Online Journal — Columbia Undergraduate Law Review

For the Protection Against Hate Speech or For the Freedom of Expression?

In recent years, a new trend of creating “safe spaces” has emerged on college campuses across the country. While the implementation of safe spaces varies between universities, the term is generally applied to certain areas on campus that are intended to be free from bias, potentially offensive ideas, topics of controversy, or other forms of conflict. In most cases, colleges designate specific areas intended to protect students from any potentially harmful or offensive speech that they might encounter on campus. At some universities this concept is being extended further, with entire campuses being designated as safe zones.

The Politics of Justice: Revisiting Brady

In 1963, a team of Maryland prosecutors failed to disclose an admission by homicide defendant Donald Boblit, setting in motion a case that would eventually establish one of the most important legal checks to prosecutorial misconduct in American jurisprudence. After litigation in county and appellate courts, the Supreme Court published its opinion in Brady v. Maryland. The decision and its progeny aspired not only to buttress the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment, but also to reaffirm our nation’s commitment to providing a fair judicial process.

Jaden SchneiderSeptember 7, 2018mercurial politik, Supreme Court, certiorari, fourteenth amendment, Brady v. MarylandComment

Shelby County v. Holder: Implications of a Weakened Voting Rights Act

African Americans’ right to vote under the Fifteenth Amendment was reaffirmed with the establishment of the far-reaching Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965, which banned onerous literacy tests and other restrictive measures that were a noticeable facet of the Jim Crow era.[1] In particular, Section 4 of the VRA prevents areas where “less than 50 percentum of the persons of voting age residing therein” were registered by or voted in the 1964 election from restricting or denying individuals the right to vote.[2] This was done in order to deter “the purpose ... of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color.”[3]

Standardizing Marijuana Metrics: Challenging Law Enforcement’s System of Perfunctory Oversight

Current marijuana impairment metrics are not only questionable because they reveal shortcomings within modern jurisprudence, but also because they perpetuate ineffective penal codes and legal sanctions. As of now, no verifiable measure exists for marijuana intoxication and there is no widely accepted test for tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), its active ingredient. As such, federal, state, and district courts face a consensus problem: the validity of verdicts becomes confounded due to ambiguous policies classifying cannabis levels. Complicating the issue, current methodology prevents courts from employing certain admissible evidence mechanisms efficiently.

Pepper v. Apple Inc. The Decision That Could Change Apple Forever

On Monday, June 18th, 2018, the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal of Pepper v. Apple Incorporated, an intricate case questioning Apple’s monopolization of its App Store. Although this case may initially seem straightforward, legal principles and precedents make a compelling defense for Apple. If Pepper does reign victorious, the structure of the App Store will be radically altered to allow for increased consumer protection.

Click Here to Divorce: Online Dispute Resolution for Family Disputes?

Despite this rapidly changing age of technology, the legal system still remains inefficient, expensive, and bureaucratic, presenting troublesome difficulties when one must quickly resolve a family dispute. As demonstrated by a family dispute case from the Hague Institute for Innovation of Law (HiiL), “Dora tried to hire a lawyer, but she was turned down … because she could only spend 500 dollars on assistance. On a court website with 131 forms ... a social worker helped her to identify the five she needed. The key form had 33 boxes she could tick…”[1]

Masterpiece Cakeshop’s Failure to Establish Legal Precedent Allows Discrimination Against the LGBTQIA+ Community

Masterpiece Cakeshop LTD v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission was a 2012 case from Lakewood, Colorado that pits First Amendment rights to speech and religion against anti-discrimination legislation. This case originates with a baker, Jack Phillips, who refused to create a wedding cake for a gay couple. Phillips told the couple that he did not create wedding cakes for same-sex couples because of his religious opposition to same-sex marriage and because Colorado, at the time, did not recognize same-sex marriages.

Jake DunnSeptember 5, 2018LGBT, supreme court, first amendment, anti-discrimination, civil rightsComment

Masterpiece Cakeshop’s Failure to Establish Legal Precedent Allows Discrimination Against the LGBTQIA+ Community

Masterpiece Cakeshop LTD v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission was a 2012 case from Lakewood, Colorado that pits First Amendment rights to speech and religion against anti-discrimination legislation. This case originates with a baker, Jack Phillips, who refused to create a wedding cake for a gay couple. Phillips told the couple that he did not create wedding cakes for same-sex couples because of his religious opposition to same-sex marriage and because Colorado, at the time, did not recognize same-sex marriages. He also claimed that by creating a wedding cake, he would be using his artistic skills to create speech that endorsed same-sex wedding marriage. The gay couple subsequently filed a civil rights complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission pursuant to the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act.

Extending Plyler v. Doe: Undocumented Immigrants and Postsecondary Education

In 1982, the case Plyler v. Doe nullified a Texas statute designed to deny public education to undocumented children. In Plyler, the Supreme Court rejected the argument that the statute furthered a compelling government interest by ostensibly deterring illegal entry and reserving education funding for legal residents. In his opinion, Justice Brennan noted the importance of education and the adverse implications of withholding it, while stating that “legislation directing the onus of a parent's misconduct against his children does not comport with fundamental conceptions of justice.”[1]