Online Journal — Columbia Undergraduate Law Review

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.”

UNCLOS and the South China Sea Crisis: How Maritime Law is Being Ignored

At present, there is a major international crisis occurring in the South China Sea. China, the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, and other nations have overlapping claims on both terrestrial and maritime areas in the region; these areas particularly contain large deposits of valuable natural resources (such as hydrocarbons and natural gas).[1] Give both China creating artificial islands along the Paracel and Spratly island chains to increase their potential regional military presence, and the increase in militarization from other nations, the South China Sea crisis looks to be an intricate geopolitical crisis.[2]

What India’s Decriminalization of Gay Intercourse Means for the Future of LGBTQIA+ Rights

n many countries around the world, LGBTQIA+ individuals are jailed and executed for being gay. In Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Uganda, being LGBTIA+ can result in life sentences in prison.[1] In other countries, such as Afghanistan, Nigeria, Tonga, and Malaysia, LGBT individuals can be whipped or executed for their same-sex relations. In Tanzania, HIV services for LGBTQIA+ people were shut down since they were cited as promoting homosexuality. But what do all of these countries have in common?

Jake DunnNovember 4, 2018LGBTQIA+, Indian Supreme Court, Arundhati Katju, IndiaComment

Reclaiming Our Reasonable Expectation of Privacy: The Case Against the Third Party Doctrine

In the narrow 5-3 decision of Smith v. Maryland (1979), the Supreme Court warranted perhaps one of the greatest intrusions upon privacy with the establishment of the Third Party doctrine. The defendant, Michael Smith, was found guilty of robbing and sending threatening phone calls to Patricia McDonough. However, the controversy in this case lies not in Smith’s innocence or guilt, but rather in the legality of how the incriminating evidence was obtained: the warrantless use of pen registers. In this case, pen registers were used to record all numbers dialed from Smith’s phone, tracing the threatening phone call back to him.[1]

Tiffany JingNovember 4, 2018Smith v. Maryland, Olmstead v. US, Katz v. US, fourth amendment, Carpenter v. USComment

Unattainable Equity: A Look into Fraudulent Activity Under the State of New York’s MWBE Program

The State of New York’s Minority and Women-Owned Business Enterprise (MWBE) Certification Program was established in 1988 under Article 15 of the New York State Executive Law. The program was designed with the intent of “ensur[ing] and promot[ing] fair and equal employment and participation”.[1] Since its institution, the program has provided resources and established goals for businesses that are owned by minorities and women around the state of New York. But despite New York’s establishment of guidelines and quotas for minority and women participation, the reality of the program’s effects are far from its original intentions.

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.