Written by Emma McGovern, L’26 INTRODUCTION The phrase “Driving While Black” is commonly used to describe racial profiling of Black drivers and passengers by police officers.[1] As a small datapoint, in 2021, 12.5% of drivers stopped in California were perceived to be Black even though Black people only make up 5.4% of the state’s population.[2] Though these policies and implicit biases that result in racial … Continue reading How the Supreme Court Aided and Abetted Racial Profiling

Written by Kadhapriya Lindo, L’26 The broad understanding of litigation abuse is best captured in the term “frivolous litigation.” Frivolous suits are cases brought by a plaintiff, not with the explicit hope of winning the case, but “solely in order to put the defendant to the burden” of defending themselves.[1] These are “legally or factually baseless suit[s],” or  suits “brought to harass or oppress.”[2] These … Continue reading Puppet Courts: Frivolous Litigation as a Tool of Domestic Violence

Written by Joe Meiners, L’26 Introduction Tennessee Senate Bill 1 (SB 1) bans all medical treatments intended to allow “a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s sex.”[1] Tennessee is one of twenty-six states that have enacted laws that limit or prohibit the use of “gender-affirming care” for minors.[2] Gender-affirming care is a term used to encompass a … Continue reading U.S. v. Skrmetti: The Case that May Define the Future of Legal Restrictions on Gender-Affirming Care for Minors

Written by Shawn Mattox, L’26 “The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution.”[2] “This independence of the judges is equally requisite to guard the Constitution and the rights of individuals from the effects of those ill humors.”[3] These words allude to one of the most important elements of a well-functioning democracy—the judicial power to review cases independently of … Continue reading Impartial Justice: Money in Judicial Electoral Campaigns and the Impacts on the Independence of State Courts

Written by Brooke Hoppe, L’26      In its landmark case, Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court created a procedural prophylactic to protect against compelled self-incriminating statements in violation of the Fifth Amendment.[1] These aptly called “Miranda warnings” (or their functional equivalent) are required before statements “stemming from the custodial interrogation of the defendant” can be used against the defendant in court.[2] These warnings ensure that … Continue reading The Castle Under Siege: Home Interrogations and the Erosion of 5th Amendment Protections

Written by David Shaikh, L’26 Introduction Excessive use of force and racial bias against people of color has plagued the Los Angeles Police Department for decades.[1] The beating of Rodney King and subsequent LA riots prompted the U.S. Department of Justice to reform the LAPD.[2] These reforms were partially effective at reducing the use of force and racial bias within the LAPD as they caused … Continue reading An Analysis of the Post-L.A. Riot Police Reforms

Written by A. Wachsmuth, L’26       The digital divide is defined as, “a significant technological gap between rural and urban Americans … [t]his lack of access to technology was soon found to affect not just rural Americans, but BIPOC communities, women, and the elderly because of systemic differences in wealth, infrastructure and cultural attitudes.”[1] While some could argue that access to tech is … Continue reading A Brief Overview of Various Legal Solutions to Resolve Technology Deserts (with an Emphasis on Virginia)

  Written by Nicholas Eliades, L’26 Our nation’s veterans suffer exposure to the legal system at a substantially high rate.[1]  Failing to address these legal needs amplifies the risks veterans already encounter, including housing instability, homelessness, unemployment, and even suicide.[2] Breaking the cycle of struggles that veterans face requires recognition of the scope and causes of the challenge, as well as a commitment to providing … Continue reading From Service to Struggle: Navigating Legal Challenges Faced by Veterans in the Civil and Criminal Justice Systems

Written by Bradford Dudley, L’26 Last summer in SEC v. Jarkesy, the Supreme Court held that the Securities and Exchange Commission violated the Seventh Amendment by adjudicating civil penalties by in-house judges, called administrative law judges, because the SEC’s antifraud provisions replicate common law fraud.[1] Instead, the Court held that defendants are entitled to a jury trial in federal court.[2] The Court also held that … Continue reading SEC v. Jarkesy: Rebalancing the Seventh Amendment and the Public Rights Doctrine

Written by Paige Hathaway, L’26 On September 17, 2024, Robert Robertson petitioned the Texas Governor and the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles for commutation of his death sentence.[1] While the basis for the petition was grounded in the growing discreditation of Shaken Baby Syndrome, the originally-diagnosed cause of his daughter’s death, Robertson’s lawyers assert that his conviction was wrongful for an additional reason: Robert … Continue reading Stimming Isn’t Suspicious: How the Criminal Justice System Endangers and Prejudices Autistic Individuals, Defendants, and Lawyers and Why We Have to Talk About It