Online Journal — Columbia Undergraduate Law Review

Extending Corporate Tort Liability to Social Media Algorithms

In September 2021, whistleblower reports about social media platforms’ use of artificial intelligence (AI) that promote certain platform content over others raised critical questions about the relationship between AI algorithms and corporate liability standards. Facebook consistently claims that AI is an “efficient” and “proactive” means to stop hate speech and other problematic content on its platform. However, internal documents reveal that AI removes less than ten percent of harmful content, such as hate speech or misinformation, from the platform.

H.R. 51 Passed in the U.S. House of Representatives: The District of Columbia Takes A Giant First Step in the Long Journey to Statehood

Washington D.C., the District of Columbia, is the capital of the United States and a global model for representative government. Yet 536,000 eligible voters in Washington D.C. who pay federal income taxes do not have representation in Congress. While residents can vote in presidential elections, their one delegate to the U.S. House of Representatives may help draft legislation, but is not permitted to vote on their behalf. Similarly, the District has two shadow senators who lack the ability to vote in the Senate or sit on committees, denying them full representation in either house of Congress.

Metaverse: The End of Privacy As We Know It?

The Metaverse aims to blur the distinction between reality and virtual worlds to create an unprecedented extended reality (XR) universe for human social interactions. A revolutionary proposal by Meta founder Mark Zuckerberg, the Metaverse consists of a network of three-dimensional virtual worlds where people can interact with others using virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) technologies to work, learn, and socialize.

Are State Laws Allowed to Restrict Abortion? An Analysis of the Legality of Abortion

Abortion has remained a highly contested legal controversy ever since the revolutionary Roe v. Wade ruling that upheld the constitutional right to abortion until viability—when the fetus can survive outside the uterus—due to the compelling government interest in the woman’s life and the right to liberty and privacy guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. In recent years, however, individual states have increasingly restricted this right. In particular, a Mississippi law termed the Gestational Age Act “prohibits abortions after 15 weeks, except for… medical emergency or severe fetal abnormality,” thereby significantly restricting a woman’s legal access to abortion and penalizing abortion providers. [1] Subsequently, a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of this legislation has been appealed to the Supreme Court after the petition for certiorari—an appeal to the Supreme Court to review a case given the prior court’s improper decision—was granted, even as both the district court and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal struck it down as unconstitutional. [2] Overturning the right to abortion through Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization would contradict legal precedent, for further restricting the right to abortion infringes on the right of bodily integrity, which largely prevents state involvement in personal medical decisions.

What Constitutes Discrimination in the Courts? Proving Discriminatory Intent and Systematic Racism in the Death Penalty

Despite overwhelming evidence of systemic racial discrimination within the United States, it is almost impossible to prove its existence within the court. In the historic decision, McCleskey v. Kemp (1987) decision, the Supreme Court ruled that statistical evidence cannot be used to overturn a previous court decision; specifically, the court stated that statistical evidence proving the presence of racial discrimination is not sufficient to warrant re-evaluation under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. [1] The Supreme Court cited the precedent set in Washington v. Davis (1976), which stated that the plaintiff must prove that the state intended to discriminate in order for the case to undergo review through the Equal Protection Clause. [2] Not only is this burden of proof difficult to achieve on its own, but the ruling in McClesky also makes it nearly impossible to meet by excluding statistical data as evidence of intent. Thus, the Supreme Court should reevaluate the standard set for proving discrimination in Washington, which would provide grounds to overturn McCleskeyunder the Equal Protection Clause. By accounting for the specific wording and historical context present in Washington, statistical evidence could qualify as sufficient evidence for discrimination—allowing for challenges regarding racial discrimination to be better accounted for in the courts.

The 2022 Sino-Russian Statement: A Legal Justification for War?

On February 4th, 2022, as the Beijing Winter Olympics opened, Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping declared a “no limits” partnership between their two nations. [1] Their Joint Statement proclaiming a new global era affirmed support for Russian and Chinese territorial ambitions in Ukraine and Taiwan, respectively, and promised to strengthen collaboration between the two nations against the West. The Joint Statement underscored their ambition to collaborate on a wide variety of issues—from climate change to cybersecurity. Less than three weeks later, the world watched as Russia unilaterally invaded Ukraine—overlooking its international obligations under the United Nations (UN) Charter Article 2(4) which states that “all members shall refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.” [2] Russia and China's claim of “no forbidden areas of cooperation” and their endorsement of each other’s territorial ambitions may be indications that Russia’s use of force serves as an implicit threat against international law. [3] By claiming a “New Era” for global affairs, the Joint Statement poses an unprecedented challenge to the existing world order and disrupts the legally binding standards of the UN international system.

Beatriz OliveiraMay 21, 2022International Law, Sino-Russian Pact, Russia, Ukraine, China, Sovereignty

Innovation or Intellectual Scam: Patent Damages and Their Exploited History

With the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s revocation of the decision in the six-year-long case Caltech v. Apple and Broadcom (2022), Apple has been relieved of paying $1.1 billion in damage-based compensation demanded by Caltech, due to alleged infringement on the ‘710 and ‘032 patents held by the latter institution. [1] Given this was the highest patent-related damage amount demanded to date, there is perhaps no better time to highlight the financially exorbitant and highly exploitable nature of the patent law industry. [2] Given that universities attain about three thousand patents a year from either funding research or venture capital investment funds, this issue is only growing in prominence. [3] The denial of Caltech’s “two-tiered damage” theory garners support for a more careful revision of current patent law, specifically its overly-broad interpretation, that maintains its ability to promote innovation and better integrate technology.

Skylar WuMay 21, 2022patent law, damage calculation, CalTech, Apple

The College Tax Scam: Addressing University Exploitation of The 501(c)3 Tax Status

In the past decade, the tax-exempt status held by higher education institutions has come under increased scrutiny. In 2016, Congress sent a letter to private institutions with endowments over $1 billion, challenging the increase in tuition at rates far above inflation, despite these institutions’ large and growing assets. [1] A significant portion of this growth in college endowments has come from huge land-holdings, with universities paying essentially no property tax as they are 501(c)3 organizations. For example, while imposing massive tuition increases, Columbia University has become the largest landowner by number of addresses in New York City, owning 209 properties, with the next largest private property-holder being New York University (NYU). [2] Columbia and other universities' commercial land holdings illustrate that their organizations are not being exclusively operated as academic or research centers and, therefore, lack justification for 501(c)3 benefits. However, the most egregious display of 501(c)3 status abuse still lies in the college sports complex.

Teaching the Vote: The Right to Civic Education and Cook v. McKee

Education is the “very foundation of good citizenship,” wrote Justice Earl Warren in his 1954 opinion for Brown v. Board of Education. [1] Nearly twenty years later, in Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972), Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote that “some degree of education is necessary to prepare citizens to participate effectively and intelligently in our open political system.” [2] Often, however, public school curricula lack civic education requirements, and thus do not adequately prepare citizens to understand and engage with the United States’ democratic system of government.