By: Matthew Mah ‘26
Volume IX – Issue II – Spring 2024

I. Introduction

Jon Lindseth, emeritus member of the Cornell Board of Trustees and donor to the University, recently published an open letter to the Board of Trustees calling for Cornell to “abandon its misguided commitment to [Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)] because it has yielded not excellence but disgrace.” [1] Lindseth blames DEI for lowering education quality, characterizing such policies as ones that promote groupthink and radicalization. He argues that the University prioritizes DEI over merit, leading to toxic environments and contradictions with “the four essential pillars of Cornell University”—open inquiry, academic freedom, viewpoint diversity, and free expression. [2] In a follow-up interview, The Cornell Daily Sun reported that “while Lindseth asserted that ‘DEI ends up promoting the lack of free speech,’ he was uncertain as to how. ‘I wish I knew why,’ Lindseth said.” [3] This lack of clarity is not limited to DEI critics. Multiple alumni and organizations have criticized Lindseth’s letter. [4] Responses stated that DEI policies ought to be sustained because “the utterly irrational scourges of racism and religion-based hate persist [...]” [5] and that “Cornell University’s founding principle of ‘any person, any study’ was [an unactualized] DEI statement.” [6] However, these responses have shortcomings.

By: Will Long ‘25
Volume IX – Issue II – Spring 2024

I. Introduction and Background

For nearly 40 years, federal agencies and courts have operated under “Chevron deference.” This is a precedent established by Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council (1984), which maintains that courts must defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute. [1] This January, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments from petitioners who claimed to have suffered harm from a federal agency’s interpretation of a federal regulation, thus calling into question the precedent set by Chevron. The petitioners in this case, Loper Bright Enterprises and Relentless, Inc. challenge the National Marine Fisheries Service’s (“NFMS”) interpretation of 16 U.S.C. § 1853(b)(8), a regulation issued under the Magnuson-Stevens Act (“MSA”), which permits federal observers to accompany fishermen on their boats to prevent overfishing. [2] The NFMS interpretation, issued in 2020, required private corporations—not the government—to finance these federal observers.

By: Maeher Khosla ‘26
Volume IX – Issue II – Spring 2024

I. Introduction

On January 23, 2023, seven immigrant farm workers in Half Moon Bay, California lost their lives in a mass shooting. Upon arriving at the scene, California Governor Gavin Newsom was shocked to learn that “employees were living in shipping containers and … earning just $9 an hour,” $6.50 below the California minimum wage entitled to farm workers. [1] However, these workers failed to expose the workplace abuses they endured out of fear of deportation and retaliatory action by the employer. [2] The workplace abuses experienced by the workers at Half Moon Bay are, unfortunately, not an isolated incident, but rather acutely exemplify the harsh and abusive conditions that many undocumented workers in the US are subjected to. The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), passed in 1986, effectively proscribed the employment of undocumented workers through the implementation of an employment verification system which ascertained the identity and eligibility of potential employees and prohibited the intentional employment of undocumented workers. This policy creates a chilling effect on undocumented workers deciding to file a claim under US labor law protections, producing employment environments that are conducive to the exploitation and implementation of unfair labor practices for the unauthorized. While IRCA did not explicitly intend to undermine the labor law protections that all workers, including the undocumented, have access to, its implications and administration have significantly curtailed the enforcement of labor law protections for undocumented workers, penalizing them for their immigration status and subjecting them to employer will and unconstrained power that enable the propagation of illegal and inhumane incidents such as that at Half Moon Bay.

By: Sam Jacobson ‘26
Volume IX – Issue II – Spring 2024

Introduction

This article will first provide a background on the First Amendment, with a focus on how it relates to intellectual property law. Then, it will review and analyze relevant information regarding trademark law, defining what exactly a trademark entails and discussing policy justifications behind the trademark system in the United States. After providing this background information, the article will explore two relevant acts/cases surrounding the primary case, the Lanham Act, which includes federal action against trademark infringement and trademark dilution, and the test derived from Rogers v. Grimaldi (1989) that protects the use of certain trademarks. Then, this article will discuss the primary case at hand, Jack Daniel’s Properties v. VIP Products, LLC (2023), including the holding reached by the Supreme Court (hereinafter, “the Court”), with an analysis of the case at hand and of the holding. The article concludes by considering future implications based on the reached holding of the Court and how it relates to the intersection of First Amendment and trademark law protections. I will argue that, in the case of Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products, LLC, VIP Products LLC should not be entitled to heightened First Amendment protection, as while the dog toy is a parody in itself, the product still works against trademark law by arguably diluting the Jack Daniels trademark and potentially creating consumer confusion as a result of the products being highly similar.

By: Emily Gill ‘26
Volume IX – Issue II – Spring 2024

I. Introduction

The first juvenile court in the United States was established in 1899 through the Illinois Juvenile Court Act, which gave this newly created court jurisdiction over “delinquent” minors in the state of Illinois, aged sixteen and under. [1] This set the precedent of minors being treated differently under the justice system, and in 1974 the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) was passed, creating the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention to ensure that states had the support to be successful with their juvenile justice systems. [2] As of today, the federal government, as well as every state, has its own juvenile courts and justice processes. Just as the American adult criminal justice system has many problems relating to efficacy and ethics, so does the juvenile justice system. In the United States, too often minors are tried as adults and placed into the adult criminal justice system, prompting the question, why do we have a juvenile justice system?

By: Rebecca Herzberg ‘26
Volume IX – Issue II – Spring 2024

I. Introduction

i. History of Medicare

In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Medicare program into law. Before its creation, almost half of elderly Americans had no insurance. Its passage, along with Medicaid, substantially increased the national insurance rate and relatedly reduced the poverty rate among older adults. In its original form, Medicare offered Part A (Hospital Insurance) and Part B (Medical Insurance). [1] At Medicare’s inception, employers providing health insurance provided coverage for hospital stays since this care was the most costly and unexpected of medical costs. So, the creators of Medicare factored this status quo into the structure of Part A, in which beneficiaries automatically enroll at no additional charge. However, additional physician and medical services were generally less costly and predictable, so fewer resources fund this coverage in Medicare, now known as Part B. [2] However, over time, the expenses falling under Part B categorization have become increasingly more expensive and frequently utilized. So, the original rationale behind Parts A and B may not be as relevant and accurate today. Later, in 2003, President George W. Bush signed the Medicare Modernization Act into law, which added Part C (Medicare Advantage - private insurance plans) and Part D (Prescription Drug Coverage). Every American over 65 years is now eligible for Medicare, as well as certain individuals with disabilities who have Social Security disability insurance for two years

By: Sascha Ghobadi ‘25
Volume IX – Issue II – Spring 2024

I. Introduction

In 2024, the rise of generative Artificial Intelligence revolutionized all facets of industry in the United States, yet its immersion into society has resulted in complexities regarding its use in the legal context, more specifically regarding copyright law. Because of AI’s importance in the digital age, it is imperative that the laws surrounding it are without confusion. The incentivization of advancing and integrating AI can only occur if the applicable laws are without confusion. The incentivization of advancing and integrating Artificial Intelligence should be promoted. Therefore, the relevant copyright laws should be clearer in order to promote not only technological achievement but also to ensure an understandable consensus of how AI is protected under copyright law due to the difficulty that arises out of the nuances in the context of Artificial Intelligence. Before discussing the legal issues that arose with the emergence of AI, it is important to understand a brief history of both Artificial Intelligence and United States copyright law.

By: Caitlin Gallagher ‘26
Volume IX – Issue II – Spring 2024

I. Introduction and Background

If you are an avid sports fan or even just a casual enjoyer of watching games, odds are you have been exposed to an ad for sports betting. Through online sports betting companies like DraftKings and FanDuel, users can create multi-leg bets on multiple aspects of a game (this is called a parlay), place micro-bets as games are happening live, bet on the outcome of the game itself, and bet on “pools,” which is betting on multiple outcomes against competitors. [1[. Harry Levant, a former gambling addict turned addiction therapist, says that sports betting has created a glaring public health crisis. [2] In a CBS 60 Minutes interview, Joe Ruscillo, another former gambling addict, exposes this crisis with his own story, recalling how his addiction began in high school when he began putting his weekly paychecks directly into whatever sports betting app he was using. He would set alarms in the middle of the night to bet on international matches, as he “would place a bet on anything, anytime, anywhere.” [3] He now only owns a flip phone in order to avoid any temptation to redownload the apps that controlled his adolescence. Ruscillo’s comments point to one of the biggest problems with online sports betting - the twenty-four hour a day availability of bets on everything, including sports matches that he never would have cared about otherwise.

By: David Epega ‘26
Volume IX – Issue II – Spring 2024

The concept of the death penalty long predates modern societies and can be traced back to ancient civilizations. The United States can find the roots of its death penalty history in the 17th century when it was still the early British colonies. From there, the use of the death penalty would change over time with new policies being enacted to either increase its usage or attempt to retire the practice. I assert that judicial killings such as the death penalty and the laws behind are intrinsically tied to racism in the early 20th century after the end of slavery. To elaborate on my claim, I will first explain the United States’ history with death penalty laws up to the modern day, then connect that history to race relations in the country. Afterward, we can thoroughly reconcile this reality and evaluate the necessity of maintaining death penalty laws in their current state, taking into account their historical context.

By: Noah Duguma ‘26
Volume IX – Issue II – Spring 2024

Introduction

Indigenous peoples all over the world are renowned environmental stewards. From the Orang Asli of Malaysia to the Sioux of the Northern Great Plains, the Arawak in Suriname to the Oromo of the Great Rift Valley, indigenous peoples might make up only 5 percent of the global population, but they conserve 80 percent of the world’s biodiversity. [1] When compared to the comparatively modest records of conservation non-indigenous governments have, this makes the achievements of such a small part of the world’s population all the more impressive. How have indigenous peoples been able to live in such harmony with nature and still sustain themselves? What methods do indigenous peoples use to manage the environment around them? With the impending climate disaster, governments across the world can benefit greatly from incorporating Indigenous ways of thinking into natural resource management.

By: Marisa Cefola ‘26
Volume IX – Issue II – Spring 2024

Introduction

When Americans launch an account with a given social media application, often, they are asked to check a box indicating they understand the application’s Terms and Conditions. These terms include permissions users give, such as permission for an app to access a user’s personal information. For example, Instagram’s Terms of Use include a clause stating that users must grant the app access to their username, profile picture, and any information related to user engagement – such as likes or follows – to tailor advertisements and other sponsored content [1]. Meta’s Privacy Policy more specifically states that they collect similar information, however, they also record email addresses, phone numbers, instant messages, information about the device a user is logged in from, and information from third-party websites a user visits. Most notably, Meta provides all of this information to government and law enforcement agencies at their “legal request” [2].

By: Lorenzo Blanco ‘27
Volume IX – Issue II – Spring 2024

I. Introduction

The state of Hawai’i has a long history as “the island paradise” of the United States and one of the biggest tourism capitals of the world, where travelers can indulge in a host of luxury hotels, spas, outdoor tours, cuisine, and more. With an unprecedented influx of people from across the world moving to Hawai’i, the islands have become overwhelmed. Their efforts to accommodate these new residents as well as the exponentially increasing waves in tourism have come at the expense of Hawai’i’s Indigenous and native population, with rapid gentrification and the dedication of resources and infrastructure being prioritized for resorts and affluent communities across the islands. In recent history, it has become increasingly evident that the influence of settler colonialism on the Hawai’ian Islands has remained intrinsic to its statehood, from the kingdom’s original annexation to its present day socioeconomic and environmental struggles. The case of Navahine v. Hawai’i Department of Transportation is an example of Hawai’ian youth activists taking a stand against the federal government by filing suit against the state’s Department of Transportation, saying that “the establishment, operation, and maintenance of Hawai‘i’s fossil fuel-based transportation system violates the Hawai‘i Constitution’s public trust doctrine and right to a clean and healthful environment.” With a trial date set for the summer of 2024, this evolving case could be a significant win - or devastating loss - for Hawai’ian youth activists and the islands’ native people amidst the growing resistance to modern day settler-colonial practices as well as environmental degradation.

By: Saatvik Amravathi ‘26
Volume IX – Issue II – Spring 2024

I. Introduction

It is unusual to find the Governor of California and the Mayor of San Francisco agreeing with their counterparts in conservative bastions like Arizona and Idaho. However, the issue of homelessness has created a rare and confusing bipartisan alliance. [1] While it is understandable that local governments would desire more power and lee-way when it comes to enforcement, it is strange that local electorates have bought into this concern, not only rallying around ballot measures and cases that seek to expand “police powers” but also voting in critical reversals of progressive policing, encampment, and drug laws. In response, news outlets such as the Seattle Times and San Francisco Chronicle ran their own versions of a “Progressivism is dead” headline, characterizing changing headwinds as voters rejecting progressivism writ large. [2,3] However, the story is more complex and should be understood through a combined legal and political lens. Changing headwinds are a result of an age-old conflict between the idealism of courts and the constraints of cities, the push for civil liberties and the need for crisis management, and the reliance on perception versus data in informing public policy.

By: Allison Wong ‘27
Volume IX – Issue I – Fall 2023

I. Background

On May 20th, 2021, the COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act was signed into law by President Biden with bipartisan congressional support. [1] The Act included increasing support for Justice Department initiatives, establishing hotlines, bolstering reporting systems, accumulating more accurate data, and encouraging public education. [2] Although these measures established a degree of solidarity with the Asian American & Pacific Islander (AAPI) community, the Act’s lack of specificity, reactive rather than proactive solutions, and limited legal implications ultimately hindered its potential to enact systematic change in response to previous crises.

By: Yuvraj S. Tuli ‘25
Volume IX – Issue I – Fall 2023

“The events of January 6, 2021 marked the most significant assault on the Capitol since the War of 1812.” Judge Patricia Millet [1]

“Stated simply, the primary takeaway from the past 250 years of recorded American history is that Presidents are not kings” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson [2]

Introduction

January 6, 2021 marked the most significant and tragic days in the history of the United States. A mob “professing support for then-President Trump violently attacked the United States Capitol” with the intent to corruptly prevent Congress from convening in a Joint Session to fulfill its duties to certify the 2020 electoral votes for President and Vice President. [3] The events of January 6 did not start from a rally the hours before the attack, it started on election night in 2020. Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Jack Smith as special counsel to investigate in part “whether any person or entity violated the law in connection with efforts to interfere with the lawful transfer of power following the 2020 presidential election or the certification of the Electoral College vote held on or about January 6, 2021.” [4]

By: Nicolas V. Torres ‘26
Volume IX – Issue I – Fall 2023

Introduction

Following a stint in debtor’s prison for an amount of £17,000, English novelist and merchant Daniel Defoe wrote his first notable publication titled An Essay Upon Projects (1697). His work proposed improvements to England’s social and economic well-being by commenting on subject matters ranging from the repair of highways to the proposal of a national pension office. [1] Defoe even included a chapter most salient to his personal life, where he admits that "No man has tasted differing fortunes more, And thirteen times I have been rich and poor"—a testament to his knack for fortune and insolvency. [2] His chapter, "Of Bankrupts," admits to the foolishness of debtors, but also advocates for a new system in which debtors are given a reasonable opportunity to repay their creditors. Within his discourse, Defoe identifies two types of debtors: [3]

By: Sean Sung ‘27
Volume IX – Issue I – Fall 2023

I. Introduction and the Background on Google’s Recent Antitrust Case

On January 24th, 2023, The United States Department of Justice (DOJ) brought a federal antitrust lawsuit against Google LLC, accusing Google of monopolizing three markets: the website ranking market, the search advertising market, and the search engine market. Corresponding states like New York, California, Connecticut, Virginia, Tennessee, Texas, and others are suing along with the DOJ. [1] Such lawsuits have also brought private plaintiffs to sue Google for roughly the same topic. The European Commission has already ruled that Google illegally maintained its monopoly, and the General Court of the European Union backed the Commission’s decision. The DOJ cites that Google holds around 85% of the search engine market as the impact of these anti-competitive practices. [2] The DOJ cites Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890. In the United States, it is not illegal to have a monopoly, and it is not illegal to raise prices because of a monopoly because innovation and actions that benefit the market and consumers can lead to monopolistic tendencies. The government does not want to limit such innovation. In other words, it is not illegal to be dominant if the company is better than its competitors. However, Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act prohibits maintaining monopolies through exclusionary conduct and anti-competitive practice. The DOJ claims that Google’s contracts with original equipment manufacturers, like Apple, LG, Samsung, and Motorola, with Internet Service Providers, like AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon, and browser developers, like Mozilla, Opera, and UCWeb, to keep Google as the primary search engine on all products is anti-competitive in nature and is illegal. [3] This Google antitrust case is most similar to Microsoft’s antitrust case in 2001, since Microsoft was sued by the DOJ for also maintaining an illegal monopoly through restrictive deals with original equipment manufacturers to install Windows as the primary operating system on newly produced equipment. [4] In this article, we will cover market and legal definitions, the Microsoft antitrust case, its relation and detail with the Google antitrust case, and the weakness of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890.

By: Ria Sodhi ‘25
Volume IX – Issue I – Fall 2023

The U.S. Supreme Court declared in Terry v. Ohio in 1968 that police may stop and frisk a citizen if they had a "reasonable suspicion" that a crime had been committed. Stop-and-frisk is a tactic the New York City Police Department uses to briefly detain, interrogate, and occasionally search bystanders and suspects on the street for weapons and other contraband. The program has always been controversial, even after adjusting for precinct variability and estimates of criminal participation specific to particular races; research demonstrates that people of African and Hispanic origin are stopped more frequently than white people. Eric Adams, the mayor of New York, supported stop and frisk in an opinion piece for the New York Daily News before assuming office. According to Adams, stop and frisk can be effectively employed to reduce crime without compromising individual freedoms or human rights. Adams believed that the real debate was how to implement stop, question, and frisk rather than whether it should be permitted. He believes those who advocated outlawing it completely simplified a complex subject to an either-or choice and unwisely responded with a general ban. This paper will argue that Mayor Adams is overlooking the inherent biases in our society and policing, which has proven that stop and frisk is ineffective, and Adams’ proposed changes are simply another aspect of police reform that has occurred in the past and has not been widely successful. This continues to reinforce injustice, exacerbate relationships between police and communities, and put lives at risk.

By: Hannah A. Quigley ‘26
Volume IX – Issue I – Fall 2023

I. Introduction and Background Information

Between December 2020 and January 2021, Zackey Rahimi perpetrated a series of non-fatal shootings in Arlington, Texas. [1] After Rahimi publicly fired shots inside a Whataburger when his payment method declined at the check-out counter, police obtained a search warrant for his home. [2] At Rahimi’s residence, officers found a rifle and a pistol, which Rahimi admitted to owning. [3] However, officers learned that in February 2020, Rahimi’s ex-girlfriend procured a civil protective order against him for domestic abuse. [4] Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), those under active restraining orders cannot possess firearms. [5]

By: Chinaza Politis ‘26
Volume IX – Issue I – Fall 2023

Introduction

“Good morning sweetheart.” “I am going to the store would you like anything?” “[w]as that you in the white Jeep?” “Fuck off permanently.” “Staying in cyber life is going to kill you.” “You’re not being good for human relations. Die.” [1] These are some of the hundreds of Facebook messages Billy Counterman sent to local singer, C.W. between 2014 and 2016. [2] These messages ranged from odd for a stranger to send, to suggestions of surveillance of C.W., to descriptions of harm befalling C.W. [3] C.W. perceived these messages to be “threat[ening her] life” and accordingly made changes in her daily life in order to cope with the ensuing anxiety. [4] In canceling performances and avoiding events she incurred negative financial costs. [5] She then elected to contact the authorities, who arrested Counterman and, using the the Facebook messages at trial, charged him under the following Colorado “stalking” statute: [6]