Disparate Impact: The Natural Disaster Aid Inequities Storm On
As the Atlantic Hurricane season continues through the summer to the end of November, communities in the Southern United States are readying themselves for what the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has suggested will turn out to be a “near-normal” season. While stocking up on emergency items and tracking the paths of the hurricanes coming their way, some households are also bracing themselves for a more complicated storm of events that may follow hurricane season – the steps towards gaining financial recovery and aid. These very steps and their uneven responses between bodies of applicants reflect and magnify the inadequate measures taken by government agencies involved with natural disaster response, such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), to alleviate crisis, thus highlighting their culpability for disparate impact.
Read More
Playing Legal Ping-Pong: Schrems I, II, and Perhaps III
In both the United States and European Union, protection of personal data is an essential right. Transatlantic data exchanges are projected to form the foundation of over $1 trillion in yearly trade and investment for multinational companies. Despite its lucrative potential and the United States’ reliance on transatlantic transfers of personal data for national security, the legality of such transfers has yet to be clearly outlined. Since the Court of European Justice’s ruling in Data Protection Commissioner v. Facebook Ireland Limited and Maximillian Schrems (colloquially known as Schrems II), the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield has been deemed invalid and companies with U.S. and EU presences have been left without necessary compliance regulations that allow them to legally transfer data internationally. When the Court invalidated the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield, it failed to replace it with a clear alternative. This has created challenges for international businesses and governments as none of the parties know to whom to defer for regulatory compliance inquiries. While on July 10, 2023, the EU Commission and the Biden Administration agreed upon an EU-U.S. Data Protection Framework, it is unlikely that this agreement will be legally binding. Should the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) overturn this framework, all policy proposals must start over. The debacle not only highlights differences in data protection standards and surveillance practices between the two regions but also the inadequate commonplace of international organizations deciding on ‘legal’ frameworks without judicial approval.
Read More
Religious Freedom or Religious Indoctrination? The Constitutionality Behind the First Religious Charter School in the US
After deliberating for three hours, a small committee in Oklahoma made a decision that would irrevocably blur the lines of what constitutes the separation of church and state. The ruling – the approval of a state-funded Catholic charter school – was the first ever approval of a taxpayer funded religious institution in United States history. Following the verdict, many have called into question whether this decision is an act of “religious freedom” or a violation of the fundamental rights granted by the first amendment. The school, St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, which is set to open next fall, is unconstitutional on the grounds that it violates the Oklahoma Constitution, the United States Constitution, and the Oklahoma Charter School Act. Further, previous court case precedents such as Locke v. Davey (2004) and Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002) clarify how this decision oversteps boundaries regarding governmental entanglement in religion.
Read More
The Demise of Affirmative Action: The Consequences of an Anti-Precedent Supreme Court
In 1954, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that separate cannot be equal in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, thus commencing a nearly century-long mission of advancing equitable education in the United States. This past June, the Supreme Court turned its back on its legacy by ruling affirmative action policies unconstitutional in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc v. Presidents and Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc v. University of North Carolina. Having emerged in the tail-end of the Civil Rights Movement, affirmative action policies were developed to rectify the consequences of historical discrimination against people of color by enabling employers and schools to consider race favorably among applicants. Although affirmative action has existed since the 1800s, it took its current form through an Executive Order by President John F. Kennedy in 1961 (Order 10925) in an effort to promote equal opportunity in employment. Universities soon began voluntarily applying affirmative action policies to their admissions during and after the Civil Rights Movement. Since then, affirmative action has served as a bedrock of equality initiatives and has proven itself to be an unparalleled tool to achieving diversity.
Read More
Self-determination in Flux: Kosovo’s Independence in International Law
In the winter of 2008, the United Nations General Assembly submitted a request for an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice on whether “the unilateral declaration of Independence of Kosovo” was in accordance with international law. The representatives of Serbia argued that Kosovo’s independence not only violated the historical and territorial integrity of Serbia, but also that the declaration as a political action from the “Assembly of Kosovo” had contravened the regulations set forth by UN Security Council Resolution 1244 (1999). Among other things, the opponents of independence were concerned that if Kosovo “unilaterally declared independence” based on the notion of self-determination through the means of secession, other regions and territories worldwide would be emboldened to pursue similar political aspirations, thus infringing the Helsinki Final Act of 1975, which gave precedence to territorial integrity over self-determination. Yet, based on the legal history of much of the last century, and several post-1990 legal cases: (i) Kosovo had a legal right to independence based on an existing precedent, namely federal units declaring independence after the dissolution of Yugoslavia; and (ii) the declaration did not breach the sovereignty of Serbia since the relevant UNSC Resolutions did not explicitly prohibit it.
Read More
Carson v. Makin: Can the Government Fund Private Religious Education?
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” These words comprise the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, a legal principle that influenced the United States since its creation and that promises a citizen the right to practice a religion of their choice. This clause and the Establishment Clause, which prohibits the government from “making any law respecting an establishment of religion,” have guided the approaches to religion and government taken by American lawmakers. Over the years, American courts have adjudicated over the question of where to draw the line between government actions and freedom of religion, for example, the debate over whether it is appropriate to utilize government funds for education at religious schools and to keep government funds from supporting religious institutions.
Read More
Civil Asset Forfeitures: How Law Enforcement Profits from Constitutional Rights
In Las Cruces, New Mexico police officers are taught not to seize jewelry or computers but flat-screen TVs. [1] Whether it be cash or cars, officers are instructed to take assets that are profitable, easy to sell, or of direct use to the police department. These seizures are possible through a process called civil asset forfeiture, where law enforcement is able to seize property on the basis of “probable cause” that the property was involved in criminal activity. [2] Civil asset forfeitures, or in rem forfeiture proceedings, operate against the property itself and not the owner. Owners are considered claimants, and criminal charges or warrants against claimants are not required for law enforcement to seize a claimant’s property. [3] Without this burden on the government, civil asset forfeitures have allowed for the recovery of stolen artwork, enforcement of prohibition, and busting of multiple drug trafficking operations. [4] In addition to civil forfeitures, the two other types of asset forfeitures are criminal and administrative forfeitures. Criminal forfeitures require criminal convictions and are filed against the owner of the property whereas in administrative forfeitures, no convictions are required and the property is forfeited without filing a case.
Read More
When Justice Is Not Served: The Lack of Rape Kit Testing and Insufficiency of Accountability for Victims
Across the country, there is a little-noticed but pervasive and egregious delay happening in government crime labs. Over 100,000 known sexual assault forensic evidence specimens, also known as rape kits, are currently sitting on shelves untested across the United States, some of which have remained there for decades. [1] Despite the fact that this DNA evidence could be used to find perpetrators and press charges, there is an alarming lack of due process when it comes to the justice system’s failure to test so many rape kits, leading some advocates to argue for reform on constitutional grounds. Ultimately, it is essential to eliminate the statutes of limitations on felony sex crimes and institute a new law requiring that rape kits are tested within a reasonable amount of time as determined by the courts.
Read More
Who’s Representing Who?: SEC vs. Covington and the Sixth Amendment
For the United States, a nation deeply embedded in individualism and liberal rights, the trade-off between crime prevention and personal privacy has always been a contentious balance to strike. With the advent of emergent technologies, the battle over right-to-data between the state and the individual has continued to dominate legal theory. Can governmental and regulatory agencies legitimately demand that private firms provide information based on concerns of national security or suspicions of criminal offense? In 2020, the preeminent multinational law firm Covington & Burling LLP was subjected to a cyberattack carried out by hackers associated with Halfnium, an organization suspected of having Chinese state backing. Many of Covington’s high-profile clients – including two hundred ninety-eight publicly traded companies – were victims of this leakage. Due to the weight of these companies in the financial market, the Securities Exchange Commission filed suit against Covington in a D.C. federal court order to enforce a subpoena issued in March 2022 that would compel Covington to provide the names of the affected clients. Covington’s representative lawyer has preliminarily invoked attorney-client privileges as a defensive strategy. [1] SEC’s order to enforce the subpoena for disclosure of the clients’ names is not entirely consistent with precedent. Furthermore, Covington & Burling’s wide variety of legal strategies, mostly predicated on the attorney-client privileges established by the Sixth Amendment and other related cases and legal frameworks, are highly capable of shielding them from this intrusive and overreaching lawsuit.
Read More
