The Issues Behind Remittance Regulation: Missing the Mark with Hawala Legislation
While the law currently bans hawalas, as they are remittance businesses functioning without a license, new legislation has been proposed to crack down on these underground businesses. This year, a bipartisan team of senators introduced the Combating Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing, and Counterfeiting Act of 2017 – otherwise known as S. 1241 – which aims to address the issue of hawalas and terror financing, but instead conflicts with existing precedents and impacts only hawaladors with honest intentions, as those engaged in terror financing are unlikely to be swayed by threats of increased government fines.
Read More
Loi N°2016-1321 pour une République Numérique: Regulatory Differences in French and EU Law
Both of these regulations, the French Loi pour une République numérique and the GDPR, ostensibly intend to work in tandem to protect the rights of individuals with regard to their presence online and the data collected about them. But, whereas many EU countries judge the GDPR to be sufficient regulation for the protection of their citizens, France has deemed the GDPR to be too lenient and lacking in prescriptive power. This creates a problem, however, as businesses must now navigate both EU and French civil law.
Read More
A Cruel and Unusual Burden: The Case for the Unconstitutionality of Solitary Confinement
Despite recognition by the Supreme Court of the cruelly negative effects accrued through forced isolation in prisons, the practice of solitary confinement remains constitutional in the United States. In light of scientific evidence suggesting that prolonged periods of isolation are harmful to any human being, it can be argued that the use of solitary confinement in America’s prisons poses a violation of the Eighth Amendment’s distinguished clause against cruel and unusual punishment.
Read More
Price Gouging in the Wake of Natural Disaster: A Legal Ambiguity
The lack of clarity that exists in the price gouging laws of Florida, Texas, and Kentucky results in a complicated understanding of what an excessive increase in price is. This allows for companies to elude punishment for taking advantage of citizens during a vulnerable period of time.
Read More
Kalief Browder's Legacy: The Lie of New York's "Speedy Trial" Statute
The shocking case of Kalief Browder ushered in a sweeping effort to reform CPL §30.30. How many defendants like Kalief had spent months or even years waiting in maximum-security jails for trial only to be proven innocent? Yet, as politicians and legislators drafted bills and called for administrative overhaul, Kalief’s legacy dims while the structural, discriminatory implications of New York’s “speedy trial” statute live on.
Read More
Technological Self-Incrimination: The Precedent of Biometric Unlocking
Since the unveiling of Touch ID, courts have been forced to consider how evidence can legally be obtained from locked smartphones without violating the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination. The increased use of biometric unlocking by technology companies such as Apple may make phones more secure than a weak passcode, but more vulnerable to searches by law enforcement.
Read More
Campaign Finance in the Past 40 Years: An Overview
On April 2nd, 2014 the Supreme Court handed down a decision that was met with a wide variety of reactions, from support to disinterest to deeply held anger – the ruling in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission. Written by Chief Justice Roberts, the decision hinges on the concept of money as speech that finds its roots in precedent reaching back more than forty years.
Read More
On VEP: Regulatory Inefficiencies in Cybersecurity
While this process is theoretically beneficial, it is not robust enough to ensure good decision-making that balances the agency’s dual responsibilities. Regardless of what the optimal level of vulnerability disclosure is, several features of the VEP mean that the process is incapable of finding that point or reining in excessive secrecy.
Read More
Norton v. Ute Indian Tribe: Examining Tribal Sovereignty Through Law Enforcement
Norton v. Ute Tribe of the Uintah is a crucial case not only for tribal law enforcement, but also for tribal sovereign rights. If in tribal and federal court the Ute argue that Officer Norton’s actions and the actions of the state police force violated tribal sovereignty, it could be large step forward in terms of the rights of tribal police departments to be agents tasked with protecting tribal sovereignty.
Read More
