Fifth Amendment — Online Journal — Columbia Undergraduate Law Review

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.

Consequences of Plea Bargaining: In Consideration of the Rights of the Accused

As Americans currently look to reform the nation’s criminal justice system, with its high incarceration rates and immense racial disparities, plea bargaining is an important consideration. In a plea bargain, also known as a plea deal, the defendant agrees to plead guilty or “no contest,” in exchange for the prosecutor to drop one or more charges, reduce a charge to a less serious offense, or recommend to the judge a specific sentence that is acceptable to the defense. In turn, this allows the defendant to receive a reduced sentence. [1] A plea bargain is a facet of the American criminal justice system that initially became commonplace in the 1920s in order to expedite the trial court process. The prevalence of plea bargaining is constantly being reexamined as the United States reconciles constitutional principles and legal precedent with historic prejudices in its criminal justice system.

The Thinning Divide Between the U.S. Public School System and Law Enforcement: What Authorizes Constitutional Interrogation in Public Schools?

Public schools have a unique duty to reasonably maintain a safe academic environment for their students. While this is an undisputed fact, methods aimed at ensuring this safety have surfaced as problematic in nature. The Supreme Court must expand their application of the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in public school settings in order to ensure adequate due process is being awarded to students subjected to schoolhouse interrogations.

Samantha VelasquezJune 16, 2021Education, Fifth Amendment

A High-Stakes Gamble: Reconsidering the Separate Sovereigns Exception

On June 28th, 2018, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Gamble v. United States, a case questioning whether the “separate sovereigns” exception to the double jeopardy clause should be overruled.[1] The double jeopardy clause in the Fifth Amendment, which states “no person shall … be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life and limb,”[2] is generally understood to prevent multiple punishments for a singular offense. However, the Supreme Court has long held that state and federal governments can independently prosecute a defendant for the same offense because they are “separate sovereigns.”