, Chevron Deference

Undoing Prior Precedent to Following New Precedent: SCOTUS’s Inevitable Trimming of the Clean Air Act

The Clean Air Act was designed to protect the air we all breathe, but the Supreme Court may be putting that protection on a collision course with state rights. The 2024 SCOTUS decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo overruled the longstanding Chevron precedent, setting the stage for significant shifts in administrative law. [1] The reversal of this long-standing precedent, which granted deference to federal agencies in interpreting ambiguous statutes, signals a new judicial philosophy that prioritizes limiting agency discretion. The upcoming Oklahoma v. Environmental Protection Agency case is the latest example of the Supreme Court’s efforts to limit federal agencies’ power following the overturning of Chevron. By shifting judicial review of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) decisions to regional courts, the Court is continuing its broader trend of restricting federal regulatory authority—one that could fundamentally reshape the Clean Air Act’s enforcement and weaken national environmental standards.

Uma RajanMay 27, 2025

An Amendment Overdue: Renewing the Push for Child Labor Protections

Since the establishment of the modern United States economy, a startling truth persists: children remain a fundamental, even indispensable, component of the American labor structure. Despite decades of labor reform, child labor remains deeply embedded in the fabric of the American economy. Investigators are increasingly finding children working in hazardous industries like agriculture and manufacturing, often enduring grueling schedules. [1] A widely reported U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) case involving Packers Sanitation Services highlights this troubling reality. The DOL discovered over 100 minors illegally employed in dangerous conditions at Packers’ meat processing facilities across eight states. [2] It should be noted that many of these minors lacked English fluency, though the DOL did not verify their immigration status. [3] While language barriers and potential immigration vulnerabilities may play a role, recent cases show that the child labor crisis cuts across a wide range of backgrounds. Between March and April 2024, the DOL reported seven cases of child labor violations across multiple states, including Tennessee (Greenville [4] and Crossville [5]), Vermont, [6] Alabama, [7] Ohio, [8] Utah, [9] and Northern Virginia. [10] These cases involve minors currently working in industries like food processing and construction, often in hazardous or exploitative conditions. Together, they underscore a national crisis that cuts across geography, industry, and legal status, one that calls for urgent, systemic action.

Gatekeepers of Innovation: Antitrust Challenges in the Digital Marketplace

In April 2013, AppGratis—a popular app-discovery platform with over 12 million iOS users—was abruptly removed from Apple’s App Store. [1] Apple cited violations of App Store guidelines, specifically in regards to restrictions against apps promoting or marketing other apps in a manner similar to the App Store itself. [2] This sudden removal left AppGratis unable to reach its target user base, underscoring broader concerns about Apple’s gatekeeping role in the digital marketplace. While Apple maintains that its stringent App Store policies are designed to ensure security, quality, and a consistent user experience, critics argue that these practices can stifle innovation and limit consumer choice. By controlling which apps are allowed on its platform and enforcing strict guidelines, Apple holds substantial power over developers’ access to the market, raising questions about fair competition and the need for regulatory oversight.

Zoie GeronimiMay 26, 2025Technology, Antitrust, Fair Competition, Digital Marketplace

Protecting Trans Rights: An Opportunity in Local Governance

Trans rights—civil rights—are undergoing a discriminative federal attack. The Trump Administration has flooded the United States’ legal system with increasingly transphobic, generally oppressive, and ostensibly legal Executive Orders, many “calling for widespread discrimination against transgender people in their public and private lives.” [1] Under legal ambiguity created by Erie v. Tompkins and limitations on the federal control over municipal resources in Printz v. United States, local governments can begin to utilize legal autonomy to resist the Trump Administration's discriminatory Executive Orders. Municipal resistance of Executive Orders at this scale remains mostly untested in courts, but with such immediate and drastic threats to civil rights, legal experimentation and ambition is necessary.

Liam DreyerMay 26, 2025trans rights, civil rights, municipality, executive order, local government

Fraud or Faith? Prosecuting Fortune Telling Schemes Under New York’s Grand Larceny Statute

When do spiritual practices cross the line into criminal fraud? In New York City, fortune tellers have often crossed this line, swindling thousands of dollars from innocent New Yorkers and tourists. Ann Thompson, more commonly known as “Psychic Zoe,” is one such example of this unfortunate phenomenon. Thompson defrauded one woman of $740,000 in the name of spiritual salvation. [1] A woman looking for an alternative source of guidance walked into Psychic Zoe’s parlor for a five dollar psychic reading. Thompson told the woman that there are evil curses placed on her family, which needed to be “worked” on spiritually, and this “work” required the repeated purchase of gold. As the scam continued, the amount of gold “needed” rose, and Thompson told the victim to wire her various sums in the thousands and hundreds of thousands. Such theft would typically be prosecuted under New York’s grand larceny statute, which articulates the crime as intending to deprive another person of his property “by trick, embezzlement, or obtaining property by false pretenses,” or by false promise. [2] Yet, in recent years it has been extremely difficult to hold these fraudsters accountable for two reasons. First, since fortune tellers often claim to root their practices in spiritual or even tangentially religious beliefs, they are protected under the First Amendment. [3] Second, New York prosecutors must satisfy the intent requirement under grand larceny. Prosecuting fraudulent fortune telling schemes under New York’s grand larceny statute is virtually impossible, as it has become increasingly more difficult for prosecutors to prove criminal intent to defraud via a purported spiritual practice.

Katherine GrivkovMay 26, 2025

Unanimity Denied: The Fight for Retroactive Justice in Edwards v. Vannoy

In the United States, every vote counts: especially in the hands of a jury. Unanimity in juries is essential in order to correctly deal the hand of freedom or incarceration to a defendant. This principle came under scrutiny in the case of Evangelisto Ramos, who was sentenced to life in prison despite two jurors declining to vote guilty due to reasonable doubt [in the prosecution's case]. Ramos appealed his case and this principle of unanimity was solidified when the 2020 U.S. Supreme Court decision of Ramos v. Louisiana found that, in accordance with the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution, a guilty verdict in criminal cases must be unanimous. There was tension between this decision and the case of Thedrick Edwards, a black man who was found guilty and sentenced to a life in prison based on a 10-2 jury vote prior to the decision of Ramos v. Louisiana. In 2021, the Supreme Court’s decision of Edwards v. Vannoy found that jury unanimity cannot apply retroactively to court decisions. However, the Supreme Court’s refusal to retroactively require unanimous jury verdicts in Edwards v. Vannoy is unconstitutional—Edwards was denied the Sixth Amendment right to a unanimous jury due to the erosion of civil rights at the state level and the Court’s failure to follow precedent in correcting past injustices. In addition to a lack of constitutional basis, Edwards v. Vannoy perpetuates racial bias by not allowing this retroactive appeal; non-unanimous juries are historically exclusionary towards African Americans, and unanimous juries provide a more even field by not allowing the voices of African American people go unheard if they are the minority of a jury vote. The right to have a decision by a unanimous jury was denied to Edwards, a denial that stands in direct conflict with the protections guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment.

Guilty Until Proven Innocent: A New American Legal Standard

“Say her name!” Many are familiar with Georgia Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene’s outburst at former President Biden’s 2024 State of the Union. Few are familiar with the details behind this exclamation. Laken Riley was a twenty-two-year-old nursing student at Augusta University College of Nursing when she was killed by Jose Antonio Ibarra on February 24th, 2022. Ibarra, an undocumented immigrant, was found guilty of Riley’s murder and sentenced to life in prison without parole. In the short while after her death, Laken Riley’s name became a rallying cry for drastic immigration reforms from conservative Congress members and President Donald Trump, who, at the time, was campaigning for his re-election. These reforms came to fruition when President Trump signed the Laken Riley Act into law on January 29th, 2025–his first piece of legislation since his inauguration on January 20th. The act requires the mandatory detention of undocumented immigrants who are accused or arrested of committing a crime of burglary, theft, larceny, or shoplifting without the possibility of bail or provision for release even if charges are dropped. [1] It also “authorizes states to sue the federal government for decisions or alleged failures related to immigration enforcement,” endowing standing for states to challenge federal policy and enforcement of immigration policy within their borders. [2] While there is precedent to support strong federal oversight of immigration policy, the Laken Riley Act and the likely decision of the U.S. Supreme Court to rule in its favor, as they did in Trump v. Hawaii (2018), presents an unconstitutional foundation for the removal of due process and equal protection vested in the United States Constitution.