By: Max Ehrlich ‘26
Volume X – Issue II – Spring 2025

I. INTRODUCTION

As attacks on transgender individuals become more commonplace both in the courts and the federal executive branch, special attention has been paid to how the Roberts Court will rule on laws banning gender affirming care for minors. U.S. v. Skrmetti, which challenges Tessancess’s ban on gender affirming care under the 14th Amendment, is a pressing case expected to be decided by the Court by the end of its 2024–2025 term. At the center of the case is whether the Court will consider the Tennessee statute at issue as sex discrimination, given that the text of the statute directly categorizes individuals based on their sex. The way it is decided will tell us a great deal about the Court’s commitment to textualism as its defining legal principle, as they consider whether to keep to their holding in Bostock v. Clayton County. Under textualist interpretation, which the Court has applied to statutory text relating to sex discrimination’s applicability to Title VII in Bostock v. Clayton County, the statute should clearly be considered sex discrimination. However, the Court seems to be tilting in the other direction. [1] This article takes the position that the Court’s hedging on their textualist viewpoint from Bostock weakens the argument that the current Court adheres exclusively to legal principles rather than policy considerations. At the very least, their commitment to a textualist interpretation of equal protection that protects the LGBTQ community is in serious doubt.

By: Noah Duguma ‘26
Volume X – Issue II – Spring 2025

I. INTRODUCTION

New Zealand (Aotearoa) has occupied a unique space in the English settler-colonial world. Compared to its other English speaking peers, New Zealand is far younger and less developed. When compared to its larger neighbor across the Tasman Sea, Australia, New Zealand has attracted smaller numbers of European settlers. [1] As such, New Zealand has retained the highest proportion of Indigenous peoples in relation to settler populations of all former British settler colonies (with New Zealand’s most recent 2023 census revealing that 19.5 percent of the country’s population is of either full or partial Māori descent). [2] New Zealand’s consistently significant Māori population has meant that the Māori have been able to advocate for themselves on the national and international stage. The fruitful results of the Māori’s self-advocacy does not mean that indigenous-settler relations have always been merry—on the contrary, the Māori have had to fight for the better part of a century in order to obtain the indigenous land rights they currently enjoy.

By: Ben Denker ‘27
Volume X – Issue II – Spring 2025

I. INTRODUCTION

The Supreme Court’s 2024 decision to remand Cantero v. Bank of America to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit extended the conversation of federalism as it relates to banking. [1] The Court emphasized the importance of a precedent-based approach to evaluating when federal laws override state laws in banking questions, rather than establishing a black-and-white rule. This motivates the question: When do federal banking laws override, or preempt, state consumer protection statutes?

This article explores the framework that helps answer this question, first analyzing the concept of preemption, before looking into the preemption standard codified in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and derived from the Supreme Court’s 1996 ruling in Barnett Bank v. Nelson that informed the Cantero decision. Next, this article examines the unanimous Supreme Court decision in Cantero that remanded the case to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. This analysis will contextualize this article’s argument for why relevant precedent may motivate a decision in favor of Cantero on remand in the Second Circuit.

By: Alexis Cohen ‘27
Volume X – Issue II – Spring 2025

I. INTRODUCTION

In 2021, Vista Equity Partners, a private equity firm that invests in software and technology businesses, acquired Pluralsight—a cloud-based platform that provides learning solutions for IT professionals—for $3.5bn. Of the purchase price, $1.2bn was financed by private credit lenders through recurring revenue term loans, and another $300mm came from public loans. Annual recurring revenue (ARR) term loans are debt financing for subscription-based platforms or businesses with a predictable, recurring revenue stream. Following Vista Equity Partners' leveraged buyout (LBO) of this business, Pluralsight transitioned from a growth to a mature company. One of the byproducts of being further along the company lifespan—which is, admittedly, hard to predict—was slower revenue growth. Nevertheless, Pluralsight was able to maintain its EBITDA margins due to cost-cutting measures. Since the capital restructuring from the acquisition, Pluralsight has plunged into financial distress as a direct result of high leverage amidst a deteriorating macroeconomic credit environment despite operating an otherwise stable business.

By: Talia Cherry ‘28
Volume X – Issue II – Spring 2025

I. INTRODUCTION

From the way we communicate with others to how we search for information, modern society surrounds itself with technology that allows us each to be individually identified. Whether we want to acknowledge it or not, most people have their face and likeness publicly accessible in some way. Recently, the role of individual markers has gone so far as to involve our biometrics—or characteristics that include biological information about ourselves and our likeness. [1] A controversial example of the way biometrics are being used in society today is through “deepfakes.” Deepfakes can be audio or visual, such as recordings, videos, or still images. These creations are made through AI software that compiles human biometrics, what some would consider their “likeness,” and assembles videos of fake people, sometimes in the likeness of real people, that appear completely genuine and in which they are saying or doing something that has not actually happened. [2] As more and more biometrics are provided to AI software, the products become more accurate and realistic. These types of software are freely available for anyone to use and are often nearly impossible to distinguish from real videos, audio, and images. Deepfakes not only pose a threat to the perceived validity of evidence, due to their ability to adjust or fully create new works, but also threaten the rule of law in the United States, which will require updates to and higher thresholds for Federal Rules of Evidence.

By: Lorenzo Blanco ‘27
Volume X – Issue II – Spring 2025

I. INTRODUCTION

On the morning of January 7th, 2025, residents of the Pacific Palisades woke up to the faint smell of smoke aloft in the air. As a dark cloud of smoke rose ominously into the Los Angeles sky, January 7th would become a day unlike any other. By the early afternoon, the Pacific Palisades fire had grown so rapidly that fire officials put a mandatory evacuation into place all the way from the fire’s origin in the mountains down to the water’s edge on the Pacific Coast Highway. [1] Yet as the Palisades blaze raged on, Southern California’s infamous Santa Ana winds of 50-80 miles per hour that night [2] sparked a series of menacing fires around the Los Angeles area. That evening at precisely 6:18 pm however, another towering dark plume of smoke rose out of the mountains of the Eaton Canyon Natural Area in Altadena. As day turned to dusk, the two fires grew to unprecedented size while consuming houses, retirement homes, schools, cars, and anything or anyone else in their paths. Community members fled in horror while firefighters scrambled to respond to the two most destructive wildfires in Los Angeles history. [3] In the coming days, residents could only watch in disbelief as the Santa Ana winds prevented any containment of the Palisades and Eaton fires. Weeks passed by with both fires still not fully contained. By the time the fires had been definitively quelled, in addition to the property damaged in the other six fires across Los Angeles, the Palisades and Eaton fires had burned a total of 5,449 homes to the ground [4] and claimed the lives of at least 29 people. [5] Residents speaking out on their hardships have begun to uncover deeply concerning oversights in emergency preparedness and fire response strategies from the California state government, the avoidant legal strategies of private insurance companies, and even power companies’ potential culpability in the ensuing disasters.

By: Aryan Batada ‘28
Volume X – Issue II – Spring 2025

I. BACKGROUND

While elections have been occurring in America since 1789, the future of democracy is by no means a guarantee. [1] Tactics over time have attacked democracy at its core – literacy tests required voters to be able to read and write, poll taxes required voters to pay a sum, and grandfather clauses exempted voters from these stipulations. In recent years, new tactics arose as election administration has become increasingly contested. State election officials are required by law to routinely update voter lists for accuracy, unregistering voters who have passed away, moved out of state, or become otherwise ineligible. Under the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA), also deemed the “Motor Voter” law, federal guidelines exist for voter removal processes. [2] The NVRA mandates that any program to systematically remove ineligible voters must be uniform, nondiscriminatory, and not fall within 90 days of a federal election. [3] These safeguards supposedly protect voters from disenfranchisement and targeted attacks on their right to vote. However, watchdog groups increasingly warn that private citizens—rather than statebased actors—attempt to carry out voter purges.

By: Allison Wong ‘27
Volume X – Issue I – Fall 2024

I. INTRODUCTION

On June 27th, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) v. Jarkesy et al. in a 6-3 ruling in favor of the respondents. [1] George Jarkesy Jr. created hedge funds in 2007 and 2009 with the financial backing of Patriot28 LLC. [2] On March 22, 2017, SEC pursued legal action against Jarkesy et al. for alleged overvaluation and other fraudulent claims. [3] Based on guidelines set by the federal antifraud provisions as well as the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the SEC proceeded with an in-house adjudication process. [4] In response to the Administrative Law Judge’s decision to impose civil penalties, Jarkesy et al. petitioned the U.S. Fifth Circuit District Court of Appeals, where the decision was reversed and remanded. [5] The case brought up key issues regarding the Seventh Amendment right to trial by jury, the difference between public and private rights, the boundaries of common law, separation of powers, and the nondelegation doctrine. In turn, the SEC appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which focused specifically on the Seventh Amendment in the majority opinion. [6] SEC v. Jarkesy matters because it examines the ability of government agencies to uphold regulations as well as Congress’s ability to delegate that responsibility. In combination, the Fifth Circuit and SCOTUS decisions in this case broaden both the depth and scope of its impact. Although the SCOTUS decision in SEC v. Jarkesy appropriately categorizes securities law as a private rights and common law concern, it fails to consider the potentially devastating impacts of its precedent. Based on the practical limitations of governmental institutions, this case develops a legal fantasy that works towards not only dissecting but also dismantling the current regulatory state.

By: Rena Watanabe ‘25
Volume X – Issue I – Fall 2024

I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

The right to family integrity is a fundamental constitutional right under the Due Process clause that recognizes the ability for families to make their own decisions and live together without governmental interference. [1] Family integrity has become more visible in the immigration system, as increased border security coupled with a lack of pathways for lawful status has given rise to immigrant populations in the United States. Immigration courts handling child protection proceedings (including child asylum cases) grapple with life-altering decisions concerning children who are victims of domestic abuse, gender-based violence, child labor, and persecution in their home countries, sometimes perpetrated by their own family members. [2] The outcomes of these decisions can be life or death for children – they can either find safe shelter in the United States, or be deported and subjected to danger in their home countries. Yet, judges make such life-altering decisions that directly impact children’s safety, permanency, and connection to their family without considering their own voices and viewpoints.

By: Jesse Ward ‘26
Volume X – Issue I – Fall 2024

I. INTRODUCTION

Amidst a changing climate and global economy, balancing history and heritage with progress is a pressing challenge for any country, including the United States. How can the nation take care of its historic resources without hindering technological advancement? Historic preservation law, the legal framework that protects valuable historic buildings, objects, structures, and lands, is critical to that balance, and relies on one federal statute. In 1966, the United States Congress passed the single most important federal legislation about the past: the National Historic Preservation Actor NHPA. According to the law, projects by the federal government or that use federal funds and affect historically significant structures have to undergo review on their level of harm and mitigation efforts. [1]

By: Emma Staller ‘26
Volume X – Issue I – Fall 2024

I. INTRODUCTION

In December 2017, former United States President Donald J. Trump announced his decision to move the United States embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, describing it as “a long-overdue step to advance the peace process and to work towards a lasting agreement. [1] The official relocation of the embassy on May 14, 2018 prompted the State of Palestine to initiate legal proceedings against the United States before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), alleging violations of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of April 18, 1961. [2] This action swiftly and forcefully thrusted the ICJ into the global spotlight. Palestine has formally asked the Court to rule that the relocation of the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem violates the Vienna Convention and to issue a mandate requiring the U.S. to fulfill its obligations to prevent future violations, while ensuring such unlawful actions are not repeated. [3] This brings us to the present moment, marked by a significant impasse of profound implications as the world watches in anticipation for international judicial bodies, such as ICJ, to resolve the current standstill.

By: Timothy Son ‘27
Volume X – Issue I – Fall 2024

I. INTRODUCTION

What is a “treaty?” When is a treaty enforceable in the U.S. domestic courts? How should the treaties be interpreted? As much as the international law itself, the U.S. jurisprudence on international treaties has been ambiguous, if not, narrowly defined. The U.S. Constitution lays the actors responsible, including the judiciary authority over the treaties, however, it leaves a significant ambiguity in the enforcement of treaties in the U.S. domestic courts. Article II of the U.S. Constitution grants the President the treaty-making power with the consent and advice requirement from the Senate. [1] Article VI, known as the Supremacy Clause, states that all treaties “shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” [2] Finally, Article III, Section 2, Clause 1 provides that the judicial power will “extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority.” [3] This paper will argue that the Supreme Court’s role in international treaties—specifically in constitutionality, interpretation, and private enforcement of treaties—has been rarely standardized. Recent court cases flipped decades-long precedents on the basic assumptions of treaty interpretation and made abrupt changes in the authority of the President to make treaties, the Congress, and private enforcement.

By: Ria Sodhi ‘25
Volume X – Issue I – Fall 2024

I. INTRODUCTION

The US criminal justice system houses nearly 2 million people in 1,566 state prisons, 102 federal prisons, 2,850 local jails, 1,510 juvenile correctional facilities, 186 immigration detention facilities, 82 Indian country jails, military prisons, civil commitment centers, and state psychiatric hospitals. [1] Mass incarceration in the US keeps increasing at ungodly rates. The issue with the system is that it is no longer used for its purpose:to lock up those who commit crimes. Mass incarceration now reflects the system's complexity, arising from a range of factors and components that have made it a symptom rather than a cause. This paper argues that mass incarceration is a symptom of poverty and that, despite laws enacted to support those affected, they fail to endure due to the criminal justice system's vicious cycle. We are now using the system not to keep communities safe but to extract money from those who don't have those financial resources. This leads them to take dire actions just to take care of themselves and their families. Even if those formerly incarcerated make it out and have reformed, they face a lot of hardship and prejudice.

By: Tess O’Donoghue ‘28
Volume X – Issue I – Fall 2024

During the consequential 2023–2024 Supreme Court term, one key case received minimal media attention: City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, which essentially criminalized homelessness by allowing city governments to fine and jail the unsheltered homeless for sleeping in public. Oral arguments involved three main subjects of debate: the extent to which homelessness is involuntary and should be considered a protected status, whether the City’s response to homelessness constitutes “cruel and unusual” punishment, and how the law relates to the City’s policy-making authority. The majority held that “the enforcement of generally applicable laws regulating camping on public property does not constitute ‘cruel and unusual punishment’ prohibited by the Eighth Amendment.” [1]

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.