Hamilton's Prophecy Fulfilled: The Evolution & Decline of Judicial Review
Hamilton’s objections and fears about the capabilities of the judiciary were once unsubstantiated due to the Founders’ early efforts to establish judicial oversight and review. Despite these efforts, modern-day limitations of judicial rulings—exemplified by Supreme Court decisions such as Trump v. CASA Inc.—have actualized Hamilton’s ideas about the shortcomings of the judicial branch. These decisions represent the latest phase in a centuries-long evolution of decisions that have consistently weakened judicial oversight. From the establishment of judicial review to wartime expansions of executive authority and recent constraints on the courts, this development threatens the foundational system of checks and balances and poses risks to citizens.
Read More
Withstanding Standing Scrutiny: How Climate Litigation Can Survive Juliana’s Federal Beatdown
Unlike criminal law, where the perpetrator is often easily identifiable, it is impossible to point to a single perpetrator when it comes to the climate crisis. Rising sea levels are engulfing entire islands, homes are being levelled by extreme weather, and droughts are leaving populations in famine—yet such devastation cannot be attributed to a single person, or even to a single country. Climate change is an international problem rife with geopolitical tensions. Thus, victims of climate injury seeking redress face significant obstacles in amending these claims through the American legal system, a single jurisdiction out of countless implicated regions. While it wasn’t without its victories, the Ninth Circuit’s divided 2020 ruling in Juliana v. United States reinforced stringent federal standing requirements, effectively barring climate redress cases from succeeding in federal court for the foreseeable future. However, the success of state-level cases like Held v. Montana in establishing standing suggests a path forward for climate advocates, who may find considerable success bringing cases to state courts with environmental rights enshrined in their constitutions.
Read More
New York University’s Data Breach Exposes The SHIELD Act and FERPA’s Illusion of Protection
On the morning of Saturday, March 22nd, 2025, New York University’s (NYU) homepage was compromised. Hackers cruised through the confidential admissions data for two hours, taking control of data from over three million applicants, all available at the touch of their fingertips. Amongst this data lay test scores, financial aid records, zip codes, and academic credentials, which the hackers worked to make accessible to the public. Students received a brief letter from NYU confirming that their personal data had been exposed, offering them a one-year subscription to an identity protection service. Further restitution was minimal, the explanations were insufficient, and the opportunity for redress was entirely obsolete.
Read More
What Happens in the Lawsuit Stays in the Lawsuit: How the Trump V. CASA Inc. Ruling on Universal Injunctions Upsets the Balance of Powers
A law for all and a ruling for a few, the loss of universal injunctions after Trump V. CASA Inc. earlier this summer signals the arrival of a new era in utilizing universal remedies for unlawful government actions. Trump V. CASA Inc. (2025) is part of a series of lawsuits against President Donald Trump in response to Executive Order 14160 (Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship). Issued on January 20, the executive order aims to reinterpret the Fourteenth Amendment and eliminate birthright citizenship for those born to parents that are not citizens or permanent lawful residents of the United States. Individuals, states, and immigrant rights organizations such as CASA sued President Trump alleging the unconstitutionality of the order. As the order was to be implemented on February 19, 2025, various plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary universal injunction—an order that both applies to all people, notwithstanding their classification as a non-party, and that halts enforcement of the executive order, which is likely to cause harm, while it is under judicial review.
Read More
No One is Above the Law, Except Prosecutors
Philosopher and early romanticist Edmund Burke famously warned, “The greater the power, the more dangerous the abuse.” Nowhere is this assertion more evident than within the American justice system, where ironically, sometimes the people trusted to uphold justice become the ones who betray it first. This phenomenon has become rampant throughout the United States as the justice system continues to protect the perpetrators of injustice over and over again. The case of Curtis McGhee and Terry Harrington presents a prime example. In 1983, Curtis McGhee and Terry Harrington were convicted of murder. 25 years later, their convictions were overturned after an investigation revealed that the prosecutors suppressed evidence during trial. Despite the gravity of the misconduct, when it was time to hold the prosecutors accountable, the Supreme Court ruled that the case was not valid to bring to trial. This is just one instance of many; these incidents are a direct result of prosecutors in the United States being protected through absolute immunity from civil suits for actions that were carried out during official duties, even if these actions violate certain constitutional rights. While absolute prosecutorial immunity was originally established to preserve the independence of prosecutors, the reality of its implementation is drastically different. In reality, it acts as a safeguard for constitutional violations, threatening the integrity of the judicial system, and should be altered to ensure civil accountability during times of misconduct.
Read More
Finality Over Fairness: The Constitutional Costs of Demanding “Actual Innocence”
In January 2025, Alvin Jardine — a Hawai‘i man wrongfully convicted in a 1990 sexual assault case — was finally able to prove his innocence in court. Despite the overturning of his conviction, however, Jardine remains uncompensated for the nearly 20 years he spent incarcerated for a crime he didn’t commit. Hawai‘i law mandates that compensatory relief requires proof of “actual innocence,” and so far, no exoneree has met this standard under HRS § 661B. Jardine, like others, continues to await compensation.
Requiring actual innocence in post-conviction compensation contexts flips the presumption of innocence upside down: exonerees who have shown reasonable doubt in their convictions and thereby demonstrated their non-guilt now have the burden of affirmatively proving that they did not commit the crime. This article argues such a requirement is legally onerous, ethically suspect, and practically unattainable — especially for individuals who have already endured wrongful imprisonment.
Read More
Diplomacy Without D.C.: The Legal Case for State-Level Climate Diplomacy
U.S. constitutional doctrine has created ambiguity surrounding the nation’s capacity to implement climate action domestically. The legal instability caused by the executive branch’s ability to join or withdraw from international agreements unilaterally undermines long-term climate accountability in the court of international opinion. Specifically, the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement under President Trump, followed by reentry under President Biden, and a subsequent withdrawal from the current administration, proves the volatility of the U.S.’s approach to entering the commitment. Despite federal ambivalence, multiple states have pursued campaigns to champion Paris commitments from the ground up. These pursuits are by no means exempt from scrutiny. In response to a U.S.-filed lawsuit in 2020 over California’s cap-and-trade carbon reduction plan, Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey Bossert Clark released the following: "The state of California has veered outside of its proper constitutional lane to enter into an international emissions agreement…The power to enter into such agreements is reserved to the federal government, which must be able to speak with one voice in the area of U.S. foreign policy.” [4] Despite federal actors under the Trump administration vehemently countering efforts by states to develop cross-border climate policies, this comment will argue that non-federal actors in the United States possess the legal autonomy to engage in the Paris Climate Agreement through subnational diplomacy, presenting a viable and often preferable alternative to federal action.
Read More
Berlin Court Blocks Deportation Case: How a Somali Asylum Case Challenges Germany’s Migration Policy
On May 9th, 2025, the German Federal Police investigated three Somali nationals at the Railway Station in Frankfurt (Oder) near the Polish border. During this investigation, it was discovered that the three individuals had entered the Federal Republic of Germany illegally through Poland without valid travel visas. Later that same day, the group was deported back to Poland, despite expressing their clear intention to seek asylum in Germany. In response, the Somali nationals brought legal action against the Federal Republic, challenging the circumstances under which their deportation took place.
On June 2nd, the 6th chamber of the Berlin Administrative Court ruled in their favour, arguing that the Federal Republic’s actions constituted an unlawful act of refoulement – the forcible return of refugees or asylum seekers to a country where they may be liable to be subjected to persecution, an act which directly violates EU legislation. While the Court’s decision may not be appealed, it has renewed previous discussions around potential changes to the EU’s legal approach to immigration. Indeed, it raises serious legal questions regarding the legitimacy of German Chancellor Merz’s anti-migrant pushback policy as a whole.
Read More
Freedom’s Loss to Security: The TikTok Ban That Was Supposed to Save Our Data
The conflict between security and free speech isn’t new, but TikTok has revived a century-old debate. The app, owned by the Chinese company ByteDance, has faced scrutiny over allegations that it collects user data and is able to share it with the Chinese government. [1] In response, the federal government has argued that TikTok poses a serious national security threat, justifying efforts to either ban the platform or force its divestiture. President Donald Trump attempted to ban TikTok with an executive order in 2020, but the effort was quickly blocked in court. In TikTok Inc. v. Trump, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted a preliminary injunction, finding that the administration likely exceeded its authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and that the ban likely violated First Amendment protections. [2] The Biden administration initially reversed this approach but later supported legislation aimed at addressing the national security risks posed by the foreign-owned application. [3] This raised a critical constitutional question about the limits of free speech and the government’s power to regulate platforms under the guise of national security. Yet, the underlying legal conflict transcends politics and touches on the core of constitutional governance: does national security override the fundamental right to free speech, or does the First Amendment stand as a shield even against claims of national security?
Read More
