By: Allison Wong ‘27
Volume X – Issue II – Spring 2025

I. BACKGROUND

U.S. law enforcement agencies engage in asset forfeiture to confiscate ill-gotten gains or tools of criminal behavior. By seizing valuable items such as cash, cars, and property used or purchased in violation of the law, asset forfeiture intends to intervene, dismantle, and punish individual or organizational schemes. [1] The U.S. government engages in three forms of asset forfeiture. Criminal asset forfeiture is initiated when the government brings criminal charges against a party (“in personam” action). [2] Assets become an element of criminal prosecution, indicted in conjunction with the defendant and acting as a negotiable item within plea agreements. Contesting criminal seizure requires a trial proceeding against the government; otherwise, the court utilizes ancillary asset hearings upon conviction to carry out forfeitures via court order. [3] Civil asset forfeiture is initiated when the government files a civil complaint against property (“in rem” action). [4] Seizure can occur in the absence of criminal charge or conviction because the property acts as the defendant, e.g., United States v. Eight Rhodesian Stone Statues (1978), but trial proceedings against the government are still required for property owners to contest. [5] If a property owner fails to do so, the asset is forfeited administratively. Administrative asset forfeiture occurs when a seizure is uncontested and nobody files a claim of ownership. [6] While criminal and civil asset forfeiture are both judicial processes, administrative asset forfeiture constitutes nonjudicial, “in rem” action. Assets eligible for administrative forfeiture include import prohibitions, tools for trafficking controlled substances, monetary instruments, and property valued below $500,000. [7] If the seizure is eventually contested, the U.S. government reverts to either criminal or civil avenues instead.

The use of civil asset forfeiture has proliferated in the last few decades at local, state, and federal levels. Combined, these jurisdictions forfeited a total value of 68.8 billion dollars from 2000 to 2020. [8] In 2018, the U.S. Department of Justice, Department of the Treasury, forty-two states, and the District of Columbia together engaged in forfeiture valued over three billion dollars in the span of only one year. [9] Ideally, civil asset forfeiture dismantles criminal schemes while adhering to constitutional principles and funding victim compensation or community investment. In reality, however, the practice is at most a means to an end for the U.S. justice system. The absence of strong regulation in the legal landscape has allowed civil asset forfeiture to circumvent federalism, drive for-profit policing, and violate due process principles for property owners. As the use of civil asset forfeiture expands, future reform must assess its applicability, effectiveness, and relevance in the presence of viable alternatives, limiting asset forfeiture to criminal and administrative means.

By: Rena Watanabe
Volume X – Issue II – Spring 2025

Child abuse in the United States is not a rare or isolated occurrence—it is a systemic crisis that affects hundreds of thousands of children each year. According to the National Children’s Alliance, more than 550,000 children are known victims of abuse. [60] These numbers, however, are likely underestimated due to the obscure nature of abuse. Many cases go unreported due to fear, shame, or a lack of intervention by adults or the government who should have recognized these signs. In particular, the pandemic has heightened concerns that, as families were confined to their homes, instances of child abuse became more severe and increasingly underreported. [61] Childhood is a formative period for a child to cultivate their sense of self, identity, and curiosity for the world around them. At this stage, they have yet to form and internalize biases, stereotypes, and prejudices. They have yet to be exposed and acculturated to the cruelty of the world. It is meant to be a time of safety and exploration, not suffering.

But for children who experience long-term abuse, especially at the hands of their parents, survival often replaces growth. They learn not how to “escape” but how to “survive”—a defense mechanism that requires them to bury parts of their voice, their sense of worth, and their will to resist. There are children who give in, silently, with no voice to express or recognize it. There are children who are convinced that they are not abused. Other children think their parents aren’t to blame because they’ve never known love outside the bounds of their family. The internalization of powerlessness at such a young age is one of the most devastating psychological consequences of child abuse. Despite the existence of child welfare services, the system often falls short by either failing to act in time, or overcorrecting with unnecessarily traumatic removals from their home. [62] Social workers are overburdened, under-resourced, and forced to make high-stakes decisions with insufficient information. [63] The legal framework, particularly in light of the case DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services (1989), often prioritizes governmental non-interference over proactive protection. This paper aims to dissect the legal, moral, and institutional implications of DeShaney, exploring the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Due Process Clause reflects a deeper structural failure to safeguard the most vulnerable populations.

By: Jesse Ward ‘26
Volume X – Issue II – Spring 2025

I. INTRODUCTION

On June 28th, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court decision that most legal professionals were talking about was Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, a landmark dismantling of the Chevron doctrine, under which courts defer to federal agencies when faced with statutory ambiguity. It was easy to miss another administrative law decision made just a day earlier, and one which is an equally significant marker of the Court’s trend of weakening the regulatory power of the administrative state. In Ohio v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), decided on June 27th, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of the petitioners, granting a stay on enforcement of the EPA’s Good Neighbor Plan. [1] The case involved a portion of the Clean Air Act called the “Good Neighbor” provision, which prevents harmful transboundary air pollution between states. [2] In March 2023, the EPA finalized and promulgated its Good Neighbor Plan, a set of emissions reduction rules forcing twenty-three upwind states to meet 2015 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone pollution affecting downwind states. [3] After rejecting the reduction rules created by these states, known as State Implementation Plans (SIPs), the EPA instead mandated its own Federal Implementation Plan (FIP). Many of the rejected states appealed, and SIP disapprovals were quickly stayed in twelve of the twenty-three states by circuit courts, leading to the EPA temporarily exempting them from the FIP. [4] Of the eleven states remaining under the Plan, petitioners from three, alongside several industry groups, sought a stay on any enforcement of the reduction requirements in the D.C. Circuit. They argued the decision to continue applying the FIP without including twelve of the original states was arbitrary and capricious. When the circuit court denied them, they requested an emergency stay from the Supreme Court. [5] The Court’s decision to ultimately grant the stay, which was based on the specifics of how the EPA responded to public comments, could be immensely impactful, and not just because of possible effects on air quality enforcement. The Court’s holding in Ohio goes beyond judicial interpretation of ambiguous statutes like that of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo or West Virginia v. EPA. It poses a threat to agency authority in a different way. As a rigorous examination of and “hard-look” at internal agency processes, it explicitly reflects the desire within the Court to debilitate agency decision-making and weaken environmental governance. [6]

By: Hansa Suresh
Volume X – Issue II – Spring 2025

I. INTRODUCTION

i. The Legacy of Title IX and Patsy Mink

When Title IX was signed into law by President Richard Nixon on June 23, 1972, it marked a radical shift from the long-standing norms that had systematically excluded women from educational and athletic opportunities. At the heart of this transformative legislation was attorney and U.S. Representative Patsy Mink, a trailblazer whose contributions are too often overlooked. Mink’s relentless advocacy reshaped the landscape of publicly funded educational institutions, laying the foundation for a more inclusive and equitable system.

Title IX [1] states: “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” While this language appears straightforward, the legislative journey behind its passage was anything but simple.

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, momentum was building in Congress for federal legislation that would address gender discrimination. Although the Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, it did not extend those protections to education programs. Recognizing this gap, Mink and her colleagues—most notably Representative Edith Green and Senator Birch Bayh—spearheaded efforts to introduce a bill that would explicitly prohibit sex-based discrimination in federally funded educational settings. Mink, who had long battled gender and racial barriers in her own academic and professional journey, emerged as a leading voice for Title IX in the House of Representatives. She worked tirelessly with the House Education and Labor Committee to push the legislation forward, using both personal testimony and legal argumentation to underscore the systemic inequalities women faced in schools and colleges. Mink collaborated with civil rights groups and women’s organizations to rally support and frame Title IX not just as a women's issue, but as a matter of equal protection under the law. Though initially met with resistance, the bill gained traction thanks to careful negotiation, persistent advocacy, and strategic coalition-building. By the time it reached Nixon’s desk, Title IX had garnered bipartisan support—a testament to the compelling legal and moral case made by Mink and her allies.

The woman behind this landmark policy, Patsy Matsu Takemoto Mink, made history as the first woman of color and the first Asian-American woman elected to Congress. Born on December 6, 1927, in what was then the U.S. territory of Hawaii, Mink was a third-generation Japanese American who grew up in a plantation society shaped by economic hardship and racial barriers. Despite these challenges, she pursued higher education, becoming one of only two Asian students—and one of only two women— admitted to the University of Chicago Law School.

Before Title IX, institutionalized sexism in education was the norm. Girls were required to take home economics classes while boys studied subjects deemed more "rigorous" or "professional." Arbitrary quotas and outright bans prevented many women from enrolling in colleges and professional schools, with institutions often rejecting female applicants without justification. In athletics, opportunities were nearly nonexistent—female athletes had no access to college sports teams, no scholarships, and no infrastructure to support their aspirations beyond high school.

Mink understood firsthand the obstacles faced by women and refused to accept the status quo. As the co-author and chief sponsor of Title IX in the House, she played a pivotal role in dismantling systemic barriers that had long denied women equal opportunities in education and sports. “What you endure is who you are,” she once stated. “I can’t change the past. But I can certainly help somebody else in the future, so they don’t have to go through what I did.” Her efforts resulted in a sweeping transformation. Since the passage of Title IX, there has been a continuous rise in female participation in sports, a significant increase in women pursuing higher education, and expanded career opportunities in fields once dominated by men. Title IX has not only changed the trajectory of women’s lives but has also reshaped American society, fostering a culture where gender equality in education is recognized as a fundamental right. Patsy Mink’s legacy extends far beyond her passing in 2002—her vision continues to empower future generations, proving that advocacy and perseverance can dismantle even the most entrenched barriers.

By: Maya Schmaling ‘28
Volume X – Issue II – Spring 2025

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: Jacqueline Perez ‘27
Volume X – Issue II – Spring 2025

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: Amelia Okulewicz ‘25
Volume X – Issue II – Spring 2025

INTRODUCTION

PCAOB stands for the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board. It was established in 2002 by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 to oversee audits of publicly traded companies. [1] The main goal behind its establishment was to put forth the interests of investors in these publicly traded companies by having these companies release “informative, accurate, and independent audit reports.” [2] PCAOB states that they currently oversee about 900 of these audit engagements in 37 jurisdictions and even issues reported for firms located in China and Hong Kong. In 2023 alone, they have imposed over $20 million in fines, making it one of the largest years in terms of fines. [3] However, recent reports from Senators Elizabeth Warren and Sheldon Whitehouse raise questions about the board’s effectiveness in imposing accurate audits. In 2023, the deficiency rating of reporting rose to 33% compared to 27% in 2022. The statistic implies that the board does not have the appropriate measures in place to regulate the original audit process; [4] companies seem to omit the board’s regulations and continue with inaccurate reporting.

Therefore, the PCAOB’s efficiency and need is highly questionable, as its sole duty to oversee has been clearly omitted given the level of discrepancy uncovered. The question arises of why firms feel some level of comfortability to surpass regulation from the PCAOB under the SEC. The standards presented by PCAOB itself and the legal doctrine that created this agency comprise specific obligations PCAOB must follow. This in conjunction with recent excessive fines given out to auditors exhibits a height in audit deficiencies, clearly delineating that PCAOB has deviated from its original purpose and currently serves as no more than a figurehead in the United States. Under PCAOB’s current practices and failures, investors lose the governmental support that once ensured truth and security.

By: Riley Kramer ‘27
Volume X – Issue II – Spring 2025

I. INTRODUCTION

Imagine being a child whose entire life is broadcast to the world, from your first steps to your most private, vulnerable moments. Everything is captured and edited for the entertainment of millions of strangers. From the moment you are born, your milestones, struggles, and emotions are not yours alone but are shared, dissected, and monetized. Unfortunately, this is the reality for countless children whose lives are documented by their parents in family vlogging channels. These children, often called “Truman babies,” are raised under the harsh glare of the internet. Their every action is commodified for profit, and they have little to no control over how their stories are told. [1] They cannot consent to their portrayal, and yet, their very existence is sold as content to millions of their fans.

By: Tess O’Donoghue
Volume X – Issue II – Fall 2025

I. INTRODUCTION

Since 2021, even as violations of child labor law increased, several states have significantly weakened protections for child workers. These rollbacks, coupled with the deregulatory animus of the Trump administration, have prompted many concerned with the welfare of child workers to revisit the Child Labor Amendment. First proposed in 1924, the Child Labor Amendment is a pending constitutional amendment that would allow Congress to “limit, regulate, and prohibit the labor of persons under eighteen years of age,” thus expanding the very narrow protections afforded to working children by federal law.

This article will proceed in three main parts. Firstly, it will situate recent calls for child labor protections within the current legal landscape surrounding child labor and the history of the movement for the Child Labor Amendment. Secondly, it will consider whether enacting the Child Labor Amendment would be legally feasible given the Supreme Court’s ruling in Coleman v. Miller and the recent finalization of the 27th Amendment. Thirdly, the paper will turn to discuss the Amendment’s limitations and how it compares to and interacts with other policy proposals. Indeed, enshrining the rights of child workers within the Constitution could be the first step in a chain of long-lasting changes that respond to the root causes of child labor abuses and uphold the dignity of all children.

By: Ava Malkin ‘27
Volume X – Issue II – Spring 2025

I. INTRODUCTION

In the landmark Supreme Court case U.S. v. Scheffer (523 U.S. 303 (1998)) [1], the Court determined that there is “simply no consensus that polygraph evidence is reliable.” Being the first instance that the highest court of the United States ruled on the admissibility of polygraph evidence specifically, Scheffer delegitimized lie detection as a valid form of evidence and negated any violation of one’s Sixth Amendment right to present a defense using polygraph evidence. While many legal scholars condemn the majority opinion, Scheffer offers a crucial case study for military law and polygraph evidence; the decision has lasting impacts on the admissibility of evidence for future legal cases in military, state, and federal courts, which the present paper intends to explore.

By: Song Lee ‘26
Volume X – Issue II – Spring 2025

I. INTRODUCTION

Few Supreme Court decisions in recent history have struck higher education with the force of Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. Harvard (2023). The Supreme Court trampled decades of precedent with one powerful blow, leaving college admissions offices scrambling in its wake. To trace the path our nation has taken to today’s legal battleground on education, one must follow the court’s reasoning. Amid Supreme Court cases such as Brown v. Board of Education during the Civil Rights Movement, President John F. Kennedy passed the 1961 directive to “take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin.” [1] In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson expanded these legal protections throughout the “private sector (Title VII) and in federally funded programs (Title VI),” further putting forth the Equal Employment Opportunity executive order prohibiting federal contractors employee discrimination. [2] Thus, affirmative action came from the federal government’s response to racial discrimination of the mid 1900s.

By: Gillian Lee ‘25
Volume X – Issue II – Spring 2025

I. INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND

Reality television has become increasingly popular, from family and dating series, to competition shows. Many trace the popularity of reality television to 2000, with the premiere seasons of hit shows Survivor and Big Brother. In 2002, American Idol and The Bachelor began, and in 2003, America’s Next Top Model. 2006 marked the beginning of The Real Housewives franchise. [1] Reality television has increasingly infiltrated our screens since the start of the 21st century.

Individuals often watch these shows for pleasure and entertainment, largely neglecting any meaningful consideration of what these shows entail for participants. Reality television stars sign extensive contracts full of lengthy legal jargon, detailing what rights they are entitled to before, before, and post-filming. These contracts frequently shield production companies from liability, which raises the possibility of ethical legal challenges where producers use contestants as pawns for ratings and costcutting measures. Television shows often dictate participants’ schedules, what they eat and drink, and their conversations. Producers have the power to spin the narratives in whichever way they deem appropriate. Many participants also come onto shows with limited to no television presence beforehand, raising the chance that they have limited bargaining power in their contracts and more.

By: Maeher Khosla ‘26
Volume X – Issue II – Spring 2025

I. INTRODUCTION

In 2022, Wendy Williams, a prominent media figure and renowned talk show host, was publicly placed under financial guardianship following a court determination that she was “permanently disabled and legally incapacitated.” [1] Control over her assets and key decisions was subsequently transferred to a court-appointed guardian. The case immediately sparked widespread concern, as it revealed how swiftly and comprehensively legal agency can be revoked, even from individuals with substantial professional success and public visibility. While Williams has not been subjected to sterilization, her case highlights the far-reaching consequences of guardianship statutes and the extent to which autonomy can be legally curtailed under the guise of protection. These concerns become even more acute when such authority extends to decisions about reproductive health and capacity.

By: Derek Jiang ‘25
Volume X – Issue II – Spring 2025

I. INTRODUCTION: A TRAGIC DEATH

On December 7, 2021, ten-year-old Nylah Anderson was scrolling on TikTok when TikTok’s algorithm fed her a lethal video. [1] Even though Nylah was underage (TikTok’s own policies bar users under the age of 13), TikTok’s “For You Page” recommended a video of the “Blackout Challenge,” encouraging viewers to choke themselves with items such as belts and purse strings until they pass out. [2] After watching the video, Nylah attempted the challenge herself, unintentionally hanging herself and dying of asphyxiation.

By: Rebecca Herzberg ‘26
Volume X – Issue II – Spring 2025

I. BACKGROUND

Since 2010, there have been over 2,000 legal challenges to the Affordable Care Act (ACA), also known as “Obamacare,” including seven lawsuits that have reached the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) [1]. There have been various obstacles to implementing the ACA due to conflicts between the federal government and the states tasked with administering it [1]. President Trump has also posed a substantial barrier to the ACA’s execution, and Congress also has proven itself to be an adversary at times to the ACA [1]. These legal and non-legal challenges have slowly chipped away at certain aspects of the ACA, removing significant portions of its original mandate [1].

By: Tayten Han ‘28
Volume X – Issue II – Spring 2025

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: Aniya Goodrum ‘25
Volume X – Issue II – Spring 2025

I. DEFINING SOLITARY CONFINEMENT

Solitary confinement, often called Administrative Segregation or Special Housing Units (SHU), operates as a prison within a prison. Inside these walls, the incarcerated are subject to extreme forms of physical and social isolation. These cells are half the size of a regular prison cell, measuring about six by nine feet––smaller than the inside of a car—for up to twenty-three hours a day. [1] Some cells are lit around the clock with no windows or clocks, impeding the ability to distinguish between day and night or track the number of days that have passed. [2] Outside of the physical constraints, inmates have virtually no contact with other human beings, aside from correctional officers when receiving meals or being escorted to the yard or showers for one hour. [3] Additionally, inmates are routinely restricted access to work, prison programming, and reading materials. [4] Solitary confinement has been associated with a range of adverse health effects, including insomnia, paranoia, hallucinations, and aggression. [5]

By: Caitlin Gallagher ‘26
Volume X – Issue II – Spring 2025

I. INTRODUCTION

The recent change of presidential administrations has again brought light to a bizarre fixture of the American political system: the Presidential Pardon. Famously, the first pardon ever issued by a president was issued in 1795 by George Washington by which he issued amnesty to those who participated in the Pennsylvania Whiskey Rebellion, [1] a protest movement led by a group of farmers upset by a newly imposed tax on whiskey. [2] Later on, Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Jackson used their pardon authority to pardon confederate soldiers and leaders, among whom included Confederacy president Jefferson Davis. [3] A more recently uncovered pardon was President Lincoln’s pardon of President Biden’s great-great-grandfather, Moses J. Robinette. This was at the request of a West Virginia Senator after Robinette had been unanimously convicted of assaulting a fellow Union Army member with a knife. [4] Richard Nixon commuted Jimmy Hoffa’s sentence in 1971 in hopes of winning back favor with union members only to be the later beneficiary of his predecessor’s, President Ford, pardon mercy. [5] Bill Clinton pardoned his younger half brother, Roger Clinton Jr., as he was leaving office in 2001, for his brother to plead guilty to drunk driving charges less than a year later. [6] In each of these controversial instances, there is not an overwhelming display of evidence that the conviction was incorrect or that the court got it wrong. Rather there seems to be evidence to suggest that these pardons were issued to aid a friend or garner political favor.

By: Robert Farbman ‘26
Volume X – Issue II – Spring 2025

I. INTRODUCTION

The Department of Justice recently decided to abandon its request for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (“the Court”) to force Google’s divestiture from AI, while sticking with its demand that Google sell Google Chrome (“Chrome”). This contrast in holdings highlights the tension in the modern antitrust climate around curbing monopoly power in an era of technological change. [1] The strategic retreat from an originally aggressive approach to the question of AI reflects concerns about global competition. It seems that the Trump administration has decided that restricting Google’s ability to invest in AI may put the United States at a disadvantage in the global race for dominance in AI. In comparison, the decision by the Trump administration to stick with the Biden-era standard regarding Chrome is reflective of the bipartisan awareness of the need for structural remedies in the effective regulation of tech giants. [2] In United States v. Google LLC (2024), the D.C. District Court ruled that Google’s exclusive agreements with device manufacturers including Apple and Samsung were anticompetitive and illegal, as they foreclosed competition on a staggering 90% of searches, with even more control over mobile search. [3] The court found that Chrome’s dominance, which essentially locked out rivals from data revenue, was an essential feature of Google’s anti-competitive strategy. [4] Despite the DOJ’s newly narrowed demands, structural remedies like divesting from Chrome remain essential for reeling in big tech companies.

By: Dominic Enright ‘27
Volume X – Issue II – Spring 2025

I. INTRODUCTION

Few issues in healthcare spark as much frustration and debate as the soaring cost of prescription drugs. At the heart of the crisis are Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs), powerful intermediaries that shape drug pricing and access while operating with minimal transparency. Originally designed to control costs and streamline the pharmaceutical supply chain, PBMs have instead amassed significant market power, raising concerns about reduced competition and unfair market practices. This article examines how PBMs influence drug pricing, the antitrust challenges they present, and the evolving legal efforts to restore competition in the pharmaceutical industry.