Online Journal — Columbia Undergraduate Law Review

Revising the Approach of Mandatory Minimums

The Eighth Amendment states, “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” This promise of protection against unjust punishment remains relevant and is subject to reinterpretation, especially in light of the drastic changes to the American penal system since the nation’s founding. Although directly contradictory case precedent exists that demands sentencing practices consider the character and actions of individual offenders, mandatory minimum sentencing remains permissible and frequently practiced.

Possible Violations of the U.S. Code by West Virginia

Does West Virginia actively discriminate against former federal government officers through its tax exemption policies? James Dawson, a retired state marshal, believes so. While filing his taxes, Dawson learned that the West Virginia Tax Commissioner grants a tax exemption to retired state officials, but not to retired federal agents: violating 4 U.S. Code Section 111 (4 U.S.C. § 111), which allows for such exemptions as long as “the taxation does not discriminate against the officer or employee because of the source of the pay or compensation.”[1]

Students v. The Pledge of Allegiance: Increased Nationalism in American Public Schools

The practice of students calling upon their First Amendment right to free speech when attempting to protest on school grounds has a long history in the United States. One of the most widely known cases of this premise is Tinker v. Des Moines (1969), when several students faced school suspension due to wearing armbands in protest of the Vietnam War—and subsequently filed a lawsuit against their school district. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled in a 7-2 majority that the school’s punishment of the students violated their First Amendment rights on the grounds that, “...the students did not lose their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech when they stepped onto school property.”[1]

Problems and Paradox of Restrictionist Immigration Law: An Economic Study of the Law

US immigration is now, more than ever, at the forefront of a polarized debate that implicates both enforcement and economics. The Trump administration embarked on an unprecedented strengthening of immigration enforcement that reduced refugee admissions to its lowest mark since 1980.[1] Between President Trump’s first day in office on January 20, 2017 to the end of the 2017 fiscal year, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) deported 61,000 immigrants from within the country, marking a 37% increase from the same time in 2016.[2]

Cheryl WangNovember 11, 2018ICE, immigration, Castro v. U.S., Supreme Court, Trump, Department of Homeland Security, NAFTAComment

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.