Volume I, Issue I (Winter 2023)

ULM

Undergraduate Law Magazine IN THIS ISSUE

IS THE SUN SETTING ON AFFIRMATIVE ACTION? | PAGE 8 FROM BAIL TO INCARCERATION: THE CASH BAIL SYSTEM’S CYCLE OF INJUSTICE | PAGE 32 SHARON R. FAIRLEY: AN EXPERT ON CIVILIAN OVERSIGHT | PAGE 34

UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO | VOLUME 1 | ISSUE 1 | WINTER 2023

ABOUT

UNDERGRADUATE LAW MAGAZINE The University of Chicago Undergraduate Law Magazine (ULM) is the College’s premier student-run legal publication. ULM is a pre-professional community committed to the exploration, analysis, and evaluation of issues pertaining to the law and seeks to demonstrate its role in shaping society’s agency, authority, and attitudes towards life.

MASTHEAD & STAFF Editor-In-Chief Aya Hamza Managing Editors Senior Isa Rosario-Blake Junior Ryanne Leonard Executive Editors Arjun Chandra-Mohanty Lucas Freitag Iman Snobar Associate Editors Aminah Ghanem Divya Mehrotra Dohyun “Emily” Park Yaser Tahboub

Style Managers Kayla Rubenstein Hassan Sachee Illustration Manager Lia Yufei He Social Media Managers Maimouna Abdulmumin Maya Gozieva Content Managers Mete Bakircioglu Ethan Donovan Madison Rhee

Staff Writers Ahmed Ahmed Enmanuel Acosta Aparicio Isabel Alia Arias Khristian Bass Sarah Bourkoff Elijah “Ellie” Bullie Lizbeth Herrera Gomez Samuel Espinal Jr. Gianna Grant Emma Huerta Elijah Jenkins Jane Jusko Pietro Juvara

Daniel Kind Juan Leal-Mendoza Jack Martinez Anusha Mehta Rocio Portal Alejandro Sandoval Elizondo Nikulas “Nick” Soska Sanjay M. Srivatsan Nitya Upadrasta Tomas Vallejo Hayes Whorton Tony Yu

2 | ABOUT ULM

Letter from the Editor U

pon arriving on campus in the autumn of my first year, I roamed the RSO Fair on the Quad, eager to learn how to join the Undergraduate Law Magazine. Unsuccessful in finding a booth, I looked to my right and aimlessly resorted to weaving through lounges in Pick Hall to see if anyone knew of the organization. After exhausting all resources, I would, in time, learn that after transitioning to a blog in 2020, the College’s sole legal publication had gone defunct.

Gleaning from casual discourse alone, I recognized that my peers host a broad spectrum of perspectives they ought to channel into a space supporting their expression and, more importantly, one that pointedly promotes their education on discussing matters of the law. I reached out to the appropriate school officials, upperclassmen, and magazine members of years past to check my bases and ensure I was not stepping on anyone’s toes in jumpstarting the magazine.

Beginning as a review in 2011, a former editor-in-chief reformatted the publication to become a magazine, better accommodating an undergraduate audience interacting with our content from different legal baselines. While straying from the norm of sister institutions, I felt strongly about retaining this medium to keep ourselves in check from obscuring our messages in tangled legalese or forgetting the magazine’s mission.

Endearingly known as the ULM, today’s magazine aims to represent the College students’ legal response and considerations concerning phenomena within and beyond the United States. As a pre-professional community, ULM prides itself on actively empowering young legal minds to learn about legal mechanics through the collaborative publication cycle. Beyond all else, I have learned the most from our talented masthead and staff spanning academic disciplines. Our collective commitment to intersectionality supports our conviction of becoming an institutional hub for young legal scholarship.

The masthead has given much thought to how we choose to divide ULM. We have divided the bi-annual publication into four sections: Legal Analyses, Op-Eds, Two Views, and Upcoming Chicago Policy. Legal Analyses delve into contextualizing legislation and case studies, Op-Eds spotlight writers’ beliefs, and Two Views positions two opposing rationalities about hot-button topics. Invested in matters concerning Hyde Park and the greater Chicagoland area, the Upcoming Chicago Policy section intends to keep the College’s students aware of legislation tangibly impacting the local community we frequent. Beyond article editors, our masthead is non-exhaustively composed of design talent responsible for layout, content managers creating educational content, and an illustration manager who actualized our beautiful cover image.

I am immensely grateful to Karen Pryor of the Center for Leadership and Involvement for having faith in an unabashedly persistent first-year.

Thank you to Rob Cameron, Program Director of Careers in Law, for his enthusiasm for ULM back when it existed as a rough logo and string of emails, encouraging students to give us a look from early on. Moreover, I extend my appreciation to Mary Genevieve Sanner, a former ULM editor now at Duke Law, for taking the time to respond to an unprompted LinkedIn message to elaborate on the group’s former dynamics and empowering me to move forward with re-establishment, as well as recent graduate Jacqueline Lewittes who clarified me of ULM’s activity before sunsetting.

Seventeen months after the RSO Fair, nationally trending on Sidechat with our Little Miss series over the summer, fundraising in Reynolds Club right after restarting, and devotedly researching case nuances together in Stuart 101 to the tune of “family ties,” it is my most contented privilege to welcome you to the first volume of our ULM. To successfully unite a chorus of student voices, we need yours, too. I invite you to get to know the ULM by reading the next copy you see at the front of the Reg, visiting our website at ulm.rso.uchicago.edu for our interview series, and keeping up with our latest film screenings and application releases on Instagram at @UChicagoLawMagazine.

Thank you for the honor of your confidence, support, and interest in the ULM. Yours truly, Aya Hamza Re-Founding Editor in Chief

LETTER FROM THE EDITOR | 3

LEGAL ANALYSES | 6

TABLE OF CONTENTS What does International Law say about the Russian Invasion of Ukraine? _______6 The Major Doctrine vs. Chevron Doctrine__________________________________7 Is the Sun Setting on Affirmative Action?___________________________________8 Legally, what lies ahead for George Santos?________________________________11 The Mystery leak of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization___________12 Lyrics on the Stand: How the Courts are Judging Rap Music__________________14

TWO VIEWS | 16

Should Private Prisons be a Component of our Criminal Justice System?_______16 On President Biden’s Student Debt Relief Program_________________________18 On Reducing the Power of U.S. Speaker of the House_______________________20 On Supreme Court Case: Groff v. Dejoy___________________________________22

OPINION | 25

Decriminalization of Marijuana__________________________________________25 Threadbare Impressions: Fashion in the Workplace_________________________26 The ICJ’s Inefficiency in Human Rights Disputes____________________________27 John Roberts and the Shelby Delusion___________________________________29 The Criminalization of Mental Health_____________________________________31 From Bail to Incarceration: The Cash Bail System’s Cycle of Injustice__________32

INTERVIEWS | 34

Sharon R. Fairley: An Expert on Civilian Oversight__________________________34

UPCOMING CHICAGO POLICY | 36

Illinois Constitution Amendment: Right to Collective Bargaining_____________36 Illinois’ New Assault Weapon Ban_______________________________________37 HB 4408: Insuring a Second Chance_____________________________________37 ARO Revisited: New Look, Same Problems_______________________________38 Pivotal Policy: The Passing of Bill 0576 in Illinois___________________________41

REFERENCES |

4 | TABLE OF CONTENTS

MEET THE BOARD aya hamza editor in chief

isa rosario-blake managing editor

ryanne leonard managing editor

arjun chandra-mohanty lucas freitag executive editor executive editor

iman snobar executive editor

aminah ghanem associate editor

divya mehrotra associate editor

dohyun “emily” park associate editor

yaser tahboub associate editor

kayla rubenstein style manager

hassan sachee style manager

maimouna abdulmumin social media manager

maya gozieva social media manager

lia yufei he illustration manager

TO LEARN MORE ABOUT OUR STAFF, VISIT: ulm.rso.uchicago.edu/

staff/

mete bakircioglu content manager

ethan donovan content manager

madison rhee content manager

MEET THE BOARD | 5

LEGAL ANALYSES WHAT DOES INTERNATIONAL LAW SAY ABOUT THE RUSSIAN INVASION OF UKRAINE? law,” pressing the importance of

by JUAN LEAL-MENDOZA

these two articles for the modern STAFF WRITER international order and its limits.

Note: This article will focus on the of any state, or in any other manner In short, the UN charter prohibits the use of armed force, with the implications of the large-scale invainconsistent with the Purposes of exception of its use for self defense sion that started in February of 2022, the United Nations.” Article 51 rather than the more localized stage of acts however as a piece of nuance to or against other justified threats to a the Russo-Ukrainian conflict that ran Article 2(4), as the former article says state.

The “justified threat” most interfrom the summer of 2014 until the that self-defense by a UN member woven to this war has been genocide, beginning of the invasion. state is authorized so long as it is t has been nearly a year since war communicated with the UN Securi- a case used by both sides. Russian returned to Europe, when the ty Council. This is a very important President Vladimir Putin has conRussian army began its shocking invasion of Ukraine. The global general public has been deeply polarized in their varied responses to the conflict, with contributing factors receiving different degrees of coverage. One of such lesser covered factors are the legal aspects of the invasion, which remain largely unperceived by the public. Even then, those aspects remain key in understanding the international response to the invasion. This article will examine the legal aspects surrounding the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and how it affects the global response towards the conflict.

To analyze a conflict of this nature means firstly addressing the foundational document of post-World War II international law: the United Nations charter, with an emphasis | cc-by-4.0: © european union 2022 – source: ep on Articles 2 and 51. Among Artisistently clamed there is a genocide cle 2’s various sections, subsection differentiation. going on in Ukraine against Russian 4 states that UN member states (to Senior policy fellow at the Eurowhich both Russia and Ukraine are pean Council on Foreign Relations speakers in the country, and has used part of) “shall refrain in their inter- Anthony Dworkin has pointed out this as a rationale for their invasion. national relations from the threat previously that “the prohibition on However, analysis by Leiden University’s Egbert Fortuin points out that or use of force against the territorial the unjustified use of force is the integrity or political independence cornerstone of modern international the case for these Russian accusa-

I

6 | LEGAL ANALYSES

The invasion goes against international law, and consequently, states, international organizations, and individuals should hold Russia accountable. tions are based on half truths at best, and falsehoods at worst. The Russian case is further weakened when considering that the Russian policy of unilaterally taking children from their Ukranian parents to new families in Russia is explicitly considered as genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, per Article II, subsection e. This builds up towards a total breach of Ukrainian sovereignty, with repercussions beyond even just the concept of “justified threats” in international law.

Ukrainian national sovereignty is also protected by a key treaty: the Budapest Memorandum. The accord tied Russia, the United States and the United Kingdom together in respecting Ukraine’s national sovereignty, and to refrain from violating such, in exchange for Ukraine giving up their nuclear weapons. Russia’s invasion presents a breach of the binding accord, further weakening the legal credibility of Russia’s

case. Many countries have used this treaty as evidence of the illegality of Russia’s actions, and therefore have accelerated economic and military aid to Ukraine. Ultimately, there are multiple legal antecedents that cement the conflict’s illegality, which are all factors for future legal or political actions.

International organizations have also begun casting their decisions on the conflict.

The Russian case for self-defence and genocide is weak, while the parallel Ukrainian case is evidently consistent with reality. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) agrees with this, as in March 2022, the court decided 13-2 in Ukraine v. Russia that Russia must stop its invasion immediately, and some concurrent opinions signaled towards a shared belief that Ukraine is falsely being accused of genocide. It is worth noting that this is a temporary ruling while the court makes a final decision, but given the overwhelming majority

THE MAJOR QUESTIONS DOCTRINE VS. CHEVRON DOCTRINE

by ISABEL ALIA-ARIAS STAFF WRITER

S

ince 1984, the Chevron doctrine has been a pillar of administrative law. The Chevron, U.S.A, Inc. v.

Natural Resource Defense Council case involved a lawsuit challenging the EPA’s ability to define the term “stationary source” in the Clean Air Act. They passed a bill that changed the law so that all companies had to go through a “new source” review if they planned to install any major source

of pollutants. The initial definition that the EPA used considered any modification of a plant to go under this review process, but the EPA wanted to adopt a definition that only forced changes to the entirety of the plant to go through the process.

Several environmental groups challenged this provision as contrary to the Act. The case was ruled in favor of the EPA resulting in the

present in the initial stage, we could predict a similar final outcome. As such, the ICJ’s case confirms what the treaties and agreements imply: The invasion goes against established international law, and consequently, states, international organizations and individuals should hold Russia accountable.

Addendum: I would like to remind readers that no matter how many analyses are made of this conflict, this war is raging on with very real consequences for countless innocents in Ukraine. If you had the opportunity to read this article, I would also encourage you to also take the time to make a donation through a reputable charity source, such as the Red Cross or Save the Children, to help those that have seen their lives irrevocably changed by a catastrophe beyond their control.

creation of the Chevron doctrine.

The Chevron doctrine set forth a legal test as to when the Court should defer to the agency’s interpretation.

The first step is that the Court asks whether Congress directly addressed the issue by setting a statue. Then if the statute is silent or ambiguous the Court defers to an agency’s reasonable interpretation. In other words, the Chevron doctrine expands the power of executive agencies by upholding certain ambiguous interpretations as long as the reading of the phrase is somewhat reasonable.

CONTINUED ON PAGE 10

LEGAL ANALYSES | 7

IS THE SUN SETTING ON AFFIRMATIVE ACTION?

by TOMAS VALLEJO

lawsuit against the Topeka school district for not allowing an African American girl to attend a local white lmost 10 years ago, an anti-afschool. The NAACP argued that firmative action group called Students for Fair Admissions filed a segregation was a violation of the case against Harvard University and 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause which declared that no state the University of North Carolina.

The group claimed that both institu- could abridge the rights of a citizen tions discriminate against white and without due process of the law, “nor deny to any within its jurisdiction students of Asian descent in their the equal protection of the laws.” admission processes in favor of stuAfter listening to the NAACP’s dents of other racial backgrounds. argument, The Supreme Court While the original cases were first filed in 2014, they were heard by the unanimously decided in Brown v.

Supreme Court (SCOTUS) last year Board of Education that segregation and are expected to reach a decision in academic institutions was inherently unequal and unconstitutional. by this summer. It is suspected that

rights movement, many academic institutions used race as a factor in their admissions processes, however, they had quotas in place to determine how many spots were available.

This practice was put to the test in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke when Alan Bakke, a white man, was denied admission into the University of California at Davis’s medical school. At the same time, the medical school reserved 16 spots for qualified students of color.

SCOTUS ruled in favor of Bakke, deciding that UC Davis’s quota system was unconstitutional, however, the court recognized that schools could consider race in their admissions as long as it was one of many factors considered.

The next challenge to Affirmative Action came in 2003 in the form of two cases: Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger. In the first case, Jennifer Gratz and Patrick Hamacher both sued the University of Michigan over a points-based system it used in its admissions process.

The points-based system awarded students of marginalized groups a substantial amount of points in their favor. While the court recognized that race could be used in admisProtest in 2018 against Harvard’s admissions processes aligned with Affirmative Acsions, it decided that the university’s tion | photo by adam glanzman / bloomberg point-based system was unconstiChief Justice Earl Warren wrote the tutional, because it eliminated the due to the court’s conservative majority, affirmative action policies will court’s unanimous opinion. In it, he essential individualized aspects of college admissions. The court’s effectively come to an end or at least stated: “In the field of public education, ruling was different in Grutter v. be rolled back. Whatever decision the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ Bollinger when Barbara Grutter filed SCOTUS reaches will have a drastic has no place. Separate educational a lawsuit against the University of impact on university admissions facilities are inherently unequal.”

Michigan’s Law School for denying across the country.

The court’s decision in Brown is her admission. Grutter claimed that The battle for affirmative action she had been discriminated against policies has a long history, starting in especially pertinent to the present debate on affirmative action because due to her race and that conse1952 when the National Association it effectively gave life to the practice. quently, the school had violated the for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) filed a class-action In the years after the peak of the civil equal protection clause of the 14th STAFF WRITER

A

8 | LEGAL ANALYSES

Amendment. The Supreme Court, however, ruled in favor of the school because while it used race as a factor in its admissions, it was not weighted heavily. Grutter v. Bollinger set the current precedent for affirmative action policies in admission processes. This very precedent is now under attack.

This leads us to the court’s upcoming decision in two cases: Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina. The court will most likely base its decision on the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment and possibly Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

They could both be used to rule in favor or against affirmative action.

In an effort to defend affirmative action practices the remaining liberal justices on the bench could make use of a long-time conservative strategy of originalism. This practice involves thinking about what the law may have meant to those who originally passed it. Liberals would argue that affirmative action is quite consistent with the 14th Amendment since it was passed at a time when many race-conscious laws were being enacted in order to benefit newly freed African Americans. In other words, it was passed in order to help minorities just as affirmative action aims to do.

Nevertheless, Students for Fair Admissions would argue that students of underrepresented races being given special attention in admissions is equivalent to the discrimination faced by black students during the era of segregation, therefore, making affirmative action unconstitutional. The conservative majority on the bench may be sym-

Harvard students rallying outside the Supreme Court in 2022 to support Harvard’s admissions policies | photo by alyssa schukar / the harvard gazette

pathetic to such a plea. The conservative court may defend its anti-affirmative action stance by citing the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause, claiming that such admission policies discriminate against white students. However, claiming such would, according to Professor Kermit Roosevelt III at the Penn Carey School of Law, imply that “for the Court’s current understanding of equal protection to make sense, we must conclude that the Clause embodies animus against racial minorities.” Therefore, this may not be the most secure path for the conservative on the bench to take.

On the other hand, the conservatives on the court could also defend their stance by looking back at the Civil Rights Act of 1964. While the law has been used by courts in the past in order to defend affirmative action, the actual wording of the law forbids discrimination “on the..basis of race.” If the conservatives on the bench decide to use the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to back their position, then diversity policies outside of academia could also be put into ques-

tion. Whichever way the Roberts court decides will not only have a profound effect on academic admissions but in professional spheres as well.

A potential implication of the end of affirmative action could be the end of diversity programs in the workplace. A study conducted by the Gender Action Portal, which investigated the effects of affirmative action rollback in a couple of states found that “minorities working in state or local government decreased relative to the control group of states that kept affirmative action in place: Hispanic men’s participation decreased by 7%, Black women’s decreased by 4%, and Asian women’s decreased by 37%.” The study is a prime example of how the court’s coming decisions in Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina could completely alter the physical makeup of schools and workplaces everywhere, perhaps turning them into something entirely unrecognizable.

LEGAL ANALYSES | 9

The question of whose responsibility it is to decipher the law directly relates to the scope and power of administrative agencies. . .There are not many other legal issues that deal with the underlying fabric of our nation.

THE MAJOR QUESTIONS DOCTRINE VS. CHEVRON DOCTRINE CONTINUED FROM PAGE 7

However, this past June the Supreme Court strayed away from decades of precedent in administrative law with West Virginia v. EPA. The case centered around the Clean Power Plan (CPP), specifically a provision that the EPA could regulate existing power plants by converting coal-based plants to “generation shifting” natural gas plants or renewable energy. The EPA claimed they had the authority to enforce the plan due to their interpretation of Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act. In a 6-3 ruling, the Court ruled in West Virginia’s favor as it stated that the EPA lacked the jurisdiction to regulate existing power plants, thereby creating the Major Questions Doctrine. The doctrine holds that when a statute is vague it is insufficient to defer to the agency’s interpretation, rather it requires direct action from Congress. With the new doctrine, the Court now has the power to strike agency rule. While these two doctrines may seem confusing, the whole debate boils down to executive vs. judicial power and there are strong arguments for each side.

Liberals tend to prefer the Chevron doctrine in the modern age because they have a broader reading of the Constitution. They argue that even though the Constitution states that the judicial branch is tasked with interpreting the law, sometimes the agency’s interpretation is more coherent. The agency that made the rule has

10 | LEGAL ANALYSES

more technical knowledge and therefore the agency’s judgment should be favored. Another justification is that the executive branch reflects the opinion of the people at the time, so their interpretations will be more consistent with the general population.

David A. Strauss, an expert in administrative law and UChicago law faculty, comments on the power of administrative agencies : “I think the Supreme Court, too often, does not recognize that the law gives administrative agencies – which have more expert knowledge than courts, and are more politically accountable than courts – the power to address even what the Court considers “major questions.” West Virginia v. EPA was a loss for the liberals because it shrunk the power of the CPP plan and set precedent for future environmental standards.

On the other hand, the Major Questions Doctrine is a crucial win for Conservatives in terms of administrative law. Conservatives have a fine reading of the Constitution, so they tend to prefer the Major Questions Doctrine. Conservatives believe the Constitution states that it is the judicial branch’s jurisdiction to interpret what the law says. They claim that the Chevron doctrine diverges from the Constitution because it transfers authority from the judiciary to the executive. Conservatives also assert that the Executive could have a political bias, while the Judiciary is a more

unbiased institution. While both sides present convincing arguments, the doctrine that the Court will choose to use as precedent in the coming years will have widespread effects.

Although these two doctrines have been at the forefront of environmental cases, the decision could have ramifications for international trade, health, and immigration. The question of whose responsibility it is to decipher the law directly relates to the scope and power of the administrative agencies. The effect of changing the scope of administrative agencies is often underestimated as it can affect cases such as the recent Dobbs case.

The Court can strike down potential rules to protect abortion access despite the Executive power. These doctrines raise the question of whether political questions should be debated by representatives or decided by an unelected body of officials. There are not many other legal issues that deal with the underlying fabric of our nation.

LEGALLY, WHAT LIES AHEAD FOR GEORGE SANTOS?

by TONY YU

experience supposedly includes Citigroup and Goldman Sachs, but neither bank has every employed eorge Santos’ political career such a person. While the company seems all but over. Facing investigations from the Department he did actually work for, Harbor of Justice, Federal Election Commis- City Capital, is currently under SEC sion, House Ethics Committee, and investigation for allegedly running a Brazilian prosecutors, as well as calls Ponzi scheme.

Although Santos’ list of blatant to resign from House Republican colleagues and district constituents, lies goes on, it seems that the political consequences outweigh the legal. it would be an understatement to A two-thirds supermajority in the say that Santos is deep in political House could expel Santos, but this purgatory. course of action is extremely The freshman lawmaker’s troubles began in September 2022, when improbable since it will trigger a a local newspaper, The North Shore special election and likely further narrow the razor-thin GOP majoriLeader, began questioning Santos’ finances, noting that his assets grew ty. Santos could receive a reprimand/ censure, which is a “formal resolufrom virtually zero in 2020 to $11 million in 2022. In December, after tion” by the House that amounts to little more than a slap on the wrist. an exposé published by The New York Times, this story began to gain Nevertheless, these scandals have traction, and more and more of San- made many politicians on both sides tos’ lies began to surface. He claimed of the aisle distance themselves from Santos. It seems unlikely that he he was a star volleyball player for Baruch College and attended NYU would be able to win his district’s for an MBA, but neither school has primaries again, let alone re-election. Santos’ legal troubles primarily records of him; he said his grandcome from concerns regarding his parents were Jewish immigrants fleeing the Holocaust, but they were campaign finances. A non-partisan campaign watchdog, the Campaign actually born in Brazil; his career STAFF WRITER

G

Legal Center, filed a complaint before the FEC for three alleged regulation violations by Santos and his campaign committee: a straw donor scheme, disclosure violations, and misappropriation of campaign funds for personal use. spending campaign funds on rent

52 U.S.C. § 30114 prohibits using campaign funds on “expenses that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s election campaign”, and explicitly lists a home rent as such an expense. Nevertheless, Santos’ campaign spent $13,500 on rent for staff during the 2022 election cycle, in clear violation of this provision. $199.99 charges

52 U.S.C. § 30104 requires cam paigns to retain receipts of spendings over $200. During the 2022 election cycle, Santos’ campaign logged 37 charges of exactly $199.99. For comparison, all campaigns in the US during that cycle logged a total of 75 such charges. Not only is it statistically improbable for Santos alone to account for almost half of all $199.99 charges, it is impossible for some of the expenditures to amount to $199.99. For example, one such charge was reported for a parking fee at JFK, which should be charged in whole dollar increments; the campaign also claimed to have spent $199.99 on a CLEAR membership, a pre-clearance service, which actually costs $189. It seems that the campaign is deliberately attempting to conceal where the funds were spent, constituting a disclosure violation. straw donor scheme

52 U.S.C. § 30122 states that “[n] o person shall make a contribution in the name of another person.” A straw donor, who makes contribu| photo by andrew harnik / associated press

CONTINUED ON PAGE 12

LEGAL ANALYSES | 11

LEGALLY, WHAT LIES AHEAD FOR GEORGE SANTOS? CONTINUED FROM PAGE 11 tions under their own name but using a third party’s funds, violates this rule. During the 2022 election cycle, Santos loaned his own campaign $705,000 after reporting an income of $55,000 and no significant assets over $5,000 in 2020. He claims that the funds came from his earnings through the Devolder Organization, which brokers the sale of “luxury items” such as yachts and planes.

He also claims that he earns a 1-2% commission on these multi-million-dollar contracts, yet never reported the clients for which he performed such brokerage services, despite this being required by the House Ethics Committee. It is implausible that Santos was able

to campaign for the House while making millions of dollars through a brand-new brokerage business.

Therefore, it is reasonable to suspect that the source of the $705,000 was not Devolder Organization’s business activities, but rather third parties who funneled contributions into the campaign through the organization. This third party could be individuals, corporations, or foreign nationals.

The latter two are explicitly prohibited from contributing towards federal campaigns, while other individuals cannot make contributions under Santos’ name. In any case, this constitutes a significant violation that could lead to criminal charges

under 52 U.S.C. § 30109.

There is sufficient information to conclude that George Santos’ campaign knowingly falsified the source of the campaign’s funding by disguising outside contributions as Santos’ personal fortune, and failed to truthfully disclose where the funds were disbursed. Coupled with the misappropriation of funds to cover rent, Santos and his campaign could see significant civil and criminal liabilities pursuant to 52 U.S.C. § 30109. Regardless of what lies ahead for Santos, the fact that he was elected to Congress under a shroud of blatant fraud, reveals serious shortfalls of the campaign process for public office.

THE MYSTERY LEAK OF DOBBS V. JACKSON WOMEN’S HEALTH ORGANIZATION by LIZBETH HERRERA GOMEZ STAFF WRITER

T

he country held its breath when Politico leaked the Dobbs v.

Jackson Women’s Health Organization draft opinion. The majority decision, written by Justice Samuel Alito, overturned the constitutional right to abortions guaranteed by Roe v. Wade. It was a blow to those who thought the Court would uphold the ruling in Roe. Fourth-year Zoe Torrey, a board member of Project Reproductive Freedom, was in her Pennsylvania home with her grandmother and aunt when the official decision was released. She describes it as a surreal experience because it was a room full of three generations of women who were equally impacted by the ruling.

She noted that her grandmother had been born before Roe v. Wade and now, unfortunately, lives after it.

There are many people, like Tor-

12 | LEGAL ANALYSES

Project Reproductive Freedom with over 40 other organizations attended abortion and reproductive rights rally in the fall | photo from project reproductive freeodm

Regardless of who leaked the draft opinion, the ease with which it was done seriously raises questions of security, confidentiality, and trust in the Supreme Court. rey’s grandmother, that have lived through both case decisions and share concerns for the progression of the Court.

Her concerns were reinforced when the official decision remained practically unchanged from the leaked draft opinion. According to Professor Geoffrey R. Stone of the University of Chicago Law School, there was no significant change because “the Court wouldn’t want to appear like they were bending to public opinion.” The justices don’t want the public to think that they hold any influence on the way the Court hands down decisions because it would only incentivize more leaks. The justices also act under the assumption that their work is kept confidential, so any tentative arguments made in the draft would have ended in the final decision regardless of the leak.

Nonetheless, Chief Justice Roberts, upset over the disclosure of the draft, called for an immediate internal investigation. He feared that the leak had eroded trust in judicial proceedings and wished to restore the legitimacy of the Court. Roberts wasn’t wrong on his assumptions

because the public reacted negatively explicit permission to share the dewhen the initial draft was released tails of the discussion. Stone claimed and was further upset when the draft that there was “no doubt whatsoproved to be similar to the official ever” that the inner workings of the decision.

Court were confidential and so a leak Marshal Gail A. Curley and her of any sort was unacceptable. staff were tasked with the difficult The Marshal and her staff did not job of providing the identity of the think that the expected employee person(s) involved and failed to do conduct was enough, so after interso. They did, however, attempt to viewing each of the 97 employees, shed more transparency on the inner they were asked to sign affidavits. workings of the court by outlining The justices, on the other hand, the “Rules and Court Policies Proweren’t asked to sign sworn affidavits tecting Confidentiality” in their in- because the Marshal didn’t think ternal investigation report. It covered it was necessary. Professor Stone the code of conduct for law clerks believes this was because signing afand U.S. Judges, explicitly defining fidavits implies a lack of trust within confidential information as anything the circle of justices and a suggestion related to the Court or its employees that they did something wrong. So that isn’t made public, including the had the justices signed, it would have outcome of a case and the identity been seen as a sign of guilt. Whether of the author of a majority opinor not this was the rationale Marshal ion. Professor Stone, relying on his Curley used is unconfirmed. personal experience as a law clerk for Regardless of who leaked the Justice Brennan, made it clear that draft opinion, the ease with which it all law clerks understood the expect- was done seriously raises questions ed conduct; they all knew it was not of security, confidentiality, and trust permitted to discuss anything that in the Supreme Court. occurred behind the scenes.

As such, conversations between the clerks and their justices were kept confidential, unless the justices gave

LEGAL ANALYSES | 13

LYRICS ON THE STANDS: HOW COURTS ARE JUDGING RAP MUSIC to pass Senate Bill S7527, or “Rap United States ruling, which relies

by AYA HAMZA

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF

S

torytelling has compelled the American public to adopt rap music as its favorite genre. Last year, rap topped the charts, constituting 26.8% of the national listening volume. Rappers operate with a frankness that resonates with their audience and establishes trust. Many fans relate to the struggles delineated in lyrics and may even learn about social ills for the first time through the messages conveyed. Rhymes can often lead to governmental reform, given their popularity. That is if the government allows them to make it out of the studio without fear of penalty.

Rap’s most influential narratives describe the effect of gang violence on community health, spurring those outside of gangs to write about its impact on their upbringing. Unfortunately, the legal system frequently deploys verses spotlighting violent topics against artists. Attorneys presently reserve the power to conflate anecdotal or hyperbolic messaging as bases for indictment. In the past decade alone, at least 500 criminal trials weaponized rap lyrics against their artist. Professors Erik Nielson and Andrea L. Dennis note that this statistic soared past 1990s prosecution numbers when popular media popularized the genre through icons such as 2Pac, Snoop Dogg, and the Notorious BIG. Among other industry names, Jay concern about how courts may bring their life’s work against them. Banding together, the artists signed a letter urging New York

14 | LEGAL ANALYSES

on a “reasonable person’s” interMusic on Trial,”: effectively banning raps’ involvement in court. pretation of content. Congress The bill awaits an assembly vote. In pigeonholed the bill after referring California, tangible progress has it to the Subcommittee on Crime, been achieved with the DecrimiTerrorism, and Homeland Security, and they have taken no action nalizing Artistic Expression Act’s passage, making the law the first to since.

Critics worry about ignoring preserve First Amendment proteclyrics that plainly depict an oftions in music. While headway is promising, in order to circumvent fense, especially when pursuing criminal justice. However, the RAP inconsistencies between states’ Act, like the Decriminalized Artisverdicts, the onus remains on the federal government to ensure artis- tic Expression Act, is limiting, not restricting. According to the text, tic immunity. the RAP Act § 2b (2017) clarifies Sponsored by US Representhe importance of underscoring a tative Hank Johnson of Georgia, piece’s relevance when the “defenH.R. 8531, the Restoring Artistic dant intended a literal meaning,” Protection Act of 2022—or RAP and provides “specific facts of the Act—would restrict using an artist’s “original or derivative” creative crime alleged.” The RAP Act is the lead broad legal measure with license against them. The RAP Act would cover several mediums the potential to reduce arbitrary attempts to draw incriminating including poetry, film, and visual art. Language used throughout the conclusions.

Inference, as it stands, has text is reminiscent of the Elonis v.

California has already implemented protections for artists by preventing rap lyrics to be used as evidence. | photo by daniel swartz / getty images

Without infringing upon the cultural zeitgeist’s autonomy, the RAP Act’s progression is crucial for the safeguarding of rap music, in turn promoting civic awareness among youth, encouraging emotional expression, and fostering a sense of community. disproportionately impacted the Black community by overly deducing culpability from stories shared in rap. The RAP Act recognizes that although the government’s responsibility is to protect artists’ freedom of speech, lyrics explicitly parallel to a crime must be eligible as context in a judicial setting.

The primary concern is not the introduction of lyrics but with centering arguments around them in the absence of substantive physical proof. Maryland’s Supreme Court clarifies the necessity of adopting

of contempt associated with the charge for which he was held in custody, disclosing details down to the 0.40 caliber bullets used. Local advocates inform that Montague has schizophrenia and had just been leaving a drug deal, insisting the rap was the sole piece of alleged evidence used to determine his guilt.

Notorious on the federal level, the Young Slime Life (YSL) RICO trial prosecuting rappers Young Thug and Gunna exemplifies a case directly relevant to racketeer-

Artists such as Jay-Z and Meek Mill came together to support the NY Senate Bill S7527, also called “Rap Music on Trial”. The bill, passed in May of 2022, would stop the use of rap lyrics as evidence in criminal trials. | photo from the source

matching evidence in music in the case of Lawrence Montague.

A 2019 opinion reveals that the 28-year-old rapped over a jail phone despite his friend warning him about potential repercussions.

Montague proceeded to rap out

ing allegations and gang affiliation assumptions. While YSL refers to the gang Young Thug heads, his attorney Brian Steel maintains that it stands for Young Stoner Life Records: the record label the rapper founded in 2016. Presenting a not-

guilty plea, Steel questions why the genre “birthed by the struggle of the inner city,” is prosecuted to a greater extent than genres like rock-and-roll, which feature similarly violent lyrics.

Navigating constraint and freedom’s ever-complexing intersection continues to puzzle even the brightest legal minds. Without infringing upon the cultural zeitgeist’s autonomy, the RAP Act’s progression beyond committee is crucial for the safeguarding of rap music, in turn promoting civic awareness among youth, encouraging emotional expression, and fostering a sense of community.

Preventing judicial strain on lower levels, placing pressure on congresspeople to move the bill along is imperative as states have no precedent to guide their present decision-making. In the interim, as Gucci Mane mentions in his song “All Dz Chains,” “the [district attorney can] bring up lyrics in the court, may not be even true, and try to pen some s— next to your name that you ain’t even do.” Accusations will continue to accumulate until public servants take accountability and establish sweeping reforms as permanent provisions in federal legislation.

LEGAL ANALYSES | 15

TWO VIEWS T

he profits of private prisons drive an insidious force that has become an increasingly controversial issue in recent years. Human rights activists, legal experts, and the general public have all raised their voices in opposition to this system that incentivizes the cutting of costs at the expense of providing necessary and quality programs and services to inmates and staff. The War on Drugs and the subsequent overcrowding of prisons have been major challenges for federal, state, and local governments, leading them to look for solutions that would minimize the costs of providing housing for such a large population. The privatization of prisons has been rapidly increasing as budgets for criminal justice are shrinking and governments are now incentivized to cut their costs. The Federal Bureau of Prisons’ mission is to confine offenders in a controlled environment that is safe, humane, cost-efficient, and appropriately secure. Unfortunately, private prisons fail to create such an environment and have numerous harmful effects on inmates and facility staff.

Private prisons are a profit-driven system in which the interests of private companies conflict with the well-being and basic human rights of prisoners and workers. This profit focus tends to lead to extreme cost-cutting measures that weaken security and endanger those on the inside. A 2017 NAACP report shows that private prison companies employ significantly less staff and

16 | TWO VIEWS

AGAINST

by NITYA UPADRASTA

STAFF WRITER

implement fewer adequate training programs than public prisons.

Private prisons are also not subject to the same level of oversight and scrutiny or held to the standards of public prisons, making it difficult to monitor internal conditions and ensure that prisoners are being treated humanely. Implementing sufficient consequences for mismanagements and abuse that occur within the private facilities is difficult. In addition

30% higher.

Despite the notion that private prisons are cheaper for taxpayers, research suggests that private prisons do not actually save money and may even cost more in the long run.

A 2016 study by the University of Illinois at Chicago found that the housing cost for an inmate in a private Chicago prison was $164 per day compared to $143 in a public Chicago prison. Private prisons are not incentivized to reduce the prison Policymakers should population through implementing quality rehabilitation programs and instead focus on im- alternatives to incarceration.

As a basic principle, justice plementing reforms not be administered through based on evidence should the prism of profit. The companies to reduce recidivism that control and operate private prishave a vetted financial interest in and improve life out- ons the growth rather than the reduction comes of mass incarceration. Private prisons are inherently corrupt enterpristo this, private prisons are motivated es that have no place in a safe and to keep their facilities full at all times equitable criminal justice system. in order to maximize profits, leading Policymakers should instead focus to longer sentences and an increased on implementing reforms based on likelihood of reoffending. There are evidence to reduce recidivism and also higher levels of violence in the improve life outcomes for prisoners. private sector. A U.S. Department The government should invest in of Justice study shows that violent rehabilitation and reentry programs attacks by inmates on correctional to reduce prison populations, and staff were 163% higher in private address the underlying racial and than in public prisons, and insocioeconomic prejudices that conmate-on-inmate assaults were nearly tribute to mass incarceration.

Should private prisons be a component of our criminal justice system?

I

n 2016, the U.S. government announced its plan to phase out the use of private prisons; under the Trump administration, this plan was revoked, then reinstated under Biden’s government. Biden’s executive order pushing for a non-renewal clause of the Justice Department’s contracts with privately managed prisons only applies to Bureau of Prison (BOP) facilities. However, the majority of privatized establishments are involved with the seemingly untouchable U.S Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention centers. This back-and-forth legislation on the issue of private prisons makes it seem like these prisons are a moral or humanitarian issue; it is the opposite. Private prisons were created during the War on Drugs to assist the overflowing government facilities and continue to serve as an assistant to our system. Private prisons only financially impact the U.S. prison system, nothing else. According to writer Andrew Coyle, privatization takes on one of these three structures: private companies providing services to government-owned and operated prisons, private companies manage government-owned prisons, or private companies owning and operating their own jails while charging the government per inmate housed. Those against the allowance of private prisons turn to the conglomerates who run them, such as CoreCivic, GEO Group, LaSalle Corrections, and Management and Training Corp, to depict a capitalist, money-hungry system. There is no denying that these companies make money off of their facilities. How-

FOR

by SARAH BOURKOFF

STAFF WRITER

ever, this money is poured back into here in the U.S. The quality and the institutions’ safety, programs, safety of private and public instituand quality. Private prisons also tions are the same, and at the end utilize their money to create a much of the day, no matter where prisonsafer and more productive environ- ers are housed, they will still exist. ment for inmates and employees, not Private prisons are no worse than only in their own prisons but also state prisons—data would prove within the governments. Private pris- the opposite. If particular adminisons were founded with the intention trations would like to address their of reducing overpopulation in other moral concerns for private prisons, facilities; this goal was and continues concerns I would argue are invalid to be met. seeing as private prisons are either Because both public and private the same or better than our governfacilities can now have a safe and ment-run facilities, they could utilize appropriate amount of people under private sectors by creating incentives. their care, employees and prisoners Australia and New Zealand are can receive the care and attention perfect examples of these incentive they need and reside in a much more programs; private prisons can earn mentally and physically healthier bonuses/price cuts for beating the environment. Emily Wildra, a staff government with lower rates of member at the Prison Policy Initiareincarceration-specifically withtive, has said that overpopulation in BIPOC populations, and owe correlates to “increased violence, money for any riots, escapes, and lack of adequate health care, limitunnatural deaths. Disabling the use ed programming and educational of private prisons within our system opportunities, and reduced visitawould not be a step toward solving tion.” This is even more true during mass incarceration or any other issue the COVID-19 pandemic, where associated with America’s criminal the risks of infection would be much justice system. The attention spent higher in overpopulated facilities. by the public and legislators on the Private prisons are also able to use of private prisons takes time and allocate money that the government resources away from the actual revicannot afford to drug treatments sion of the criminal justice system. and programs that reduce re-imimprove life outcomes for prisoners. prisonment, as seen by the doubled percentage of drug treatment proNote: This article does not represent grams in private institutions over the personal views of the author. the public. Private prisons pose no issues to our criminal justice system TWO VIEWS | 17

THE WRONG PRESCRIPTION FOR A REAL DISEASE

relies upon the HEROES act of 2003 as the legal justification of it. The Higher Education Relief Opportunities For Students (HEROES) Act allows the Secretary of

by SANJAY SRIVATSAN Education to waive student debt for STAFF WRITER certain categories of individuals in n 2022, President Biden announced a plan to cancel student connection wars or national emerdebt of up to $20,000 for individuals gencies, including those who have who make less than $125,000,, cost- suffered economic hardship due to these occurrences. This act was ing the public $30 billion annually meant as a remedy to a limited set for the next decade. While any of circumstances and not as carte program has its merits and drawblanche for the President, through backs, in the case of this program, his education secretary, to offer near it does not matter, for one simple reason. President Biden’s debt relief blanket amnesty for loans. The wide is not legal. And even if it were, it is scope of the program is concerning, given that the program does not the wrong prescription for what is attempt to account for the impact indeed a very real problem. of the pandemic in its dispersion of The Biden Student Debt Relief funds. Instead, the only criterion is

I

the recipient’s income and their Pell grant status in college.

Furthermore, the Biden Administration plans to extend the program even after the Federal Covid-19 Emergency expires on May 11, 2023.

Until that date, the legal dispute is whether the Biden administration has the authority to offer so wide an amnesty for loans. After that date, another question arises: Ddoes the Secretary of Education still have the right to forgive loans? After all, the HEROES Act of 2003 was concerned with tackling the effects of emergencies, presumably while they were emergencies requiring executive discretion. If the executive no longer deems Covid-19 to be an emergency, then should it continue to exercise an emergency power granted to it?

On President Biden’s Student Debt Relief Program MAKING COLLEGE There is no such thing as a ‘perfect bill,’ and so while there may be ATTENDANCE shortcomings to President Biden’s MORE EQUITABLE student debt relief program, folks

mostly benefited the wealthy. Biden’s debt relief program doesn’t face these same challenges. It contains language that establishes strict shouldn’t let these shortcomings—– income criteria such that only those

by NIKULAS SOSKA which are inherent to any piece of who make less than $125,000 per STAFF WRITER legislation—– blind them from the year, or married couples or heads resident Joe Biden’s student several benefits of such a program. of households who make less than debt relief program, which The main benefit of Biden’s $250,000 per year, will receive loan provides up to $20,000 in student student loan forgiveness is that it’s forgiveness. According to Univerloan forgiveness, has many skeptics structured so that those who don’t sity of Pennsylvania eEconomists, and rightly so. Is this program a need debt relief, won’t receive it. “about two-thirds of the benefit falls political ploy, that simply transfers Historically, relief bills have errone- to households making $88,000 or the burden of one to another? Will ously benefited the wealthy, instead less per year.”. it have long term adverse effects on of benefiting the middle and lower Low-income borrowers, despite the affordability of college? Are there classes. In recent times, the CARES having low amounts of debt, are other more effective methods of solv- Act is an example of this. A bill that most likely to default on loans. The ing the student debt crisis? There was meant to be a sort-of economic impact of defaults is wide ranging; are all valid questions and concernts. rescue package for the middle and – having a low credit score (which Yet, despite them, it should be said lower classes during the Covid-19 is a side effect of loan nonpayment) that every piece of legislation has pandemic, the CARES ACT was makes it harder to borrow, whether deficiencies in some way or another. riddled with tax exemptions which that be a mortgage, a credit card

P

18 | TWO VIEWS

It would be prudent, and indeed in refusing to allow the Biden adminis- of university seats towards those keeping with the intent behind the tration to resume it. who are truly in need of it. law and the provisions of the U.S. Biden’s student debt relief is also This student debt relief plan also Constitution, to instead let Congress simply bad policy. By in effect prom- puts a band-aid on a gaping wound, legislate a solution to the student ising a $20,000 federal rebate to col- providing a superficial solution debt crisis. lege students, Biden’s student debt without solving the deeper problem.

If the Biden Administration’s relief plan will only contribute to For as long as colleges progressively arguments were to be affirmed by further incentivizing colleges to raise increase their prices,, students will the courts, then given that we seem prices, given the increased power of face ever increasing student debt to be living in a perpetual state of students to now pay a higher price. burdens. By placing a band-aid over emergency all manner of legislation Furthermore, there would presum- the wound, student debt relief in meant to be reserved for true emer- ably be a rise in students applying effect disincentivizes the U.S. govgencies may be invoked to carry out for college. While this may seem ernment from working constructhe President’s wishes without Con- like a good idea, it in fact does have tively towards solving the crisis, and gressional approval. This seems to be negative consequences. It encourages instead allows them to escape their quite a dangerous precedent to set. students to take degrees which either responsibilities here by offering what Luckily, the courts have not affirmed do not have the highest return on are essentially “giveaways.”

Biden’s right to invoke the Heroes investment, or it encourages students Act in such a manner, with a district who do not necessarily need a college court judge striking it down, and degree to pursue one. Thus, it is not the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals conducive to an efficient allocation

account, or a car loan, etc. Having a low credit score also raises interest rates, because of a higher risk of defaulting. Biden’s loan forgiveness, because it targets low-income individuals/households, will inevitably decrease the number of low-income borrowers. Thus, the many challenges faced by these folks, specifically defaulting on loans which cultivates a plethora of borrowing inconveniences, are addressed by Biden’s loan forgiveness.

Another important benefit of this student loan forgiveness program is its impact on the country’s vast racial wealth gap. The Department of Education found that Bblack college graduates have, on average, $25,000 more college debt than white graduates. Similarly, Black Americans are two times more

likely to be Ppell-Ggrant eligible. Because of these reasons, Black Americans would, at a disproportionately higher rate, benefit from this debt relief, narrowing the wealth gap.

Specifically, Black wWomen who owe, on average, the highest amount of student debt in the cCountry would benefit tremendously. Historically Black uUniversities and colleges (HBCUs), which have been underfunded and overlooked for decades, receive much needed relief from Biden’s plan. According to US News, more than 70% of all HBCU students are Ppell-Ggrant eligible, and so these universities would, relative to non-HBCU colleges, disproportionately benefit. In other words, those who should receive loan forgiveness, will receive it. ClearlyOveCrall, Biden’s student debt relief is a

step in the right direction to address the country’s persisting racial wealth gap..

The student debt crisis is complicated. Yet, the considerations posed, and the issues raised are important to our society. With college attendance rates increasing, students are saddled with immense student debt, more so now than ever before in our nation’s history. While President Joe Biden’s Student Debt Forgiveness initiative is imperfect, it certainly is an important step to addressing this crisis. We should live in a society that fosters the pursuit of higher education, not one that makes such a pursuit extremely burdensome.

TWO VIEWS | 19

A CASE AGAINST THE REDUCTION OF KEVIN MCCARTHY’S POWER AS SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE

plicitly defined; historically, speakers have ranged between nonpartisan to pursuing their own policy agenda.

But, as the House’s presiding officer, administrative head, and party leadcally, conservatives in the Freedom

by GIANNA GRANT er, the Speaker should be able to put Caucus advocated for changes such STAFF WRITER their own agenda aside in order to as the institution of term limits for act in the best interest of the counn January 7, 2023, Kevin McCongress members, the creation of a try. Moreover, the Speaker should Carthy was elected as Speaker process that would make the Speakhold enough power to distinguish of the House; what was expected er easier to depose, and raising the the role from the other 434 House to be a swift transition of power nation’s debt ceiling. This election members. became one of the longest Speakilluminates a larger discussion of the The decentralization of power as er elections in U.S. history due to amount of power that the Speaker a result of the concessions that confifteen rounds of voting. This was should hold. As second in line to servatives suggest prevents the Speaklargely due to backlash from far-right the Presidency and the leader of 435 er from effectively fulfilling their role conservatives who questioned Mcrepresentatives, the powers of the in maintaining order. The Speaker Carthy’s allegiance to the RepubliSpeaker should remain intact. must ensure that policy decisions are can party and believed that the newly As defined in the Constitution, made efficiently. By giving House elected Speaker was not conservative the primary role of the Speaker is to members at least seventy-two hours enough. This rhetoric caused McCauphold the rules of the House. The to review bills before voting and rthy to make concessions regarding political role of the Speaker is not exallowing them to depose the Speaker his power as Speaker. More specifi-

O

On Reducing the Power of U.S. Speaker of the House THUS SPAKE MCCARTHY

by HAYES WHORTON

STAFF WRITER

K

evin McCarthy’s recent ascent to Speaker of the House has raised and revived concerns by many about the magnitude of power exercised by the Speaker. Critics They are absolutely right to hold these concerns. The current wave of radicalism in the Republican party that has swept McCarthy into office is exposing a fundamental flaw in the construction of the Speaker’s role: this position gives a highly unreasonable amount of power to any individual, empowering their political faction in a dangerous and undemocratic way.

The Speaker of the House is

20 | TWO VIEWS

the political leader of the House of Representatives, as well as the de facto leader of the majority party.

The Constitution never clearly lays out the partisan role of the Speaker, so it has evolved over time, currently operating as a highly partisan office. The most important job of the Speaker as a majority leader is choosing which bills make it to the House floor to be debated and voted on. This makes it virtually impossible to introduce legislation unfavorable to the Speaker and their faction.

This power is highly problematic for even an otherwise well-functioning democracy. To give so much power to a role that isn’t even directly elected by the nation’s citizens, as (a House vote determines the Speaker).

Even the president, whose power is far more democratically legitimate, doesn’t have legislative authority compared to this power of the Speaker’s. This power clearly stands in opposition to the democratic norms which are supposed to govern the nation, and it is unlikely that the Constitution would have allowed for this had its authors considered the dangers of a politicized speaker role.

In an ideal House, the Speaker would respect and account for the concerns of all parties and factions, and try to mediate these concerns to achieve satisfactory compromises. This is the wager of democracy, and it is how democratic governments maintain legitimacy. In an era of heightened polarization and moral fervor, compromise loses its legitimacy, appearing instead as a

at any time, the decision making cans. In the Constitution, it states process is extended; this will prethat the Speaker must protect the vent important policies from being rights of the minority. By acting in a implemented in a timely manner. As partisan manner and prioritizing the evidenced by former Speaker Nancy interests of conservatives, McCarthy Pelosi’s leadership during the 201819 government shutdown, Trump’s The decentralization impeachment, and the COVID-19 of power. . .prevents pandemic, the Speaker must be able the Speaker from to take swift action during times effectively fulfilling of immense need. Pelosi’s tenure as Speaker shows that whomever takes their role in maintainon this role must have sufficient ing order power to check the executive branch.

The ultimate role of Congress is to serve the American people–if the not only would not fulfill his role House cannot operate efficiently, the as Speaker, but would undermine everyday lives of Americans will be his legitimacy. Many of the Repubaltered significantly. licans calling for the limitation of As Speaker of the House, McCa- the Speaker’s power are those who rthy should act as a unifying force challenged the results of the 2020 between Democrats and Republielection. Therefore, acting in favor

betrayal by elected officials of their voters. This is not necessarily damning for democracy, and such moral passions have driven progressive movements of great benefit to the nation. However, it is obvious how, in certain situations, this dynamic can be destructive. It appears that the McCarthy election might be such a situation. Kevin McCarthy represents the Trump-wing of the Republican party, a factionwing with many members who still baselessly deny the legitimacy of the 2020 presidential election, rejecting with it the legitimacy of the standing federal government. This is problematic regardless of what one believes about the 2020 election. McCarthy has inherited the wing of a party which casts its vitriol on anyone who dares to criticize its figurehead, regardless

of these congresspeople signals to the American people that the protection of democracy is at stake. This also signals that McCarthy favors his own political agenda over the interests of the American people. Furthermore, the negotiations during the voting process created a divide between moderates and conservatives because of McCarthy’s concessions; moderates are concerned that they will subvert the power that the GOP currently wields. If this is any evidence of what the speakership will look like with a decrease in power, then it is clear that McCarthy must stand his ground and the powers of the Speaker must be protected.

of how factually true and logically sound such criticism is. Even if McCarthy wanted to take the Speaker role in a bipartisan direction, his voter base would not have it, which rules out the possibility of him pur-

his consistent climate change denial.

It’s difficult to understate the existential danger of ignoring the threat that climate change poses to the world. If the Sspeaker position were not so powerful, this problem would not be so pronounced. However, with McCarthy at the helm of the In an era of height- House, it might prove to be imposened polarization and sible to pass the drastic legislation to avoid a climate disaster. moral fervor, compro- necessary If McCarthy is not removed or the mise loses its legiti- speaker position made weaker, the critical window within which this macy. legislation must be passed to avoid climate fallout might be missed entirely. suing this practice.

It is imperative for the security of This situation is made far worse the nation’s democracy and enviwhen one considers the particulars ronment that the Speaker’s power of McCarthy himself. Worse than his over the legislative process be greatly history of baseless election denial is diminished.

TWO VIEWS | 21

Supreme Court Case: Groff vs. Dejoy The business sought to terminate Groff not because of his refusal to

by ENMANUEL ACOSTA APARICIO work on Sundays, but due to their STAFF WRITER unwillingness to grant an exemption for his religious beliefs. Thus, these his past June, the Supreme legal standard established in the arguments shouldn’t be regarded as Court agreed to hear a case that Hardison ruling. He lucidly argues ‘undue hardship’. In other words, will determine the extent to which that the threshold for what constiemployers should allow for religious tutes an “undue hardship” is too low there is no substantive indicator that accommodating Groff’s religious beaccommodations in the workplace. and makes it easier for employers liefs would have caused a ‘significant The case revolves around Gerald to discriminate against employees difficulty or expense’. The district Groff, a former mailman for the practicing their religion. Instead court’s ruling in favor of the Postal U.S. Postal Service who was facing of a minimal cost, Groff advocates Office was based on questionable termination for refusing to work for the Court to interpret an unevidence that the Postal Office themon Sundays. As a strict Sabbatarian due hardship as one that involves a selves produced, showcasing how Christian, Groff argues that the “significant difficulty or expense”. easily employers can evade religious USPS violated Title VII of the Civil This stricter standard would better accommodations in the workplace Rights Act of 1964 by failing to using the current “de minimis” accommodate his religious pracThe Postal Office’s standard. tice. Title VII bars employers from Secondly, Groff asks the Court failure to accomofiring their employees for practicing to clarify whether an employer their religion, unless the religious date Groff’s religious can demonstrate undue hardship practice cannot be accommodated practices is just one by merely showing the employee’s without causing “undue hardship” actions to be a burden on his coto the employer. In 1977, the Suexample of the workers rather than the business preme Court ruled in Transworld systemic abuse of itself. In his dissenting opinion, Airlines v. Hardison that an “undue religious freedoms. judge Thomas Hardiman pointed hardship” is met whenever accomthis out by stating that “a burden on modations become more than a ‘de coworkers isn’t the same thing as a minimis cost’ to the employer. Based burden on the employer’s business”. on Hardison’s legal standard, the Such particularities can – and were USPS claimed that Groff’s refusal to – overlooked under the current legal deliver mail on Sundays resulted in protect the rights granted to emsignificant costs for the company, as ployees under Title VII of the Civil standard. Furthermore, considering coworkers’ discomforts toward an his coworkers had to cover his shifts. Rights Act. employee’s religious accommodaAlthough there are compelling In this specific case, the Postal tions can lead to the systemic reinarguments to be made for company Office’s claim that Groff’s religious statement of discrimination in the rights, the Court should ultimately practices caused workplace disworkplace. rule in favor of Groff as the USPS’s ruption and decreased employee Several minority religious claims are based on a dubious legal morale is a result of their refusal groups, including the Sikh Coaliprecedent that leaves religious indi- to accommodate his beliefs in the tion, Muslim Advocates and the viduals vulnerable to discrimination first place. Had the Postal Office Islam and Religious Freedom Action in the workplace. properly accommodated Groff, his Groff’s appeal is twofold. Firstly, coworkers would not have developed Team, have voiced their support for CONTINUED ON PAGE 24 he asks that the Court redefine the “resentment towards management”.

THE ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF GROFF

T

22 | TWO VIEWS

THE ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF DEJOY

by JACK MARTINEZ

STAFF WRITER

I

n 2016, the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) broke over 200 years of protocol by delivering mail on Sundays. A new deal with Amazon, which precipitated the change in delivery schedule, held that workers must pick up Sunday shifts to meet the increase in demand during the holiday season. Though for Gerald Groff, a postal worker, this new schedule posed a problem. As a strict observer of the Ssabbath, Mr. Groff refused to work on Sundays. He missed shifts and made the Post Office find other employees to cover for him during the busy holiday season.

Eventually, the post office demanded that he work on Sundays, and Mr. Groff sued, believing his first amendment rights had been violated. Although Mr. Groff’s argument should be considered, the Supreme Court should side with the USPS as Mr. Groff’s refusal to work infringed on the rights of the business and of other employees.

Firstly, Mr. Groff’s actions placed a significant strain on the Post Office and Post Office staff. In 1977, the Supreme court heard similar arguments in Trans World Atlantic vV. Hardison. 1 In this case, which concerned a Jewish man who refused to work on Saturdays to observe the Ssabbath, the court found that a business must provide religious accommodations to workers unless those accommodations create a “more than de minimis cost” 2 on the business. This means that, if the business is expected to provide accommodations that result in undue hardship (iI.e. fFinancially or non-financial difficulties), 3, then the business is not required to

provide that accommodation. This decision attempts to balance the rights of individuals as well as corporations. Not only does it carve out a specific protection for those with religious exemptions, but it ensures that businesses and other employees aren’t suffering exorbitant costs associated with those exemptions. In this case, Mr. Groff’s actions clearly precipitated exorbitant costs for other employees as well as the USPS. At USPS, Mr. Groff worked as a Rural Carrier Associate , or (RCA).

4. An RCA is a part time employee

As the government in this case had to craft their own definition of undue hardship, businesses, individuals, and courts alike have trouble understanding where to draw the line between the rights of individuals and corporations. who is asked to fill in for extra shifts.

In the job description, the USPS requires that RCA’s be “flexible.”

4 Though, when the new Sunday delivery schedule was created, Mr. Groff refused to work. Instead of applying for a new position that required less flexibility, Mr. Groff demanded to be accommodated. To work around Mr. Groff’s schedule,

the USPS strained to find workers who would be willing to pick up additional hours during the holiday season. The Postmaster General of Groff’s station reported asking dozens of other RCA’s to pick up extra routes and hours to meet demand.

The Postmaster Ggeneral reported that finding other employees to cover for Mr. Groff week in and week out was “significantly time consuming.”

5 Furthermore, when other employees learned that they would be required to pick up additional hours, they developed “resentment towards management.” 5 Being a small office, these hardships were enough for two lower courts to agree 6 with the post office. Since Mr. Groff ignored the requirements of his employment, he forced management to lose money by focusing on his scheduling difficulties rather than their primary role to deliver mail. Furthermore, because employees resigned over the tense atmosphere Mr. Groff’s exemption created in the office, monetary problems snowballed into a significant issue. Therefore, since Mr. Groff’s exemption clearly created economic hardship for the USPS, the Hardison ruling clears the company from recognizing Mr. Groff’s religious exemption.

Although Mr. Groff’s actions placed significant hardship on USPS, it also placed hardship on the employees of USPS. In 2016, a union representing postal workers entered into a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with the USPS. In the CBA, members agreed that the USPS must task special deliveries to part time workers whose sole purpose is to work on Sundays or holidays. 7. This CBA stipulated these special deliveries would be staffed on a rotating basis, so as not to burden any particCONTINUED ON PAGE 24

TWO VIEWS | 23

THE ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF GROFF CONTINUED FROM PAGE 10 . . .Groff’s appeal. In an amicus brief filed with the court, these groups argued that the Hardison ruling is harmful to minority religious groups and that the Supreme Court should interpret “undue hardship” as having its ordinary, contemporary, and common meaning at the time the statute was enacted. Echoing Groff, they point to dictionary definitions and other statutes, which view an undue hardship as one that imposes “significant cost”.

The National Jewish Commission on Law and Public Affairs also filed a brief, arguing that the Hardi-

son ruling gives a “stingy interpretation” to a civil-rights amendment designed to grant fair opportunities for devout adherents to religious principles. The document highlights the disparity between the legal accommodations made for other factors, such as age, gender, disability, sexual orientation, pregnancy and paternity, and the lack of accommodations for religious observance.

The brief also lists numerous cases in which the Hardison ruling has impaired employment opportunities for Jewish Sabbath-observing Americans.

The amicus briefs filed with the court emphasize the greater reliance of minority religious groups on workplace accommodations and the importance of this case for upholding religious freedom as a constitutional right. The Postal Office’s failure to accommodate Groff’s religious practice is just one example of the systemic abuse of religious freedoms that the current legal standard affords to employers. Thus, the Supreme Court should rule in favor of Gerald Groff to solve this long overdue problem.

THE ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF DEJOY CONTINUED FROM PAGE 11 ular employee. Though Mr. Groff, an RCA required to work Sundays and Holidays, ended any possibility of a fair rotation by refusing to work on Sundays. By placing the . . . . .burden on his fellow RCA’s, Mr. Groff restricted the rights guaranteed to other employees in the CBA. In fact, the issues became so severe that one employee filed a complaint with the Union that negotiated the CBA. He argued: “Hhe had been forced to work Sundays to cover for [Mr. Groff] in contravention of the [CBA].” 8 Therefore, since Mr. Groff’s actions violated the rights of other employees, he was created an additional, undue hardship.

Though, despite the hardships Mr. Groff’s exemption created, his religious views still deserve protection. The first amendment to the U.S. The Constitution reads: “Con-

24 | TWO VIEWS

gress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting its free exercise.” 9 Just like any other citizen, Mr. Groff should be allowed to exercise his religious beliefs freely. Although it’s this paper’s contention that Trans World Atlantic V. Hardison strikes down Mr. Groff’s petition, this paper also believes that the case holds the key to unlocking the free exercise of religion in the workplace. The skeleton of Hardison is perfect—. Iit clearly lays out to future courts that the rights of individuals and corporations should be respected. However, Hardison argues that religious expression should only be protected until the business experiences an undue hardship.

Vaguely defined, as the government in this case had to craft their own definition of undue hardship, businesses, individuals, and courts alike

have trouble understanding where to draw the line between the rights of individuals and corporations.

Therefore, if the Supreme Court or Congress were to create a fair definition of undue hardship. Once clearly defined, the perfect skeleton of Hardison can finally be applied to any situation. Businesses and individuals would have a clear understanding of their rights. Furthermore, employees would understand what their eligibility is for particular jobs and positions. A world where Hardison was more clearly defined would strike a near perfect harmony between freedom of religion and the rights of corporations.

OPINION

DECRIMINALIZATION OF MARIJUANA

by JANE JUSKO

STAFF WRITER

M

arisa Garcia grew up in Los Angeles, California, attended Cal State Fullerton, and was arrested on a marijuana possession charge at 19. She’d stopped for gas, went inside to pay, and returned to find a police car pulled up behind hers.

The car was searched, and she was arrested for a pipe containing nothing but ash. She pled guilty and paid $400 worth of court fees. This was the summer before her first semester of college, when she also learned having a drug conviction was sufficient reason for revoking federal financial aid. Her simple possession charge ultimately cost her not only court fees but thousands in tuition payments, as her sentence led to her first year of aid being revoked. Garcia’s family had to take out a line of equity on their house to finance her education.

Garcia’s story is not an outlier.

Rather, hers falls on the lenient side despite the financial strain on her family—had she a second conviction, her aid would have been suspended longer, and more would have suspended it indefinitely.

However, the tide is turning towards marijuana in the United States. As of 2021, more than two-thirds of US adults support legalizing marijuana, and 22 states, Washington, D.C., and Guam passed measures doing so.

Last October, Joe Biden pardoned all US federal marijuana possession offenses, a major step toward decriminalization. However, marijuana convictions continue where the drug remains illegal, producing more

stories like Garcia’s. The federalThe federal criminalization of cannabis has created wrongs stretching back decades only its legalization can begin to right.

The War on Drugs thrust marijuana into the spotlight as the companion to the crack epidemic of the 1980s. It didn’t take center stage until the 1990s when US drug arrests shifted from heroin and cocaine to marijuana, with marijuana offenses constituting 82% of the increase in drug arrests from 1990 to 2002. As of 2010, 52% of all drug arrests were for marijuana-related offenses. Moreover, a 2013 ACLU report found Black people were 3.73 times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than white people despite using the drug at similar rates. From 2001 to 2010, racial disparities in marijuana possession arrests increased in 38 out of 50 states. Trends in national attitudes towards marijuana and racial disparities in arrests

saw an inverse: As one warmed up, the other doubled down.

Even these staggering statistics miss the full impact of the criminalization of marijuana. A first-offense possession charge is a misdemeanor, and it carries the possibility of up to one year in jail and a minimum fine of $1,000. It’s no small thing when the median bank account balance in the US is $5,300. . In many states, this charge also results in people’s driver’s licenses being suspended, restricting their transportation access. This, in turn, limits their access to jobs with which they might earn enough to pay off the fine. These fines increase as the sale and cultivation of even the smallest amounts of cannabis carry a fine of up to $250,000 and up to five years in prison.

Both actions are also felonies, and the consequences compound—felons in 48 states are banned from CONTINUED ON PAGE 26

| brett levin / license: cc by 2.0

OPINION | 25

“Taking these penalties in tandem with the racial disparity in arrests

sheds light on the deeper, unjust impact of marijuana’s criminalization on Black Americans.”

CONTINUED FROM PAGE 25

. . .voting, cannot sit on a jury in 43 states, and face restrictions on their access to federal assistance including Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and public housing. U.S. law pencils people convicted of felonies out of participation in democratic processes and revokes their access to government assistance. Taking these penalties in tandem with the racial disparity in arrests sheds light on the deeper, unjust impact of marijuana’s criminalization on Black Americans. Legalizing marijuana federally would reduce the number of people of color implicated unjustly in the criminal justice system.

Moreover, it remains unclear

what harm marijuana causes to merit these penalties. The lifetime dependence risk of cannabis remains lower than those of nicotine and alcohol, and research has suggested marijuana lacks the effects of a gateway drug.

A 2023 Journal of Health Economics study has even shown legalizing cannabis use results in a reduction in prescriptions of codeine, a common opioid, and its authors even suggest this indicates a replacement effect where the reduction in codeine prescriptions represents a reduction in its recreational use due to the legalization of cannabis.

The War on Drugs recently has, in many ways, become a War on Marijuana, but as more states

continue to legalize it, this is a war marijuana seems to be winning—as of 2021, nearly half (49%) of US adults have tried cannabis. A bill to federally decriminalize marijuana has passed the House of Representatives and remains on the Senate floor; its passage would be in favor of protecting people’s rights and curtailing the harms of the War on Drugs. As data on drug use and policing reflects the disproportionate harm criminalizing marijuana has wrought on Black communities in the United States, it becomes increasingly clear the law needs to align with the growing public consensus: it’s time for marijuana to be legalized federally.

THREADBARE IMPRESSIONS: FASHION IN THE WORKPLACE

by ELIJAH BULLIE

of attire in the legal field is most immediately observable on the basis STAFF WRITER of class. We all have a mental image “Dress for success.” of the shark lawyer: sharply tailored “The clothes make the man.” n film, television, and ads, expres- suit, shiny patent leather shoes, sions like these sing the same tune: maybe Ray-Bans if they’re feeling dangerous. While the reality for What you wear matters, not just to most legal professionals may not be yourself, but to those around you. as glamorous as HBO’s Suits, there is Although the pressures of appearance are by no means unique to the a standard dress code. For socio-ecolegal field, in a profession with dress nomically disadvantaged individuals, the bar of fashionable presentation codes spanning from powdered may be just as difficult to navigate as wigs to jeggings, it’s no wonder the the Bar Exam itself. The vast dispariquestion of “what to wear” causes ty between the luxury looks of higha flurry of worry for many professionals. Paired with ever-accelerating class professionals and the outfits of cycles of trends and rapidly evolving your average J.D. Joe can be discouraging; however, relief is rapidly socio-political implications in presentation, uncertainties are inevita- approaching. As older employers ble for any legal professional, partic- leave the workforce, the millennial ularly those historically marginalized wave gathers momentum, bringing from the legal industry. The tension an onslaught of equity.

I

26 | OPINION

Sarah Landrum argues in Forbes that “yes, one of those new consensuses seems to be an ever-wider appreciation for less formal attire.

In some ways, it was inevitable— relaxed social “decency” standards mean we don’t need bonnets, hats, ankle-length dresses, stockings, overcoats, or gloves anymore.” As professionals presently aged 20-40 become the dominant demographic in the legal field, historically strict standards of physical appearance are loosening, allowing those without the capital for conformity to finally fit in.

The trouble with knowing what to wear stems from constantly changing dress code “norms.” Long gone are the days of skirts for ladies and trousers for men. Just as our CONTINUED ON PAGE 28

THE ICJ’S INEFFICIENCY IN HUMAN RIGHTS DISPUTES

by SAMUEL ESPINAL JR

cy, human rights should be socially defined domestically rather than globally. uman rights were initially The ICJ is notorious for its limited to our basic needs: inefficiency in mediating disputes. food, water, and a residence. As Though the court has a thorough society expanded, so did the scope of decision-making process, delays in “human rights”; additional condeciding cases permit countries to cepts became essential in describing overpower the court and stagnate what humans were entitled to. The human rights within a regime’s International Court of Justice (ICJ) lifespan. in the Hague, Netherlands has On June 11, 2018, Qatar filed played a significant role in mediata claim against the United Arab ing human rights discourse. The Emirates (UAE), accusing them of ICJ has unlimited jurisdiction over violating the International Conveninter-country disputes, but its scope tion on the Eliminatinon of All of adjudication becomes limited Forms of Racial Discrimination when these disputes involve human (CERD).

legal services. On April 30, 2019, the UAE objected, doubting whether the Court had jurisdiction and if CERD was applicable. After public hearings in 2020, the ICJ upheld the UAE’s objections and found it lacked the jurisdiction to entertain Qatar’s claim on February 4, 2021.

The UAE pausing and eliminating a three-year-long process displayed the court’s weakness in handling human rights issues.

Though the subject is nuanced the ICJ ultimately revealed to the public it was wrong and wasted its efforts.

During the legal process, the UAE’s Prime Minister changed as Khalid bin Khalifa bin Abdul Aziz Al Thani was instated in January 2020.

Changes in countries’ representation often reflect shifts in social values.

The public remains content with political leaders if they represent their opinions, highlighting how society defines the legal system through rulings and legislation. As generational and political changes define the majority at a given moment, these changes reflect the transition of political leaders. Consequently, temporal distance between major decisions limits the court’s legitimacy as countries and their leaders frown upon the ICJ’s decisions.

This notion is clear in Croatia v.

Serbia: Application of the ConvenOpening day of hearings to address Qatar’s claims against the UAE for racially discrimition on the Prevention and Punishnatory practices | un photo/icj-cij/frank van beek. courtesy of the icj. all rights reserved ment of the Crime of Genocide. In rights. The public looks towards the Specifically, the UAE implemented 1999, Croatia accused the Federal court as the ICJ determines what is discriminatory measures against Republic of Yugoslavia of genocide. considered a human right. However, Qataris based on their nationality.

The crime of genocide contains two the court faces a double bind: While Initially, the Court, on July 23, constituent elements: physical (the the public looks towards the court 2018, decided it could review the acts conducted inflict bodily or menfor an example, a ruling can harm interpretation of CERD in this con- tal harm to the targeted group) and the court’s legitimacy if the ruling text. The Court initially decided the mental (intent). Following the filing, doesn’t match the current social UAE must reunite Qatari families Yugoslavia objected to the Court’s attitude. Due to the ICJ’s inefficien- and grant affected Qataris access to CONTINUED ON PAGE 29 STAFF WRITER

H

OPINION | 27

THREADBARE IMPRESSIONS: FASHION IN THE WORKPLACE CONTINUED FROM PAGE 26 . . .collective understanding of conceived notion of respectable between Dove, the National Urban nuanced gender relations and iden- workplace appearance need not League, Color Of Change, and the tities needs to evolve, so does our be limited to gender: Race also Western Center on Law & Poveracceptance of diversity in gender demands this consideration. Legal ty. The act, implemented in 2019, presentation, particularly in the professionals of color are already demands legal protection from workplace. Department stores may strained; they bend over backward discrimination based on hair texture remain divided into “Men’s” and to code-switch their speech, unor protective styles of Black hair.

“Women’s,” but consumer interderstand foreign cultural contexts, “Implicit and explicit biases ests have developed. For LGBT+ and justify what their background against natural hair are deeply community members whose gender offers. What’s more, there’s an ingrained in workplace norms isn’t represented by a simple binary, implicit bias against styles deemed and society at large and continue the choice between skirt, slacks, or the legacy of dehumanizing Black other, carries a significance deeper people… no one should be harassed, Clothes do not than polyester. Besides navigating punished, or fired for the beautiful the treacherous waters of workmake the man, and hairstyles that are true to themwear, non-binary and gender-nonselves and their cultural heritage,” neither does hair, conforming folks are tasked with U.S. Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) make-up, or Rayself-expression in a professional said in an appeal to the Senate on setting without drawing unwanted Bans. Though it may March 27, 2021. Professionals and attention or endangering themstudents sporting styles such as box seem like the jourselves. Following questions of the braids, bantu knots, locs, twists, spectacle and safety of individuals’ ney is slow, the legal and more are now protected from gender presentations come concerns the denial of employment and industry is surely about respectability. “At a law firm, educational opportunities groundmarching toward ac- ed in prejudiced preconceptions of what we’re looking for is for your presence to have a trustworthy and ceptance and equity respectability. executive nature. Whether you There is no right way to “dress identify that as being a suit and tie for success.” For people who spend in workplace attire. or you identify that as being in belttheir working days studying rules, it ed dress, either works as long as it might come as a shock that the only comes across polished and modern distinctly “ethnic.” Certain patterns faux pas in fashion is exclusionary and clean, wrinkle-free,” Lauren A. and garments are warned against, ideas of what a legal professional Rothman said in an interview with lest they be viewed as too loud, looks like. Nonetheless, it’s true: The New York Times As queer distracting, or different. For Black Clothes do not make the man, and folks rise to meet present standards people, hair is one such problema- neither does hair, makeup, or Rayfor professional attire, there must tized accessory. Luckily, pioneers Bans. Though it may seem like the be a subsequent softening of our have made recent strides to protect journey is slow, the legal industry is social fabric, opening up our hearts Black and brown professionals from surely marching toward acceptance and minds towards authentic preemployment or promotional disand equity in workplace attire. sentation, regardless of its conforcrimination through the law. The mity with expectations.

Crown Act was pioneered by the The elimination of our preCrown Coalition, a collaboration

“

”

28 | OPINION

“Placing human rights under diplomacy paces the way for the broader development of global consciousness, better achieving the ICJ’s goal: maintaining peace.”

CONTINUED FROM PAGE 27

doesn’t rectify the dejection resultjurisdiction over Croatia’s claims. In ing from the Court’s repeated public 2008, the Court rejected Serbia’s ob- acknowledgment of mistakes. jections. By then, the Federal RepubPrimarily responsible for settling lic of Yugoslavia became the Repub- international human rights conflicts, lic of Serbia, significantly shifting the the public trusts how the court’s Eastern European political climate. decisions can affect their country’s In 2010, the Republic of Serbia filed image. The ICJ’s decisions reflect counterclaims, prompting the court how citizens should view their counto hold public hearings in 2014 and tries in the contexts of global unity deliver its judgment in 2015. Follow- and nationalistic identity. ing a 16-year process, the ICJ conThe public grows invested in the cluded it lacked jurisdiction. trial as they believe their country Ultimately, legal processes takeembodies what they stand for; the considerable time. In fact, some cases ICJ provides or removes legitimacy take decades before reaching a reso- from this belief accordingly. But lution. However, the problem lies in watching a case accomplishes nothhow the public perceives the Court’s ing if the public isn’t granted a final adjudication. The ICJ reflects the verdict. Canceling leaves gray area, United Nations (UN) as its highest confusing the public about how to court. move forward.

Though the Court seeks transparThe ICJ should instead relegate ency through public hearings, this human rights discourse to countries,

so they can compromise diplomatically.

Countries can negotiate through conferences or treaties, better knowing their nations’ needs. A country’s political climate better reflects its social values. Though the Court aims for impartiality, the global context is influential when determining human rights. Not only does the ICJ’s inefficiency make it less suited to handle conflicts, but placing human rights under diplomacy paves the way for the broader development of global consciousness, better achieving the ICJ’s goal: maintaining peace.

JOHN ROBERTS AND THE SHELBY DELUSION

by AHMED AHMED

right to vote.

The end of Reconstruction, STAFF WRITER beyond its immediate impact on the f the 1860s was a period of bloody Black residents of Southern states, violence giving way to the end also set the stage for a century and of the slavocracy, the 1870s was a a half of the republic’s central civil period of bloody violence largely battle: the fight for political equality reversing the previous decade’s progress. Humiliated by the North, to fulfill Reconstruction’s promise against the principle of near-absolute Southern supporters of slavery channeled their burning grievances state sovereignty over elections.

Central to the 2013 Shelby into widespread attempts to topple County v. Holder case was not just a Reconstruction-era governments constitutional interpretation of the and recreating pre-Civil War systems of racial hierarchy. As backlash Tenth Amendment, but the same against Reconstruction radicalized, battle between voting rights and thousands of Southerners terrorized states’ rights defining the latter 19th century. Distraught over minimal ratheir Black fellow citizens, particularly those exercising their newfound cial progress in the American South,

I

Congress passed the Voting Rights Act (VRA) which, along with banning practices used to discriminate against Black voters, subjected several states and counties to a “preclearance” requirement. Aware of the shortcomings of only using litigation against the new methods of voter discrimination, the Voting Rights Act required legislators to receive authorization from the Department of Justice when changing their electoral systems. Section 4(b) of the bill established the formula adjudicating what jurisdictions were under the requirement’s purview.

Almost 50 years after Congress CONTINUED ON PAGE 30

OPINION | 29

JOHN ROBERTS AND THE SHELBY DELUSION CONTINUED FROM PAGE 29 attempted to crush the cornerstone of Jim Crow—the denial of voting rights—the Court ruled their method was antiquated and violated the Tenth Amendment. Chief Justice John Roberts authoring the majority opinion, bemoans how “states must beseech the Federal Government for permission to implement laws that they would otherwise have the right to enact and execute on their own.” The federal government’s disparate treatment of states was “extraordinary,” “unprecedented,” and an excuse to “punish for the past.” Breaking with Constitutional norms, Roberts quickly clarifies, was justified when the Voting Rights Act was initially signed. The pervasiveness of electoral racial discrimination and the extent to which it was concentrated in particular areas created leeway for differential treatment by the federal government.

That leeway, however, tightened significantly as Southern states considerably progressed in eliminating racial inequalities in elections. As the majority proudly notes, by 2004, “African-American voter turnout exceeded white voter turnout in five of the six States originally covered by §5, with a gap in the sixth State of less than one half of one percent.”

Equal treatment of states could be overlooked when Southern states’ conduct was more egregious than those of their Northern and Western compatriots. However, that justification could no longer fly.

It would be wrong, both historiographically and morally, to say the

30 | OPINION

Court’s decision isn’t meaningfully distinct from the phenomena initially motivating the VRA. The majority clearly demonstrates their belief that the Voting Rights Act was, once, rational for dismantling the system of racial brutality in the South and specially denounces the “reign of Jim Crow” which “denied African-Americans the most

future racial equality.

“History,” the opinion lectures, “did not end in 1965.”

Ironically, the majority’s insistence that institutional voting discrimination has largely become non-threatening makes the same mistake: casting an easy paradigm onto a complex history. In 1995, for example, the VRA prevented Mississippi from having two voter The majority, how- registration systems: one for federal and another for state elecever, is more sensi- elections, tions, finding it would discriminate tive to claims that against minority voters. As Justice preclearance drags Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted in her dissent, “Congress found there were the South backward, more DOJ objections between 1982 insisting on remind- and 2004 (626) than between 1965 and the 1982 reauthorization (490).” ing us of the racial Following the Shelby decision, there have been a wave of discriminatory warfare of before changes in former preclearrather than progress- electoral ance areas, a trend the Roberts court ing to future racial is poised to let continue unabated.

These laws, and the wave of bills equality. states passed following Shelby, are not proof the U.S. hasn’t improved basic freedoms.” since Jim Crow. What it proves, What is accurate, though, is that however, is how integral the tools the court is using a time-honored designed to reign it in are decades tradition of valuing an amorphous later. The delusion central to Shelby sense of grievance among states over is that these tools are no longer usetheir residents’ fundamental rights. ful, a belief buoyed by their success.

VRA defenders see the debate as a The vision of VRA defenders is not clean-cut question of whether or not one of eternal vengeance against the the right to vote should be protectSouth, but progress toward the legal ed. The majority, however, is more equality Reconstruction promised. sensitive to claims that preclearance drags the South backward, insisting on reminding us of the racial warfare of before rather than progressing to

“

”

THE CRIMINALIZATION OF MENTAL HEALTH

by EMMA HUERTA

possible score among the 50 states.

The law’s downfalls are likely due to infrequent updates; its latest update he Florida Mental Health Act—the Baker Act—was im- in 2022 was only the second set of plemented in 1972 to legally protect improvements (the first being in those with mental illness and fortify 1996) since it was first signed.2 The most evident issue with the community mental health services.

Baker Act is municipal law enforceSpecifically, it aims to preserve the ment agencies’ authority to assess civil rights of persons with mental illness such that involuntary evalua- mental health crises. Persons are tion and/or commitment is the last eligible to be “Baker-acted” through resort. When involuntary procedures three possible ways. The first is if are needed, the Baker Act strives to someone signs an affidavit describing why a person meets Baker Act ensure one’s liberty remains intact STAFF WRITER

T

throughout the process. The law The Baker Act is also requires the Florida Department of Children and Families to provide used to immediately mental health treatment programs. deal with children’s However, presently, “Baker Act” connotes a more dystopian reality. mental illnesses, putThe Baker Act intended to facilting out small fires itate more voluntary mental health rather than confrontexaminations. However, the most significant practice it has established ing root issues. is legal involuntary commitment.

The law permits someone who (1) criteria that is later approved by a suffers from mental illness and (2) presents danger to oneself and/or to circuit judge, who issues an ex parte order (a temporary motion granted others or is seriously neglectful of without the opposing party’s say). oneself to be taken to a “receiving The second way is if a law enforcefacility”—a local hospital or crisis ment officer is called to or present unit—for up to 72 hours. at a situation in which someone apThe legality of the Baker Act pears to be suffering from a mental relies heavily on the harm clause. illness and presents a risk to themEssentially, the person unwillingly selves or others. The third way is if a undergoing psychiatric evaluation doctor or other healthcare provider or commitment presents potential danger to themselves or others. The decides a person meets Baker Act criteria. Law enforcement officers Baker Act’s legal provisions intend are critical actors in the involuntary for its long-term benefits to outweigh the opportunity costs. Unfor- examination process. They are not tunately, this is rarely if ever the case. only entitled to decide on a person’s mental health state, but are also The Baker Act doesn’t adequately solely responsible for bringing the execute its objectives. In fact, the “Baker-acted” person to a receiving Treatment Advocacy Center gave Florida’s involuntary treatment pro- facility.

Consequently, law enforcement grams a “D” score, the third lowest officers’ outsized role perpetuates

“

”

unfair school policing. The 20202021 school year marked a 77% increase in Baker Act examinations on schoolchildren from the past decade. In many conflict scenarios, the Baker Act is used to momentarily deal with a child having a mental health crisis. Furthermore, minimal infrastructure for post-examination care denies the long-term well-being of Baker-acted children. The Baker Act is used to immediately deal with children’s mental illnesses, putting out small fires rather than confronting root issues.

Law enforcement’s new power also culminates in another issue: elder mistreatment. Because of the involuntary examination provisions, those caring for elders tend to call law enforcement and cause elders to be Baker-acted at higher rates.

Having law enforcement be the first point-of-contact for elderly persons being processed under a Baker Act ordinance presents liberty and safety issues. Moreover, the elderly individuals being Baker-acted, while distressed or confused, often do not need psychiatric examination or commitment. Florida categorizes Alzheimer’s and dementia as mental illnesses when the nature of both neurological disorders differs from a mental health crisis. There have even been cases in which elderly people with either or both disorders were mistreated or even died in psychiatric care after being Baker-acted. Given its current execution, Baker Act experiences can be more harmful, especially to the elderly.

Law enforcement officials typically responding to mental health crises are ill-equipped for de-escalation, let alone appropriately judging a person’s mental state and CONTINUED ON PAGE 32

OPINION | 31

THE CRIMINALIZATION OF MENTAL HEALTH CONTINUED FROM PAGE 31 needs. Hence, policies like Laura’s Law in California which implement assisted outpatient treatment (AOT)—court-ordered, self-directed, and guided mental health programs—are significantly more effective at addressing mental health concerns.

Furthermore, although the Baker Act’s main contribution to legal

mental health crisis procedure was expanding initial evaluations, the follow-up process has been neglected.

The Baker Act neglects the fact that mental illness crises often go beyond 72 hours.

Nevertheless, the law’s provisions do not establish resources for “Baker-acted” persons following their initial evaluation. Alternatively, other

state policies explicitly establish longterm rights for those suffering from mental illness following legally-mandated examination.

Overall, Florida’s Baker Act charges law enforcement with handling mental health crises they are ill-equipped for, accumulating into other issues such as school policing and elder abuse.

FROM BAIL TO INCARCERATION: THE CASH BAIL SYSTEM’S CYCLE OF INJUSTICE as those given to white defendants.

by ELIJAH JENKINS STAFF WRITER

This issue did not arise because of problems within our legislative syso understand the inequities of cash bail system is “one of the most tem, but rather from the injustices the United States cash bail sys- corrupt and broken parts of our rampant in the U.S. judicial system. tem, we must first know its origins. justice system.”

In a study done in District Courts Prior to 1789, there was no legal In 2014, the median annual across Boston, Baltimore, Miami, precedent for the practice of bail un- income before incarceration, among and Salt Lake City, 95% of the defentil the Judiciary Act of 1789. Going incarcerated individuals, was apdants impacted by cash bail in these forward, bail was placed on all crimes proximately $19,185. This disparity districts were people of color. Morenot punishable by death, allowing has led low-income defendants to be over, more than one-quarter of these citizens to remain at home until more likely to be held in jail for lon- federal courts remanded individuals their case was decided. This system ger periods of time than socioecoduring the bail process without even was founded upon the Constitution, nomically better-off defendants able providing them with legal represenguaranteeing citizens to be innocent to pay bail. Ultimately, the cash bail tation. The U.S. cash bail system until proven guilty. However, a system has prevented more than 30% functions as though each part of the system intended to allow individuals of inmates who were jailed pretrial U.S. government fairly abides by its their freedom until a conviction has from posting bail. Through systemic promises; however, this has proven ultimately failed to be upheld. Our injustices affecting predominantly to be false. David Arnold and Will government today has feared chang- low-income communities, the cycle Dobbie of Princeton University ing this system because of its inabili- of going from jail to prison is a naralongside Crystal S. Yang of Harvard ty to predict the future consequenc- rative common among low-income Law School state in their paper in es of change. This rationale has been communities and communities of The Quarterly Journal of Economthe U.S.’s biggest asset in preserving color in the United States. ics,“we find suggestive evidence that democratic principles, but it is also For instance, studies have shown this racial bias is driven by bail judges our greatest weakness.

Black defendants are not only more relying on inaccurate stereotypes Today, the cash bail system does likely to be denied bail but also more that exaggerate the relative danger not uphold the constitutionally likely to be held in jail before trial of releasing black defendants.” If promised presumption that all than white defendants. Based on the we are unable to control the racial citizens are innocent but instead Bureau of Justice Statistics, in large biases affecting the cash bail system, restricts people’s rights and denies urban areas, Black Americans are at eliminating it entirely may be the their freedom. Udi Odfer, a direcleast 25% more likely to be held in only form of action left. tor at the American Civil Liberties pretrial detention and more likely Currently, in Chicago, lawmakers Union (ACLU), stated that the U.S. to receive bail amounts twice as high

T

32 | OPINION

are addressing the cash bail system’s inequities with the SAFE-T Act. Signed into law in 2021 by Governor J.B. Pritzker, the SAFE-T Act starts January 1, 2023, and states that defendants charged with criminal charges won’t be required to pay cash to be released while awaiting trial. State Senator Scott Bennett (D-Champaign) argued the SAFE-T Act is a necessary development because “it’s vital the pretrial system in Illinois remains equitable and that all individuals are treated fairly, regardless of financial status.” Although there is minimal data regarding the law’s effects on Chicago yet, the hope is for this policy to eliminate the number of non-violent defendants crowding Illinois jails. As of now, Illinois is being viewed as a test run for a potential policy blueprint that can eventually be widely implemented.

The United States cash bail system has flouted the principle that citizens are innocent until proven guilty.

Over time, it has become a system unfairly restricting freedom and working against low-income individuals and communities of color.

Through prejudice and discrimination, judges have disregarded the law, leading to a disproportionate number of people of color being remanded. Now, the SAFE-T Act in Chicago has become a potential beacon of hope in its effort to address the inequities in allocating justice by eliminating the cash bail requirement and implementing measures to improve the criminal justice system. New policies need to be created for true monumental change in the United States. If this can’t be accomplished, removing the cash bail system is the only choice to be made.

OPINION | 33

INTERVIEWS

SHARON R. FAIRLEY: AN EXPERT ON CIVILIAN OVERSIGHT

by PIETRO JUVARA STAFF WRITER

T

he University of Chicago Law School is home to some of the foremost legal experts in the world.

Among them is Professor from Practice Sharon R. Fairely, who has dedicated her life to transforming the landscape of police accountability in Chicago, as well as studying civilian oversight all across the country. A graduate from the Law School herself and a longtime public servant in the city of Chicago, she founded the city’s current police oversight office before eventually returning to the university to teach and research civilian oversight full time. I had the privilege of sitting down with Professor Fairley to discuss her fascinating path to professorhood and the field of police accountability and civilian oversight.

Sharon R. Fairley grew up in suburban Maryland, outside of Washington DC. Both of her parents worked in education, impressing on her a strong desire to work in the public sphere. “I was raised by two public servants”, Fairley explained, “and I was inspired by the work of my parents and so I went to law school with the idea of doing public service of some kind.” While she would make good on her service-oriented values throughout her legal career, her path to law was anything but straightforward. Professor Fairley initially graduated from Princeton University with a degree in Aerospace Engineering (“people are always like ‘whaaat?’”), before getting her MBA at Wharton School of

34 | INTERVIEWS

Business. Despite a successful initial career managing a pharmaceutical company, Fairley returned to school to study law. When asked about her diverse educational background, she asserted that it ultimately helped her: “I feel like I was at an advantage for a lot of reasons,” she laughed, “first of all being a lawyer having had the analytical skills of an engineer.

Having had marketing experience,

ences. She told me about one of her first cases, where a victim’s father embraced her after a successful trial, “I felt this weight come off my shoulder. The weight of responsibility to bring justice for this family…it was the only time I cried on the job.” After eight years working as a prosecutor, Fairley was appointed to be General Counsel for Chicago’s Office of the Inspector General. She described

Professor Sharon R. Fairley speaks as the chief administrator for Independent Police Review Authority for Chicago | photo courtesy of associated press

law is all about communication and selling…As a lawyer what are you doing? You’re selling your case.” Those skills were put to good use as Fairley graduated and went on to become a federal prosecutor in the Northern District here in Illinois.

As a prosecutor, Professor Fairley was exposed to life-changing experi-

that “the mission of the Inspector General’s office is to root out waste and inefficiency and corruption in the city’s agencies. I don’t know if you’ve heard, but Chicago has some issues there…” We laugh together.

“The challenge was managing the work, deciding where you want to place the agency’s resources.” Fairley

“It’s all about enhancing public safety–that’s the endgame, to help

support stronger accountability systems because that’s what makes us all safer.” professor sharon r. fairley

university of chicago law school

had several primary responsibilities: providing legal advice and lawsuit response, and then aiding with the legality of ongoing investigations herself.

All of this went on until 2014, when a young man named Laquan McDonald was tragically shot by a Chicago Police officer. The following year, footage revealed that the shooting was unprovoked and the officer was charged with first-degree murder. In the aftermath of the attack, and in the wake of an impending investigation from the Department of Justice, Fairley was appointed as the new head of the Independent Police Review Agency (IPRA), the city’s police accountability arm at the time. “IPRA was created in 2008,” Fairley tells me, “and if you look at the ordinance that created it, it sounds great on paper! It had subpoena power, jurisdiction over serious excessive force- all problematic areas. And it was meant to be an independent agency from the police department.” It became apparent, however, that IPRA had not lived up to its design. According to Fairley, the organization was “never fully independent from the police department”, it was “extremely under-resourced”, and as Fairley points out, “it was not very transparent, which is really important when it comes to an accountability system.” The mounting issues with IPRA eventually proved too insurmountable, which prompted Fairley to create a new

agency altogether. activity through her connections, as From the skeleton of IPRA, well as her research. Ultimately, her Sharon R. Fairley founded the Civil- core values and upbringing led her ian Office of Police Accountability back into education. “I come from a (COPA), in the hopes of correcting long line of educators, it was kind of its mistakes. She tells me that her a natural evolution for me to go back office had four key themes that they to law school.” As a Professor from wanted to implement into COPA: Practice, Fairley teaches the next independence, “we didn’t want the generations of law school students, mayor’s people telling us how to in- as well as conduct her own research vestigate our cases”; integrity, “to en- on the multitude of existing civilian sure the process that the agency took accountability systems. She was hapto investigate matters had integrity”; py to give us a preview of some of timeliness, since “complainants had her current work: “I’m working on felt with IPRA that their concerns a project right now that’s all about would go into a black hole and never coming up with empirical evidence be addressed”; and transparency, to support why [civilian oversight] which started with making cases agencies need more resources. Somepublicly available with redactions times it’s hard when you don’t have when necessary. For Fairley, this was some empirical evidence to show “the only way for the community to that if you give us this money to evaluate the quality of what we do invest in, it’s gonna help us fulfill our as an agency.” The four key themes mission even better, quicker, faster, sought to correct all of the key issues and with greater integrity.” with IPRA. All of it was in an effort For Shannon R. Fairley, “it’s all to build trust with the Chicago com- about enhancing public safety–that’s munity, as well as the law enforcethe endgame, to help support stronment force. Building COPA was the ger accountability systems because culmination of Fairley’s life experi- that’s what makes us all safer.” ences: “everything I had done up to that moment prepared me for the role I had with COPA,” she tells me.

“I was actually creating a large city department from scratch…I think most lawyers would not have had the kind of management experience that I had in the corporate world.”

In the nearly six years since she founded COPA, Fairley has kept a close eye on the organization’s

INTERVIEWS | 35

UPCOMING CHI ILLINOIS CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT: section. Being 2022, it is too close to tell how effective this amendment RIGHT TO COLLECTIVE BARGAINING will be, but news of newly organizby KHRISTIAN BASS STAFF WRITER

ing workplaces in Chicago and other areas of Illinois is continuing to mendment 1 is an amendment Amendment 1 would give Illinois develop daily. On November 2, 2022 to the Illinois constitution government unions unprecedented before the amendment was passed, that affirms the right of every embargaining powers that don’t exist in the UChicago Graduate Students ployee to engage in organizing and any other state.” It should be noted United passed an endorsement collective bargaining done through that the Illinois Policy institute has alongside organizers at Northwestrepresentatives in the workplace been a major opponent of progresern University in a meeting with 200 through unions. This amendment sive policies. people. Now that the amendment is meant to use these measures to Supporters of Amendment 1 has been passed, it is likely that even strengthen the ability of unions to are usually supporters of unions more schools across Chicago will be used to change and set into place and the expansion of unions. These move towards graduate student specific hours, wages, and working supporters usually cite unions as unionization. The endorsement for conditions, and to ensure safety in being a source for increased wages Amendment 1 has quickly moved the workplace. On top of this, this and better working conditions. into unilateral action by the Graduamendment will prohibit right-toFrom State Sen. Ram Villivalam (D), ate Students Union at the University work laws. For context, a right-to“The falling rate of unionization of Chicago to turn the suggestions work law is a law that puts it into has lowered wages, not only because that unions are even more encourthe hands of the workers to decide some workers no longer received the aged into the state of Illinois into acif they want to join a union at their higher union wage, but also because tion as the union spurred an election workplace. there is less pressure on nonunion to gain a seat at the bargaining table Opponents of Amendment 1 employers to raise wages. The ability at the end of January. The union usually cite that this Amendment in of unions to set labor standards has will be able to hear about if this allowing for increased unionization declined.” From this Senator, we education is a success in March, but will lead to the average household in can see that the general sentiment in terms of the Amendment we can Illinois paying more money tobehind this amendment is that it is already see that even as close as our ward taxes. From the Illinois Policy sure to positively affect the growth school its effects are already being Institute, “Amendment 1 would of unionization in the United States. felt. Outside of the university, there’s guarantee that the typical Illinois Amendment 1 was put onto also a hope that with the increase in family pays at least $2,149 in higher the ballot on November 8, 2022, union membership across the city property tax bills over the next four where it was passed with a vote there will be a decrease in poverty as years, no matter which politicians count of 2,212,999 (58.72%) for and the two seem to be very connected. hold office or whether they follow 1,555,929 (41.28%) against, meanAll in all, it seems Amendment 1 will through on their campaign promis- ing that it would go into effect, with continue to make strides to protect es. This is a conservative estimate, as- the hope that this will lead to more workers across Illinois, and the peosuming the rapid growth of Illinois’ unionization in the workplace to act ple of Chicago will continue to see property tax burden holds steady. against the 4% drop in union rates its effects.

It’s likely property taxes would over the last 5 years, as was alluded grow at an even faster rate, because to by Sen. Ram Villivalam in the last

A

36 | UPCOMING CHICAGO POLICY

ICAGO POLICY shut down the shop in 2022 after her storefront was damaged by stray bullets. She said that more policing

by ANUSHA MEHTA STAFF WRITER would make her feel safer. Steven newly passed Illinois law bans rights organizations find the term to Lucy, the owner of Open Produce, the purchase of most semi-au- be misleading, as “assault weapons” asserts that increased policing to an tomatic weapons and large-capacity are often referred to as military-style, already heavily patrolled neighborhood won’t change the violent crime magazines. Current semiautomatic despite having high civilian usage. rate, and alternative solutions should weapons owners will be required to The issue of safety has been a be explored. register with the Illinois State Police crucial aspect of debates centering Additionally, many Hyde Park

by January 1, 2024 and its usage this bill. Opinions differ on how to residents also believe that removis restricted to private property or address violent crime in Chicago, ing semi-automatic weapons and approved sites, such as shooting with some advocating for increased high-capacity magazines from ranges. Despite recent controversy policing efforts, while others call violent crimes will reduce the risk of over the term “assault weapons,” this for redirecting resources to address bill has been colloquially nicknamed underlying causes. Many Hyde Park a lethal shooting. UChicago Crime Lab director Kim Smith says that an “assault weapons ban” by both residents expressed safety concerns proponents and opponents. For clar- for the area: Anna York, 76, a Hyde considering ¾ of shootings begin ity, assault weapons generally refer to Park resident since 1982, stated, “It’s with an altercation involving a gun, removing widespread availability of automatic or semi-automatic weap- a wonderful place to live, but there high-capacity magazines could make ons capable of accepting detachable are these really serious issues that these shootings less likely to result in magazines, a pistol grip, and occaare here with us.” Jackie Jackson, sionally other features. Some gun the owner of Kilwins Hyde Park, CONTINUED ON PAGE 38

ILLINOIS’ NEW ASSAULT WEAPON BAN

A

| kevin dietsch / getty images

diate “miracle cures.” NARCAN is

HB 4408: INSURING A SECOND CHANCE arguably one of them. It effectively

by ALEJANDRO SANDOVAL STAFF WRITER

A

victory in the name of harm-reduction nears for Illinois with the passing and signing of HB 4408.

This is a deceptively small, and potentially life-saving amendment to the Illinois insurance code.

HB 4408 amends Illinois statute on coverage and copayments. Illinois statute previously ensured that individual and group policies, including federal healthcare, which cover prescription drugs also cover at least one type of opioid antagonist in full

reverses the occurrence of an opioid overdose, through the quick, safe, and effective form. Included in this and easy administering of a concencoverage are refills for said opioid trated nasal spray – which is not antagonists. HB 4408 now amends harmful, even if administered to the protection of policyholders, en- non-overdosing patients. NARCAN suring that by January 1st, 2024, no is currently mostly available to the providers can impose copayments on general public in most areas of the coverage of naloxone hydrochloride. United States through prescription, This protection is key, as naloxone pharmacy order, and municipal or hydrochloride is the most popularly state programs. However, to the disused and important opioid antago- may of harm-reduction advocates, it nist, branded as NARCAN. is not offered over-the-counter. DeThere are few things in modern spite this, HB 4408 greatly increases medicine that we could call immeCONTINUED ON PAGE 39 UPCOMING CHICAGO POLICY | 37

ILLINOIS’ NEW ASSAULT WEAPON BAN CONTINUED FROM PAGE 37 . . .death.

Primary advocates for this law include Moms Demand Action and Students Demand Action, part of Everytown for Gun Safety’s grassroots network. They claim that this bill will save lives by keeping guns away from people in crisis and holding illegal gun traffickers accountable. The tragedy of Highland Park, an Illinois mass shooting on July 4 in which 7 were killed and 48 were injured, was referenced several times by activists and lawmakers as the law was passed.

However, there are other Chicago residents that voiced concerns about this ban posing a risk to public safety, particularly in high-crime areas where police are unresponsive.

The main opponents of this bill include gun rights groups like the Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA) and the National Rifle Association of America (NRA). They claim that this bill is an infringement of their 2nd and 14th Amendment rights, specifically preventing their right to self-defense. Gun rights advocates

have filed several lawsuits against this ban. In two different lawsuits, both representing over 800 plaintiffs, courts have approved a temporary restraining order on the law. Enforcement of this law is currently blocked for the plaintiffs.

Other gun rights advocates point towards the Supreme Court’s ruling in the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, where they struck down a New York law that may affect the Illinois law. The law considered in Bruen was the Sullivan Act, which required that New York residents who want a concealed-carry permit “demonstrate a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community or of persons engaged in the same profession.” Gun-control advocates argue that the Bruen ruling applies only to concealed carrying.

However, gun-rights advocates cite Justice Thomas’ creation of a new test, which states that gun laws must “The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the na-

tion’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” The NRA used this test to claim this new law is illegal, stating that semiautomatic power is a century old.

While gun-control and gunrights advocates argue over the issue, both sides point to legal precedent, statutes, and data as evidence for their case. Gun-control proponents argue that Illinois is the ninth state to enact an assault weapons ban.

Other states have also faced lawsuits after implementing similar restrictions. Benjamin v. Bailey, a State Supreme Court lawsuit based on Connecticut’s assault weapons ban, upheld a similar Connecticut law.

They cited that the statutory ban on assault weapons does not violate the state constitutional right to bear arms, as the ban continues to permit access to a wide range of weapons.

It remains to be seen whether this law will be upheld or struck down by the courts. The only thing known for certain is that this is a complex, controversial law. The results of this case will set the tone

ARO REVISITED: NEW LOOK, SAME PROBLEMS

by DANIEL KIND STAFF WRITER

T

he stale air stinks of mildew, water-stained paint is peeling off the wall, and if it’s not infested with bugs, the furniture is thrashed.

City Bureau reported on one woman from Belmont Cragin, known pseudonymously as Sandra, who was 3,000 dollars in debt for this apartment. Eventually evicted, she was forced to live with her sister-in-law; only because her teenage son earning extra income through his work at Domino’s could she afford to live elsewhere. In Chicago, her story is increasingly familiar. A 2022 Harris

38 | UPCOMING CHICAGO POLICY

Poll revealed that 25% of Chicagoans say their housing situation is unstable, and just months later, a report from UIC told the city that it still needs 119,000 affordable housing units just to meet current needs.

So what has the city done? They turned to a decades-old policy and tried to give it new life. The Affordable Requirements Ordinance (ARO) has been around since 2007, and it mandates two options for developers: either make 10% of units in their new developments affordable or pay an “in lieu” fee used to fund

other affordable housing programs.

Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. affirmed Chicago’s prerogative to use laws like the ARO to create affordable housing, but it has barely put a dent in Chicago’s housing crisis. As South Side Weekly disclosed, the program produced a mere 1.5% of needed units and only $124 million of “in lieu” payments. So, in October 2019, the city formed the Inclusionary Housing Task Force, which recommended amendments and adjustments to the ARO before CONTINUED ON PAGE 40

HB 4408: INSURING A SECOND CHANCE CONTINUED FROM PAGE 37 . . .the availability of NARCAN, by ensuring that eligible policyholders can access the life-saving drug with no copayment. This lifesaving access to NARCAN is still barred by a considerable cost without coverage – often for those who are most at risk for overdose deaths and exposure to dangerous synthetic opioids. However, HB 4408 does mark progress towards increasing availability, and a better opportunity to stop lethal overdoses.

This step forward is crucial in the context of the modern opioid addiction crisis, sparked by negligent distribution of prescription drugs, and in recent years, the distribution of unregulated synthetic opioids which have further induced fears and overdoses across the U.S. and Cook County. The situation is frankly bleak, and the nationwide carceral and punitive normative policy approach has proven ineffective. Since 2015, opioid overdose death rates have risen at an alarming rate across the U.S. In Cook County, opioid overdose deaths more than doubled in a mere six years: from 647 in 2015, to 1,936 in 2021.

Preliminary 2022 data records 1,599 overdose deaths, but the Medical Examiner’s Office’s approximations place the overdose death toll to over 2,000 Cook County residents. The crisis is not limited in demographic either. Within Cook County, White and Hispanic communities suffer similar increasing and alarming rates of overdose deaths, while Black communities suffer both a strongly disproportionate rate and totality of overdose deaths. College students are not insulated from the problem either. Research in the Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry has found that undergraduate student nonmedical

use of opiates increased by 343% between 1993 and 2005–a figure which has likely only increased since.

Consequently, said usage is linked to increased unintentional overdoses.

No community is isolated from the nation-wide tragedy, as overdose deaths continue to skyrocket.

Despite the meteoric rise of overdose deaths, harm-reduction policy and initiatives have long been misunderstood, and derided. Opponents of harm-reduction policies and initiatives such as HB 4408 often ridicule harm-reduction initiatives such as needle exchange programs and safe-smoking kits as reinforcing

icy on opioid abuse, mortality, and crime reinforces the harm-reduction potential of policy such as HB 4408.

The study finds that increased naloxone access has no association with increased mortality, only opioid-related theft and emergency-room visits. Both of these consequences are the result of increased survival of overdose victims–who obviously remain addicts without further action, and at the most basic level, do not deserve to be denied help because they struggle with addiction. Simultaneously, the study finds no net reduction in opioid mortality, acknowledging that naloxone access is only one key part of a harm-reduction approach towards addressing the opioid epidemic. Simply survivIllinois HB 4408 ing an overdose does not treat addicmarks a tangible, tion, but it is an important step in local step toward a ensuring that more suffering Americans have a chance to be treated. harm-reduction Illinois HB 4408 marks a tangisolution for the ble, local step toward a harm-reduction solution for the addiction crisis. addiction crisis As of now the death toll continues to rise exponentially, Americans still addictions and incentivizing drug suffer in their struggles with addicabuse. For example, in 2022, infortion, and families continue to face mation about safe-smoking kits was tragedy. Nobody is insulated from deliberately misconstrued as “federal the crisis, and a solution is needed in spending on crack pipes.” Oppoorder to aid and protect our communents, often conservative politicians nities, families, and friends. While and pundits, either misunderstand a seemingly insignificant insurance or obfuscate the aims of these bill, Illinois HB 4408 has expandpolicies, guiding a perspective that ed and ensured NARCAN access, misses the forest for the trees when it marking a step towards a harm-recomes to the aims of harm-reduction duction solution for the opioid eppolicies and initiatives. Harm-reduc- idemic in Illinois and Chicago, and tion endeavors aim to mitigate the a second chance to help struggling death and destruction of the already people in need. present addiction crisis, in lock-step with other treatment programs as individual mechanics to combat the crisis.

A Texas A&M Economics study on the effects of naloxone access polUPCOMING CHICAGO POLICY | 39

ARO REVISITED: NEW LOOK, SAME PROBLEMSCONTINUED FROM PAGE 38 providing recommendations for how new legislation could protect renters of color. Based on these recommendations, the Chicago City Council approved a new ARO that expanded affordable housing requirements for developers in April 2021. Just a year later, UChicago Urban Labs’s November 2022 data warned that formal eviction filings are starting to approach pre-pandemic levels, concentrated in Black and brown neighborhoods like South Shore and Woodlawn. For communities of color being forced from their homes, they’re looking to the ARO, wondering if it will continue to be an ineffective policy or finally provide a solution to this decades-old crisis.

It is important to acknowledge that the ARO will never be—nor was it created to be—a panacea. There is no single policy that will solve Chicago’s housing affordability crisis.

Any evaluation of the efficacy of the ARO must be contextualized within the scope and goals of the ARO. When the Inclusionary Housing Task Force amended the ARO, they acknowledged its limitations and redesigned the policy to build a more equitable housing stock. While these changes are commendable in their aim, they are unlikely to meaningfully impact the housing crisis, especially for renters of color. The new ARO suffers from the same problems that plagued the old one: it aggravates gentrification, especially in neighborhoods like Hyde Park, it lacks sufficient enforcement mechanisms to ensure compliance from developers, and it is not expansive enough to contribute to a housing surplus.

The ARO is of particular import for Hyde Park, a site of long-standing gentrification pressures that 40 | UPCOMING CHICAGO POLICY

have resulted in the displacement of lower-income communities of color.

The ARO, as currently structured, may incentivize developers to build more luxury housing to make up for profits lost from its policies, thereby displacing lower-income communities of color and exacerbating the gentrification that has been present in the neighborhood for decades.

Furthermore, developers may be more likely to engage in housing discrimination to protect their profits.

By using profits as punishment, the ARO is intensifying the construction of single-unit, luxury housing which has become the linchpin of the gentrification devastating Chicago’s historic neighborhoods.

The ARO is intensifying the construction of single-unit, luxury housing which has become the linchpin of gentrification devastating Chicago’s historic neighborhoods The Chicago Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights (CLCCR) deftly identified these problems and even offered solutions. The city lacks a framework from which to enforce compliance with fair housing policy.

With hundreds of developers in Cook County alone, it is difficult for the city to identify, track, and enforce the ARO. The Chicago Department of Housing’s public data portal is a great measure for improving transparency, but there is a long way to go. As the CLCCR noted, the Chicago Housing Au-

thority needs dedicated investigatory and enforcement services to ensure developer compliance. On expansiveness, the CLCCR again provides some clarity. There is no centralized system from which to market, lease, or sell ARO units. If it wants to contribute to Chicago’s housing stock, the ARO needs to partner with housing counseling agencies, eliminate unnecessary fees that block access to affordable units, and centralize a system by which both developers and prospective tenants can access relevant ARO information. An especially pernicious pitfall has been housing discrimination, in which landlords and developers exclude renters of color. Even amended, the ARO is not doing enough to prevent such discrimination. Building on required demographic reporting from ARO development projects, Chicago’s Housing Authority must ensure the city’s fair housing laws are being respected, especially if they want to protect Black and brown residents.

Recent amendments to the ARO are a step in the right direction for addressing Chicago’s housing crisis and ensuring equitable housing markets. But as Crain’s Chicago Business reminds: Chicago remains last in homebuilding for America’s top 10 metro areas. Despite growing overall, Chicago’s black population is decreasing, with 85,000 Black people leaving since 2010, as per WTTW. The ARO is but one tool in an arsenal the city has to combat unaffordable housing, and it can still be honed. It iss a monumental public policy effort, but as long as the city remembers its goals, helping and working with underserved communities, it can build a future everyone can afford to live in.

PIVOTAL POLICY: THE PASSING OF BILL 0576 IN ILLINOIS

effects of the pandemic. Children in school struggled coping with the lack of socialization and troubles of learning online because of

by ROCIO PORTAL STAFF WRITER COVID-19, but teachers too dealt he state of Illinois passed a bill sturggling with mental health; iIt is with their own stressors having to fascinating to witness the change in recently that allows public adapt to unforeseen circumstances. school students to take upwards of which see how states have responded The bill for teachers was also a sucto the mental health crisis and how five mental health days, inspiring cess in Illinois, and as of May 2022, another bill that allowed school in doing so there has been a growth teachers were granted the ability in support for children struggling. employees to do the same. The bill to use sick days for mental health stipulates that those who choose to Most of us can agree that growing recuperation. up, In our upbringings, the idea of be absent in an effort to focus on Bill 0567 raises the possibility of their mental well- being are allowed mental health days in school was un- mental health days for UChicago to make up any work they may have heard of, which subsequently makes students outside of the leaves of this making this post-pandemic missed. It affirms the provision of absences already offered. While it policy seem revolutionary. contact information belonging to would be beneficial for students Although it is still too early to see struggling to keep up with high school personnel who can provide the statistical effects the new policy help, such as a counselor, after the stress levels of class rigor, it would may have on public school students, also pose the problem of being student has obtained two absences breaks from academic settings have on the grounds of mental health. detrimental in our attemptsing to been an option for higher level The idea of a bill catering to keep up with missed work. Our education institutions for decades, students struggling with mental fast-paced quarter system makes it including the University of Chicago. difficult for students to be able to health was brought about between 2020 and 2021 when the pandemic Leaves of absences in college settings miss classes, even if the reason is for are known to have positive impacts resulted in an all-around decrease mental health purposes. Having the as they are a viable alternative to in mental health. Even before the ability to take a day off for mental withdrawals from classes or rather, pandemic, children in the United health would become obsolete if falling into chronic absenteeism.

States were already facing a mental students are still tasked with the reAccording to the Department of health crisis due to various factors, sponsibility of ensuring they do not Education, more than 20% of high a major contributor being school fall behind or are unprepared when school students and over 14% of related stress. returning to class. Thus, offering middle school students across the Bill 0576 in Illinois is only one mental health days for our student country are chronically absent, mak- population would undoubtedly be a of many across the nation that ing this a pressing issue for school have caved into demands for menstep forward in removing the stigma districts to address. Whilst leaves of tal-health resources. States like behind mental illness but possibly absences in higher education are not 2 steps back in actually providing Virginia, Maine, California, Kentucky, and Colorado have their own the exact same as Bill 0567, it can a meaningful break. The question versions of Bill 0576, all of which are still be expected for the bill to prove remains: what would implementpositive for students in Illinois much ing our own version of Bill 0567 at attempts to aid post-pandemic recovery for children in schools. Offer- like it has for those in college by alUChicago look like for students and ing students the opportunity to take lowing them to rest and start to gain employees? time off for their mental well being is a mentality that involves self-care.

Since the enactment of the a step in the right direction for every bill, policymakers have considered state involved as it actively works towards destigmatizing the topic and extending mental health days to increasing awareness. There has been teachers as well, hoping that they too could recover from the negative a growth of support for children

T

UPCOMING CHICAGO POLICY | 41

ULM is a Recognized Student Organization at the University of Chicago under the Center for Leadership and Involvement’s purview. Our active status is in keeping with policies adherent to established procedural standards. ULM operates under no-prior review. The opinions expressed in the magazine are not necessarily those of the University of Chicago.