By: Ava Malkin ‘27
Volume X – Issue I – Fall 2024

I. INTRODUCTION

In 1947, psychological experts Drs. Kenneth and Mamie Clark conducted an investigation, colloquially deemed the “doll test,” which played an integral role in the Brown v. Board of Education (1954) case and the future legal system, particularly in combination with social science research.

Conducted years before Brown made its way to the Supreme Court, this social scientific study used identical dolls of different races. These scholars explained that their results indicated decreased self- esteem, racial awareness, and internalization of value judgments in African American children, as young participants responded to questions in a way that outwardly favored white dolls over black ones. During Brown, Dr. Kenneth Clark utilized these findings in his testimony as evidence that African American students endured psychological harm—an impaired self-image—due to segregation, thereby arguing for a legal and psychological need for change. [1] The Court then cited this evidence as part of their decision in the Brown case; thus, the Clarks’ findings contributed to Brown’s overturning of the “separate but equal” doctrine from Plessy v. Ferguson (1896). [2]

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

I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

On June 5, 2024, a unanimous panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (the Fifth Circuit) vacated the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) Private Fund Advisers; Documentation of Investment Advisor Compliance Reviews (the Final Rule). [1] The Final Rule threatened to expand reporting, disclosure, and prohibited certain types of preferential treatment of investors in private funds. [2] The Fifth Circuit’s decision to vacate the Final Rule, which would have cost $5.4 billion and required millions of hours of labor, [3] provides significant relief to private fund advisers.

By: Gillian Lee ‘25
Volume X – Issue I – Fall 2024

I. BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION

Fashion permeates through everyone’s lives beyond simply the clothes people wear. Fashion is a mode of self-expression and cultural movements, and is engrained in daily media. Even a picture of an individual can create an entire fashion discourse. Fashion can be used as a tool for social activism, such as printing words on clothing to spark critical discourse, or using styles to challenge gender roles. Fashion is also a significant part of the economy. In 2024, the apparel market generated $354.7 billion in the United States, and is projected to grow annually by 1.86%. [1] Fashion undoubtedly has different meanings and values to each individual–to people working in the fashion industry, fashion is intrinsic to their lives. Designers create new designs, spurring trends and new forms of expression.

By: Riley Kramer ‘28
Volume X – Issue I – Fall 2024

I. INTRODUCTION

Live Nation Entertainment is the world’s largest entertainment company; this conglomerate wields significant influence across various segments in the music industry, such as concert promotion, ticketing, artist management, and venue operations. Notably, Live Nation controls “more than 80 percent of major concert venues [and] over 400 big-name artists are locked into Live Nation’s management services” [1]. This extensive network allows Live Nation to leverage its business lines to maintain dominance in the industry. This domineering power has led many to label it as the “music behemoth.” This massive concentration of power raises critical concerns about whether LiveNation is engaging in unjust monopolistic practices. In late 2022, the US Department of Justice, along with 30 state and district attorneys generals, filed a civil suit against Live Nation Entertainment, alleging violations of Section 2 of the Sherman Act [2]. This lawsuit highlights the detrimental impact LiveNation’s practices may have on the music landscape, greatly affecting competitors, artists, and consumers alike.

By: Kaila Hall ‘25
Volume X – Issue I – Fall 2024

Last term, the Supreme Court, in McElrath v. Georgia, unanimously affirmed the irrefutability of a jury’s verdict and the Fifth Amendment’s protection against Double Jeopardy. This intricate case provides fascinating insight into the intersection of the insanity defense and the Fifth Amendment. Out of all 50 states, Georgia is the only one that has a “repugnancy” [1] law, meaning that a jury’s inconsistent verdict may essentially be discarded. In McElrath v. Georgia, this law is front and center in determining one man’s access to constitutional rights following the Georgia Supreme Court decision to disregard the trial jury’s verdict. In the unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court wholeheartedly defends McElrath’s Fifth Amendment rights while declaring the indisputability of a jury’s verdict.

By: David Gilmore ‘28
Volume X – Issue I – Fall 2024

I. INTRODUCTION

Capital punishment has long been a contentious topic, and its usage is intrinsically linked with the perception of those who commit the worst crimes. The Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution, often used to challenge the death penalty’s constitutionality, forbids the government from inflicting “cruel and unusual” punishments. [1] These challenges have led to exceptions where capital punishment has been held to be unconstitutional no matter the crime, such as for offenders who are juveniles or have an intellectual disability. Unrepresented in these protections are individuals with serious mental illness (SMI), despite meeting the exact same criteria. In order to ensure fair treatment in the justice system, an exception preventing the execution of offenders with a severe mental illness must be put in place, the creation of which is an increasingly pressing issue.

By: Emily Gill ‘26
Volume X – Issue I – Fall 2024

I. INTRODUCTION

The Formerly Incarcerated Reenter Society Transformed Safely Transitioning Every Person Act, or First Step Act, is a bipartisan crime bill enacted in 2018 under the 115th Congress. The Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) states that the goal of this act is to “reduce the size of the federal prison population while also creating mechanisms to maintain public safety.” [1] The objectives of the First Step Act are to reform prison and sentencing practices as a means for reducing crime, recidivism rates, and the incarcerated population. [2] As of 2016, the eight-year recidivism rate in federal prisons was 49.3%. [3] Due to such high rates of reoffending in the United States, a large portion of the crime rate is made up of repeat offenders. While the First Step Act has made great strides in reducing recidivism rates, especially compared to past crime bills, its lack of influence over state prison systems, racial discrepancies, and limitations to specific offenses are weaknesses that need to be addressed for the First Step Act to be entirely successful in it accomplishing its objectives.

By: Caitlin Gallagher ‘26
Volume X – Issue I – Fall 2024

I. INTRODUCTION

Homeschooling is often presented as an alternative option for parents who are looking for something more personalized and catered to their children’s needs than public schooling. For some families, this can absolutely be true. However, it seems that homeschooling can be a pathway for abuse, social isolation, and delayed development for many children. Take, for example, Hope, a woman who was homeschooled in the early 2000s in Minnesota. She describes her education as being severely limited - mostly she was given textbooks and was told to “teach herself through them”. Neither of her parents were qualified to educate her, and Hope and her four siblings were scarcely allowed to escape their physically, emotionally, and sometimes sexually abusive parents. In describing her nightmarish situation, Hope writes, “I don’t even know how many people knew we existed, since we were never allowed to make friends at a park, or go anywhere by ourselves, or ever, ever speak to an adult who wasn’t our parent.” [1]

By: Owen Finn ‘25
Volume X – Issue I – Fall 2024

I. INTRODUCTION TO THE FEDERAL RESERVE

In the 1800s and early 1900s, public distrust in the banking system led to frequent bank runs and financial crises. Between 1863 and 1910, there had been three major banking panics and eight more localized panics in the United States. [1] In response, the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was signed into law by Congress in order “to provide for the establishment of Federal reserve banks, to furnish an elastic currency, to afford means of rediscounting commercial paper, to establish a more effective supervision of banking in the United States, and for other purposes.” [2] The Federal Reserve Act lays out a central banking system with three key features: a central governing Board (called the Board of Governors today), a decentralized operating structure of twelve Reserve Banks, and a combination of public and private characteristics. [3] The twelve regional banks are spread across major cities like New York, Boston, Chicago, and Philadelphia.

The Fed is driven by two objectives. First, it aims to maintain stable prices, which means an annual inflation target of about 2%. Second, it seeks to achieve full employment; while the definition of full employment is up for debate, this typically means an unemployment rate of 4-5%. [4] The Fed works with Congress to set these targets. The Fed’s primary goal is to set interest rates at the optimal level to maintain low inflation and full employment. [5]

By: Robert Farbman ‘26
Volume X – Issue I – Fall 2024

I. INTRODUCTION

Zambia operates with two legal systems: a formal system based on British common law and a traditional system rooted in customary practices governed by tribal chiefs. The formal courts aim to provide consistent legal decisions based on legislature and judicial precedent, but are often inaccessible to rural populations due to geographical and resource limitations. [1] This manifests itself as a lack of physical resources at courts, a lack of courts in rural areas, and unaffordable legal representation, among other issues. [2] In contrast, traditional courts offer culturally relevant justice but can conflict with constitutional protections, especially regarding women's rights and human rights. [3] However, for most of Zambia’s primarily rural and impoverished population, traditional courts are often the first and only option for justice. [4]

By: Dominic Enright ‘27
Volume X – Issue I – Fall 2024

I. INTRODUCTION

In democratic governments, voting serves as both a foundational right and a powerful tool for citizens to shape policy. America’s founding, rooted in Enlightenment ideals, espoused liberty, justice, and equality for all men. However, a history marred by centuries of slavery, the entrenchment of Jim Crow laws, and pervasive systemic discrimination reveals stark deviations from these founding values. Significant legislative victories have been won to secure equal access to the ballot with the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) [1] standing as one of the most monumental achievements of the American Civil Rights Movement.

Despite federal and constitutional protections, voter disenfranchisement still persists, manifesting as racial and partisan gerrymandering. These twin forces erode the very essence of fair representation, undermining the promise of “one person, one vote.” [2] By manufacturing electoral boundaries centered around race or partisan lean, state lawmakers wield redistricting as a tool to minimize the voice of targeted demographics. Although the Roberts Supreme Court is characterized by its conservative judicial philosophy and aversion to federal oversight in state election laws, the decision in Allen v. Milligan (2023) reveals a somewhat surprising scenario in which conservative justices concurred with the liberal minority to affirm voting rights as underpinned by the VRA. This ruling ultimately points to a greater issue: the undeniable partisan influence in redistricting. A consequence of this extremely flawed system is the struggle to find reconciliation between states’ sovereignty and the push for civil liberties which has been extensively debated in the courts.

By: Max Ehrlich ‘26
Volume X – Issue I – Fall 2024

I. INTRODUCTION

“The First Amendment was never intended to protect an individual who burns a cross in the middle of the night in the fenced yard of an African-American family's home,” declared Hennepin County attorney Tom Foley during the oral argument for R.A.V. v. Saint Paul. [1] In a 9-0 decision, the Supreme Court disagreed. The majority explained in their decision that the government cannot proscribe speech based on viewpoint, no matter if it falls within a broader unprotected category of speech. Even if the St. Paul statute at issue only proscribed hate speech that fell into the category of fighting words, its inclusion of only fighting words espousing certain views made it unconstitutional. The case set the precedent that viewpoint-based restrictions on speech are facially invalid, even if they regulate a category of speech that would normally not be protected. [2]

This article’s analysis will begin in Part II with an examination of the majority’s argument. Then, Part III will explore the main concurring opinions and their use of the traditional categorical approach. Next, Part IV will delve into the concept of content-based under-inclusion, central to understanding the tension between the majority and dissent in RAV v. Saint Paul. Part V will argue that hate speech should be considered its own category of unprotected speech given the Court’s reasoning in Roth, Chaplinsky, and Wisconsin v. Mitchell. Finally, Part VI will consolidate these arguments into a two-pronged test for determining whether a hate speech regulation is valid.

By: Ben Denker ‘27
Volume X – Issue I – Fall 2024

I. INTRODUCTION

Since the 2020 election, Donald Trump’s repeated claims of election fraud have sown widespread doubt and concern about the integrity of U.S. elections. Indeed, polls show that up to a third of Americans believe President Biden was illegitimately elected. [1] These fears have led to an increase in support for voter ID requirements. Five states have enacted laws requesting some form of voter ID on election day: Ohio, Nebraska, Missouri, Arkansas, and North Carolina, bringing the total to 36 states. Different states have different forms of accepted IDs—Ohio only accepts driver's licenses or passports, while other states like North Carolina also accept Student IDs and military cards. [2] This increase in voter ID requirements post-2020 does not exist in a vacuum. Indeed, attempts to adjust election procedures in the name of election integrity have a deeper history necessary to contextualize recent efforts.

The Civil Rights movement in the mid-20th century helped mobilize the general public and politicians against Jim Crow laws, resulting in monumental legislation for voting rights. Among the most important legislation in ending the decades-long conquest for enfranchisement of black voters was the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson, the legislation prohibited discriminatory voting restrictions and required states to gain federal approval before changing voting laws. [3]

This paper will focus on the 21st-century interpretations of Sections 4 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

By: Marisa Cefola ‘26
Volume X – Issue I – Fall 2024

I. INTRODUCTIONS TO ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND COPYRIGHT

There are two primary types of artificial intelligence (AI) prevalent in everyday life. The first is traditional AI, which uses “if-then” programming to guide a system’s decision-making process. For example, a traditional AI system recommends medical diagnoses to doctors after being provided with patients’ reported symptoms (e.g., if a patient presents a certain symptom, then AI may perceive that symptom to be part of a certain disease). In contrast, generative AI (GAI) systems are trained using large data sets and are designed to generate creative content such as artwork or writing. By identifying patterns in the data, these systems can replicate and produce various creative works with a process known as machine learning. [1] This process makes GAI a Large Language Model (LLM), which can comprehend and generate natural, human-like language that allows it to perform a wide array of tasks. [2] The launch of Open AI’s ChatGPT on November 30, 2022, propelled GAI and LLMs into the mainstream, gaining 100 million users within two months on the market. In turn, these technologies have surged in popularity across corporations and entire industries due to their rapid pace of innovation. GAI and its future potential raise ethical and intellectual property concerns in these industries, however. [3] For instance, GAI was part of a central dispute in the 2023 Writers Guild of America strike, as writers demanded more regulations surrounding the systems. Hollywood producers used machine learning to produce scripts, using writers’ work as part of training data sets (in which writers were not compensated for these efforts) as a cheap alternative to human labor. The writers were ultimately successful in prohibiting AI from being considered an original work in the industry. [4] AI being at the forefront of the writer’s strike demonstrates its growing prominence in society, which has brought up new questions regarding AI’s intersection with United States copyright law.

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

I. BACKGROUND: ELECTRIC VEHICLE CONTEXT

For the average American, the idea of the electric car is nothing new. Once a novelty almost entirely monopolized by the Tesla brand, electric vehicles have quickly become a sizable market for every major automaker in the United States. With a wealth of new options from more mainstream car manufacturers like Toyota, Chevrolet, Hyundai, and Ford, the electric vehicle (EV) market is more diverse and expansive than ever before. With all of these new options, switching to electric or alternative fuel vehicles has become a ubiquitous practice amongst those searching for a swift yet introductory transition towards a more sustainable lifestyle. Hailed as a cost and energy efficient solution to the mobility problem in the midst of the climate crisis, EVs have taken the country and the world by storm. However, this wave of green transportation has left behind those in most need of clean, safe, dependable, and affordable transportation.

By: Tatiana Avdienko ‘28
Volume X – Issue I – Fall 2024

I. INTRODUCTION

On July 26, 2024, X Chairman Elon Musk reposted a Kamala Harris campaign video on X in which Harris appeared to state that she “did not know the first thing about running a country.” [1] Musk, however, did not disclose that the video was a deepfake created using artificial intelligence (“AI”). Artificial intelligence is a form of technology that allows machines to simulate human creativity, autonomy, comprehension, and learning. [2] A deepfake is an AI-generated audio, video, or photo of someone made to look real, depicting actions or words that someone did not produce. [3] Deepfakes have been present since the late 2010s, with the rise of AI leading to more advanced audio and visual techniques. Misleading deepfake technology poses a threat to not only the lives of individuals but also to democratic processes at the core of American politics. This technology may spread false information about candidates, influencing the people’s vote and the outcome of state and federal elections. While deepfakes have officially made their way into the United States political sphere, no federal law restricts how they are used. Calls for AI legislation from activist groups, congresspeople, and even technology companies have led to the enactment of state laws, such as Alabama’s Distribution of Materially Deceptive Media Act, and federal proposals such as the NO FAKES Act of 2023. On an international scale, groups such as the European Union have even taken action with the EU AI Act. As AI technology continues to develop in the United States, passing effective federal legislation that protects individuals while allowing technological innovation is crucial in preventing the spread of misinformation. 

By: Allison Wong ‘27
Volume IX – Issue II – Spring 2024

I. Background

On November 13th, 2023 the Supreme Court of the United States (“SCOTUS”) issued a Code of Conduct for Justices signed by Justices John G. Roberts Jr., Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr., Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. [1] The Code includes a one-page statement, a nine-page set of five canons, and a five-page commentary outlining ethical guidelines, rules, and regulations for Justice conduct. [2] Although the Code intends to specify and reiterate values and principles already espoused by the SCOTUS, this is the first time in the Court’s history that they have been explicitly outlined. Topics covered include judicial impartiality and independence, avoidance of impropriety, extrajudicial activities, conflicting interests, and the process of self-recusal. [3]

By: Sean Sung ‘27
Volume IX – Issue II – Spring 2024

I. Introduction and Basis of Privacy

The United States policy for privacy originates with the Bill of Rights, the Fourth Amendment, which states that the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” [1] The founders’ reasoning for having the Fourth Amendment was in response to England’s search policy. England had general warrants and writs of assistance, which allowed officials to not only search but follow individuals without reasonable cause or a warrant. [2] These laws and traditions were used to harass political enemies. [3] The Founding Fathers wanted to reinforce the newfound democracy and avoid the silencing of political dissent by making the Fourth Amendment. There are a few key aspects of the amendment. First is to be secure against unreasonable search, meaning that law enforcement needs adequate reasoning and evidence to search someone. The second key aspect is that the search is protected from persons, houses, paper, and effects, which is mostly focused on physical materials and body. The third key aspect is the precise description of what is being searched, which was intended so that law enforcement did not expand the limits of a search warrant. These three key aspects of the Fourth Amendment have led to different theories of interpretation for new privacy cases, especially with the rise of new information technology. New technology has increased methods for law enforcement to gain information in their searches while individuals have new, sometimes opaque methods of sharing data about themselves that they might not necessarily want revealed.

By: Emma Staller ‘26
Volume IX – Issue II – Spring 2024

I. Introduction

Far away from the vistas of Cayuga's waters, Dartmouth College, Cornell's Ivy League sibling, steps into the spotlight as changes rock the landscape of collegiate athletics and reshape the conversation on fair compensation for student-athletes. Earlier this past March, players on the Dartmouth College men's basketball team voted 13–2 to join Service Employees International Union Local 560 in Hanover, New Hampshire, marking a historic decision with potentially far-reaching implications for college sports. [1] Despite Dartmouth’s swift appeal of the team’s right to unionize, according to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), Dartmouth college basketball players are to be considered employees under the NLRA. This vote marks a revolutionary moment for National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) athletes. Following the wake of failed unionization attempts in the past, an NLRB regional manager cleared the way for this latest push by ruling that Dartmouth’s athletes may vote to establish a union. [2]

By: Timothy Son ‘27
Volume IX – Issue II – Spring 2024

Background

Convention No. 189 and Recommendation No. 201, or ‘Decent Work for Domestic Workers Convention of 2011,’ [1] was adopted by the International Labor Organization (ILO) to establish an international labor standard for human dignity, social justice, and decent working conditions for domestic workers. In the past, the attention that the ILO and international organizations allocated to domestic workers has been “sparse,” at best. The most recent ILO resolution regarding domestic workers, prior to the 2011 Convention, was the Resolution Concerning the Conditions of Employment of Domestic Workers adopted in 1965. [2] Thirteen years have passed since the Domestic Workers Convention of 2011, and a lingering question now lies on whether this international instrument has successfully led to compliance with its provisions—either through ratification or through a norm-making process.