Our Online Journal features original pieces written and edited by our Online staff at Columbia. They are not representative of any views held by the Columbia Undergraduate Law Review Editorial Board.
Given Facebook’s apparent immunity to the detrimental effects of scandals that would significantly impact companies in less heterogeneous markets, it therefore is no surprise that the government is investigating whether Facebook has engaged in illegal methods of consolidating market power. Should the government find fault in Facebook’s actions, one potential option is to force Facebook to spin off its subsidiaries by acting through the courts.
Read MoreWith Senate Bill 1437, California narrowed its felony murder rule: a legal doctrine, originating from English common law, which holds defendants criminally liable for a murder—even if they did not kill nor intend to kill—if they participated in the underlying felony. Compared to other nations that practice common law, the United States is the only modern country that uses the felony murder rule. Yet this rule seemingly violates the 8th amendment of the US Constitution, especially when used to sentence the death penalty.
Read MoreWorkplace protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity are inconsistent through the U.S., and two critical issues are now in front of the Supreme Court. Based on the Court’s past interpretations of Title VII, and on the inherent role of sex in discrimination based on sexual orientation and transgender identity, the Supreme Court should find that Title VII prohibits discrimination based on sexuality and discrimination based on transgender identities.
Read MoreWhile honor killings are deeply rooted in private matters within society, mostly involving the family, only the legal system has the force and legitimacy required to carry out the prosecution of these crimes. In order to justly prosecute these murders, the Jordanian legal system must change its discriminatory legal codes and increase penalties for honor killings while raising public awareness of the violations of both Islamic law and natural rights these cases commit.
Read MoreIn its original application, disparate impact is a “theory of liability” that prevents the use of “facially neutral employment practices,” or policies without a clear intention to discriminate, that adversely affect a protected employment class such as one based on race, gender, or religion. The recent development is particularly concerning because the disparate impact standard is not only integral in proving cases of employment discrimination, but it is also essential in combatting discrimination in areas ranging from education to housing.
Read MoreThe United States fails to engage with international law and justice in many regards, with a major example being the nation’s abstention from the International Criminal Court (ICC). While choosing to not be a member of the ICC isn’t a violation of international law, by remaining out of the ICC, the U.S. greatly undermines its effectiveness and makes the enforcement powers of this international body extremely weak.
Read MoreAs American social norms progress and popular society becomes more tolerant of nontraditional gender identities and sexualities, our nation stands on the brink of a powerful legal turning point for LGBTQ+ rights. R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission offers a critical opportunity to affirm transgender individuals’ inherent right to be free from maltreatment based solely on who they are as human beings.
Read MoreRacial integration is crucial to promoting cross-racial understanding, reducing prejudice, and improving academic performance for students of all races. The United States’ failure to racially integrate its public schools is destructive to the fabric of an equitable American society and undermines the American belief that all children deserve an equal educational opportunity. The increasing segregation of schooling institutions in 21st century America calls for placing public school districts under strict scrutiny and pursuing litigation against districts which contribute to such perpetuation.
Read MorePennsylvania v. Knox (2018) is situated in a larger debate concerning the extent to which rap music constitutes protected free speech. More specifically, this case tested the limits of rap as a form of free speech and the extent to which the First Amendment tolerates violence expressed in rap lyrics. However, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s limited understanding of the nuances of rap, and their judicial narrowing of this art form as monolithic, has set precedent that inserts legal and textual ambiguity into the nexus between between free speech and rap.
Read More
