Corporate Jurisdiction: A Discussion of Due Process and the Dormant Commerce Clause
On June 27, 2023, The United States Supreme Court ruled to expand and reinforce state authority over registered corporations within a state’s respective jurisdiction. Per Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co. (2023), even if a lawsuit pertains to events occurring outside the state in which a corporation primarily operates, a corporation may be sued in said different state. As an attempt to determine the constitutionality of Pennsylvania state law under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, the case’s ruling concerns Pennsylvania’s contested Consent-by-Registration law. Consent by registration requires that corporations must agree to be sued in the state in which they are conducting business, prior to beginning operations. Thus, as was the case for Norfolk Southern Railway Co., even just as much as a railway built going through any territory in the state would obligate the firm to appear in the state’s court.
Read More
Evolving Standards of Decency: On the Abolition of Capital Punishment
In a time marked by a rapidly changing sociopolitical landscape, the concept of “evolving standards of decency” has become increasingly pertinent, serving as a cornerstone for evaluating what is considered to be “cruel and unusual punishment” as noted in the United States Constitution. Among these practices, few are as contentious and deeply ingrained in the American legal system as the issue of capital punishment. By examining the historical context and legal precedence of capital punishment as well as its relevance today, it is asserted that, despite the Supreme Court's ruling in Gregg v. Georgia (1976), which upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty when used carefully and judiciously, abrogating Furman v. Georgia (1972), the evolving standards of decency render the application of capital punishment to be unconstitutional.
Read More
When the Freedom of Speech Oversteps Into Discrimination
On June 30th, 2023, for the first time, the Supreme Court essentially ruled that it is acceptable for people and businesses to discriminate against same-sex couples. Through their decision in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, the Court explored the intersections between anti-discrimination law in public accommodations and the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment – and ultimately prioritized free speech. 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis infringes on civil rights laws using the First Amendment by potentially encouraging discrimination against LGBTQI+ Americans and weakening laws that have protected all Americans from discrimination.
Read More
The College Board: A Case for Antitrust Enforcement Under Section 2 of the Sherman Act
President Biden has made antitrust enforcement a chief priority of his economic policy, dubbed “Bidenomics.” Signing Executive Order 14036, better known as “The Executive Order on Promoting Competition in the American Economy,” President Biden has directed the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) to take action towards reining in anti-competitive practices. This Executive Order (EO) includes more than 72 initiatives for multiple federal agencies, in what the Biden Administration hopes will “tackle some of the most pressing competition problems across our economy.” As a direct result of this EO, the DOJ’s Antitrust Division filed a Section 2 Sherman Antitrust Act offense (the actions a company takes to attain or keep monopoly power) against Google for allegedly “monopolizing multiple digital advertising technology products.” This is the first time in over twenty years that the DOJ has brought a Section 2 Violation of the Sherman Act. While the Biden Administration, DOJ, and FTC may be focused on curbing anti-competitive conduct in the technology sector, they may have overlooked a key yet recent contributor to monopolistic practices: the education sector, more specifically, the education testing non-profit: The College Board.
Read More
In Defense of Income: How a Wealth Tax is Income
Since the Reagan era, inequality across the United States has reached an all-time high, with clashes over the issue increasingly erupting into the forefront. Over the past few years, however, various attempts to mitigate and even alleviate these economic inequalities have been unsuccessful. One of the main proposals to alleviate economic inequality has been the addition of a wealth tax. A wealth tax is distinct from other taxes such as capital gains taxes and federal income taxes because it seeks to tax unrealized income, meaning that it seeks to tax gains in wealth that aren’t realized from the sale of capital.
Read More
Banning Affirmative Action: Legal Crossroads in Higher Education Admissions
Affirmative action policy in higher education has been the center of extensive debates, drawing in both passionate advocates and critics who significantly influence discussions on college admissions policies. Consider a scenario where two equally-qualified students, distinguished by their racial background, compete for a coveted spot in a prestigious university. While one might assume that this situation leads to a fair evaluation of both individuals, affirmative action introduces a unique dimension by providing an advantage to a student from a marginalized community. This fact sparks controversy, raising questions about whether affirmative action effectively achieves its intended goals of promoting diversity and addressing historical inequalities or if it establishes an admissions standard that unfairly impacts certain students more than it benefits others.
Read More
The First Federal Attack on Amazon’s Monopoly Power: A Conclusive Moment in Assessing Antitrust Efficacy in the Digital Age
On September 26, 2023, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and 17 states filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington against Amazon.com, Inc. accusing the company of violating antitrust law by inhibiting the growth of its third-party sellers and causing inflated prices of consumer goods on and off its platform. In the 172-page complaint filed to initiate the first federal lawsuit against Amazon, plaintiffs asked the court to “put an end to Amazon’s illegal course of conduct, pry loose Amazon’s monopolistic control, deny Amazon the fruits of its unlawful practice, and restore the lost promise of competition.” Compared to previous lawsuits by states and private parties, the FTC’s suit is of particular importance because the Commission has more mandated authority to reign in monopolistic practice in its founding history and statutory language. Amazon's operations clearly constitute a violation of federal antitrust law, and courts must interpret the FTC's lawsuit as a meritorious challenge of exclusionary conduct. If the district court holds Amazon’s anti-competitive business strategies as lawful under Section 5 of the FTC Act, the FTC’s regulatory purpose and authority will be severely undermined—calling into question the effectiveness of existing laws for antitrust enforcement in the age of digital commerce.
Read More
The Epidemic of Due Process Violations for Tuberculosis Patients
Tuberculosis (TB) is the leading infectious disease killer in the world, causing 1.5 million deaths annually, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). In 2022, 8,300 TB cases were reported in the United States, which was a slight increase from the year before. Within public health policy, treatment of TB patients has become subject to both the judgment of medical practitioners and public health officials given the highly contagious and dangerous nature of the disease. Should it be determined that the patient has active, communicable TB, and could potentially pose a danger to public health, public health officials are legally entitled to detain the patient in a quarantine facility, which may last anywhere from a few days to months until treatment is completed. Known as emergency detention, in such cases, public hearings are not required, raising concern about questions of due process and liberty interests, or an individual's right to do anything in accordance with due process.
Read More
The Cemex Doctrine: A Renewed Deterrence Against Unfair Labor Practices
Standing before the Supreme Court in 1969, Associate General Counsel to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Dominick Manoli would transform national labor relations in a single oral argument. Overturning two decades of labor law precedent, Manoli argued that the NLRB no longer needed to hold employers to a “good faith” standard when dismissing union representation, implying in such sentiment that the position of the NLRB had changed in between the filing of the brief and his oral argument. Manoli ultimately struck down the Board’s long-held position, based on precedent established in Joy Silk Mills v. National Labor Rel. Board (1949). This position—the Joy Silk doctrine—held that an employer was obligated to recognize and bargain with a designate representing a majority of their employees—unless the employer had a “good faith” doubt of that majority, as stated in Section 8(d) of the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 (NLRA). Yet, Manoli’s actions, which resulted in NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co., Inc. (1969), replaced the Joy Silk bargaining orders with Gissel bargaining orders, which can only be applied in much more extreme and restrictive conditions.
Read More
