April - 2018

ONLINE

Explore the Archive:

Korematsu and the Muslim Ban: The Legal Consequences of Unchecked Executive Power

In 1942, Fred Korematsu was arrested on a street corner in California. His crime was refusing to evacuate to an internment camp and comply with President Roosevelt’s Executive Order 9066. Under the executive order, over 120,000 men, women, and children of Japanese descent were forced to relocate from their homes on the coasts to remote camps inland; they had been deemed a “national security threat” after the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941.[1] Korematsu was the first man to le

Prison Reform in Utah: Setting A Reformative Model for the U.S. to Follow

The U.S. Prison population has grown staggeringly high, and its magnitude is not necessarily the reflection of the growth of an especially dangerous population, but rather a retributive value system which emphasizes punishment over rehabilitation. Utah’s governor Gary Herbert endeavored to solve this problem when he noticed that: “Although crime in Utah fell during the past two decades, the state’s prison population grew by 18 percent from 2004 to 2013, six times faster than

Stop-And-Frisk in Floyd v. The City of New York: How the Policy Unjustly Targets Minorities

On August 12th 2013, Judge Shira Scheindlin’s ruling in the New York Court of Appeals sparked controversy when finding that the New York City Police Department’s use of stop-and-frisk was unconstitutional. Stop-and-frisk is often regarded as a tool for crime reduction, but its history in the United States is long and complicated. During the 1990s, the NYPD Police Commissioner Bill Bratton implemented a city wide stop, question, and frisk policy. During Mayor Rudy Giuliani's

Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard University: Questioning the Effects of Affirmative Action on

Last November, the Justice Department launched an investigation on Harvard University’s admissions decisions.[1] The investigation follows a 2015 complaint by the Coalition of Asian-American Associations that claimed Harvard used “unlawful racial discrimination in [its] college admissions,” violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, the Fourteenth Amendment, and Supreme Court rulings.[2] Despite growing numbers of Asian-American college applicants and their qualifications in

HSEC WINNER: The Inadequacy of Foster v. Chatman

The prevalence of racism in jury selections and deliberations is a legal issue that is often overlooked in favor of more prominent discussions concerning topics such as free speech or the Second Amendment. This is unsurprising — Americans generally view jury duty as a compulsory chore at best, and a tedious financial burden at worst. Most will never be put in a position that forces them to appreciate the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of an impartial jury. Even so, it is importa

HSEC RUNNER-UP: Maryland v. King: DNA Sampling and the Fourth Amendment

In the 2013 case Maryland v. King, the Supreme Court held that taking DNA samples from people arrested for “serious offenses” did not violate the Fourth Amendment. While being booked into jail on charges of assault, a DNA sample was taken from respondent King, as permitted by the Maryland DNA Collection Act. King’s DNA was later found to match DNA taken from the scene of an unsolved 2003 rape case. Based on that evidence, King was charged and convicted of rape. While longstan

HSEC RUNNER-UP: Peña-Rodriguez v. Colorado: Eliminating Racial Inequities in the Justice System

“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”[1] Racism in the justice system is unacceptable. It compromises democracy, undermines the Constitution, and encourages racial discrimination in every other walk of life. Yet, until 2017, racially discriminatory statements made by jurors during deliberations could not be released under the no-impeachment rule. Peña-Rodriguez v. Colorado [2] changed this for the better. In Peña-Rodriguez v. Colorado,[3] Miguel Angel Peña-R

A First Amendment Analysis: Can Prisons Ban The New Jim Crow?

As stated by Supreme Court Justice O’Connor, “Prison walls do not form a barrier separating prison inmates from the protections of the Constitution.” As such, the First Amendment should and must protect all citizens, even prisoners. However, is this legal necessity reflected with current prison book bans? Recently, New Jersey banned inmates from reading Michelle Alexander’s The New Jim Crow, a book about racial bias and mass incarceration.[1] After the ACLU sent a letter clai

A Blank Space in Legal Jurisdiction: Are Profit-Driven Space Companies Liable for Violations of Inte

On January 16th, 2018, Administrator of the Ship-Source Oil Pollution Fund v. Beasse held that the defendant and owner of an American-registered tugboat was responsible for clean-up costs related to an oil spill, despite the incident having occurred in Canadian waters.[1] The sunken tugboat was lifted by the Canadian Coast Guard (CCG), which had been patrolling the area. Although the defendant attempted to stop the CCG from extracting the tugboat, there was neither action tak

Felon Disenfranchisement: The Legal Necessity to Enact Change in Florida

Out of all the states in the union, Florida maintains some of the most strict and unjust felon disenfranchisement laws. Felons who reside in Florida, as well as those who live in Iowa, Kentucky, and Virginia, permanently lose their right to vote even after completing the terms of their sentences. The only method through which individuals may have their rights restored is through the approval of Florida’s Executive Clemency Board, comprised of the Governor and the three highes

Click here to read older articles

COLUMBIA

UNDERGRADUATE

LAW REVIEW

ONLINE

Explore the Archive: