By: Benjamin Shaw ‘24
Volume IX – Issue II – Spring 2024

I. Introduction

The financial world, with its promise of high-stakes deals, lucrative rewards, and societal prestige, has long held a captivating allure. However, beneath its veneer of affluence and power lies a stark reality – an industry plagued by a persistent lack of diversity. According to the 2020 McKinsey Diversity Matters report, women in North America were significantly underrepresented in the financial-services workforce, particularly at the level of senior management and above. [1] In the banking sector, women made up 53% of the entry-level workforce but less than one-third at the SVP (senior vice president) and C-suite (executive-level manager) levels. Nearly one in four employees at the entry level is a woman of color, though this falls to one in 20 at the C-suite level. The representation of women and women of color falls off at every step of the corporate pipeline: from entry level to the C-suite, the representation of women of color falls by 80%. Despite progress, 64% of financial-services C-suite executives are still white men, and 23% are White women—leaving just 9% of C-suite positions held by men of color and 4% by women of color. This paper delves into the intricate dynamics at play, examining how the pervasive "culture" of investment banking often serves as a smokescreen for discrimination against women and other minorities. The interaction between legal rulings and societal advancement, showcased by the case of Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, continues to represent a pivotal battleground for fostering a more diverse and fair society. It is imperative for financial institutions, as well as all employers, to actively address and deconstruct the covert biases entrenched within their organizational frameworks if they genuinely aspire to embody the meritocratic values they espouse.

By: Hannah A. Quigley ‘26
Volume IX – Issue II – Spring 2024

I. Introduction

On January 25, 2024, the University of California (UC) Board of Regents rejected a proposal called Entitled Opportunity for All that would have allowed undocumented students to work on-campus jobs. [1] Michael Drake, the UC’s president, claimed that “the proposed legal pathway [was] not viable” under current state and federal regulations. [2] With one swift vote, the UC board extinguished a fiery student-led advocacy movement marked by hunger strikes and vocal protests. [3]

Undocumented college students face a disproportionate financial burden. Ineligible for federal grants and aid programs, they must scramble to cover all of their educational and living expenses without assistance. [4] When state and federal laws prevent these students from seeking legal employment, they must find alternate avenues through which to earn a paycheck.

Legal barriers do not prevent young, undocumented workers from joining the U.S. labor force. Instead, they encourage immigrants to accept “underground jobs.” [5] Illicit positions foster abusive labor conditions due to a lack of oversight. [6] Permitting undocumented students to work on-campus jobs could quite literally ensure their safety—if legally possible. The UC system serves as a perfect case study under which to analyze this legal question. This paper will first examine the intersection of immigration and labor law. Next, it will detail UC students’ proposal lobbying the system to hire undocumented student workers. Finally, the paper will delve into the reasons why UC regents rejected this proposal before drawing implications.

By: Chinaza Politis ‘26
Volume IX – Issue II – Spring 2024

I. Introduction

On January 5, 2023 the Federal Trade Commission announced a landmark proposal for a new rule that would declare non-compete clauses an unfair method of competition, thus banning businesses from using them. [1] A non-compete clause is defined as “a contractual term between an employer and a worker that prevents the worker from seeking or accepting employment with a person, or operating a business, after the conclusion of the worker’s employment with the employer,” typically meaning that employees cannot work for or start a competing business within a certain geographic area and/or time period after leaving a job. [2] A survey published in 2019 by the Economic Policy Institute found between 27.8% and 46.5% of the workforce is subject to non-compete agreements. [3] Businesses use them as ways to protect proprietary information and the investments they put into the workers they have hired, though they have drawn media attention for what many consider to be an overbroad use. While they are most likely to be used in contracts with workers who are high-skill, high-wage, and have access to trade secrets, they still continue to be used with low-skill, low-wage employees, even in cases where the non-compete clause is unenforceable. [4] In its proposal for a new rule, the Federal Trade Commission cites cases of non-compete clauses being used for manufacturing workers, warehouse workers, and sandwich shop employees. [5] The Federal Trade Commission proposes adding a subchapter J, consisting of part 910, to chapter I in title 16 of the Code of Federal Regulations that would make it an unfair method of competition to enter into, represent, or maintain a non-compete clause with a worker, requiring businesses to rescind existing non-compete clauses and notify workers of the action within 180 days of the rule’s publication. [6]

By: Amelia Okulewicz ‘26
Volume IX – Issue II – Spring 2024

Introduction

The Multiple Listing Service (MLS) is an online database where brokers “create and share information” regarding property listings [1]. Most of the information on this database is public aside from seller contacts and property availability, which is limited to those that pay for a subscription. The question of antitrust and fee inflation arises in this case, as buyers must compensate an agent to input this information within MLS. The argument of a monopoly can be brought forth, as there is currently no other reputable source currently used for listing real estate information. Furthermore, should a person choose to sell property themselves, they would still have to pay a real estate agent for an MLS service. Uproar in this category has commenced on the side of real estate websites like Zillow Group, Inc., showing more than homeowners have felt outrage towards the listing service.

By: Amanda Nudelman ‘27
Volume IX – Issue II – Spring 2024

I. Introduction and Background

In 2018, Mark Janus was a child support worker at the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services, which oversees child support cases in the state. Janus’ duties included ensuring that court orders given by his office were being followed. [1] As a public-sector worker, Janus’ collective bargaining unit was represented by the AFSCME (American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees) public sector union. [2] A union is an organization of workers that seeks to advance their wages, benefits, and working conditions. [3] To do this, labor unions engage in collective bargaining — a process by which union representatives negotiate contracts with an employer on behalf of their employees. The collective bargaining process requires unions to represent all employees, regardless of their union membership status, in negotiations for wages, benefits, and other terms of employment. Although Janus did not join AFSCME because he opposed the union’s political views and its collective bargaining strategies, Illinois law required him to pay a $45 monthly fee to the union. [4]

By: Ava Malkin ‘27
Volume IX – Issue II – Spring 2024

I. Introduction and Background

i. Definitions

The First Amendment of the United States is as follows: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” [1] This is a right afforded to all American citizens to freely speak, publish, protest, and express themselves in various formats.

Additionally, the Fourteenth Amendment states, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” [2] In other words, the Due Process Clause finds that a person cannot be deprived of their liberties or their property without legal reasoning, while the Equal Protection Clause finds that the government cannot deny American individuals of their equality, and they cannot discriminate against specific individuals under the law.

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.