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.
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
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
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
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
Upon 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
by JUAN LEAL-MENDOZA STAFF WRITER
Note: This article will focus on the implications of the large-scale invasion that started in February of 2022, rather than the more localized stage of the Russo-Ukrainian conflict that ran from the summer of 2014 until the beginning of the invasion.
It has been nearly a year since war returned to Europe, when the Russian 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 on Articles 2 and 51. Among Article 2’s various sections, subsection 4 states that UN member states (to which both Russia and Ukraine are part of) “shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence
of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.” Article 51 acts however as a piece of nuance to Article 2(4), as the former article says that self-defense by a UN member state is authorized so long as it is communicated with the UN Security Council. This is a very important differentiation.
Senior policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations Anthony Dworkin has pointed out previously that “the prohibition on the unjustified use of force is the cornerstone of modern international
law,” pressing the importance of these two articles for the modern international order and its limits. In short, the UN charter prohibits the use of armed force, with the exception of its use for self defense or against other justified threats to a state.
The “justified threat” most interwoven to this war has been genocide, a case used by both sides. Russian President Vladimir Putin has consistently clamed there is a genocide going on in Ukraine against Russian speakers in the country, and has used this as a rationale for their invasion. However, analysis by Leiden University’s Egbert Fortuin points out that the case for these Russian accusa-
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
Since 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
The invasion goes against international law, and consequently, states, international organizations, and individuals should hold Russia accountable.
Almost10 years ago, an anti-affirmative action group called Students for Fair Admissions filed a case against Harvard University and the University of North Carolina. The group claimed that both institutions discriminate against white and students of Asian descent in their admission processes in favor of students of other racial backgrounds. While the original cases were first filed in 2014, they were heard by the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) last year and are expected to reach a decision by this summer. It is suspected that
lawsuit against the Topeka school district for not allowing an African American girl to attend a local white school. The NAACP argued that segregation was a violation of the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause which declared that no state could abridge the rights of a citizen without due process of the law, “nor deny to any within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” After listening to the NAACP’s argument, The Supreme Court unanimously decided in Brown v. Board of Education that segregation in academic institutions was inherently unequal and unconstitutional.
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.
due to the court’s conservative majority, affirmative action policies will effectively come to an end or at least be rolled back. Whatever decision
SCOTUS reaches will have a drastic impact on university admissions across the country.
The battle for affirmative action policies has a long history, starting in 1952 when the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) filed a class-action
Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote the court’s unanimous opinion. In it, he stated:
“In the field of public education, the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.” The court’s decision in Brown is especially pertinent to the present debate on affirmative action because it effectively gave life to the practice. In the years after the peak of the civil
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 admissions, it decided that the university’s point-based system was unconstitutional, because it eliminated the essential individualized aspects of college admissions. The court’s ruling was different in Grutter v. Bollinger when Barbara Grutter filed a lawsuit against the University of Michigan’s Law School for denying her admission. Grutter claimed that she had been discriminated against due to her race and that consequently, the school had violated the equal protection clause of the 14th
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-
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.
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
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.
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.
GeorgeSantos’ political career seems all but over. Facing investigations from the Department of Justice, Federal Election Commission, House Ethics Committee, and Brazilian prosecutors, as well as calls to resign from House Republican colleagues and district constituents, it would be an understatement to say that Santos is deep in political purgatory.
The freshman lawmaker’s troubles began in September 2022, when a local newspaper, The North Shore Leader, began questioning Santos’ finances, noting that his assets grew from virtually zero in 2020 to $11 million in 2022. In December, after an exposé published by The New York Times, this story began to gain traction, and more and more of Santos’ lies began to surface. He claimed he was a star volleyball player for Baruch College and attended NYU for an MBA, but neither school has records of him; he said his grandparents were Jewish immigrants fleeing the Holocaust, but they were actually born in Brazil; his career
experience supposedly includes Citigroup and Goldman Sachs, but neither bank has every employed such a person. While the company he did actually work for, Harbor City Capital, is currently under SEC investigation for allegedly running a Ponzi scheme.
Although Santos’ list of blatant lies goes on, it seems that the political consequences outweigh the legal. A two-thirds supermajority in the House could expel Santos, but this course of action is extremely improbable since it will trigger a special election and likely further narrow the razor-thin GOP majority. Santos could receive a reprimand/ censure, which is a “formal resolution” by the House that amounts to little more than a slap on the wrist. Nevertheless, these scandals have made many politicians on both sides of the aisle distance themselves from Santos. It seems unlikely that he would be able to win his district’s primaries again, let alone re-election. Santos’ legal troubles primarily come from concerns regarding his campaign finances. A non-partisan campaign watchdog, the Campaign
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-
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.
Thecountry 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-
by LIZBETH HERRERA GOMEZ STAFF WRITERrey’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 when the initial draft was released and was further upset when the draft proved to be similar to the official decision.
Marshal Gail A. Curley and her staff were tasked with the difficult job of providing the identity of the person(s) involved and failed to do so. They did, however, attempt to shed more transparency on the inner workings of the court by outlining the “Rules and Court Policies Protecting Confidentiality” in their internal investigation report. It covered the code of conduct for law clerks and U.S. Judges, explicitly defining confidential information as anything related to the Court or its employees that isn’t made public, including the outcome of a case and the identity of the author of a majority opinion. Professor Stone, relying on his personal experience as a law clerk for Justice Brennan, made it clear that all law clerks understood the expected conduct; they all knew it was not permitted to discuss anything that occurred behind the scenes.
As such, conversations between the clerks and their justices were kept confidential, unless the justices gave
explicit permission to share the details of the discussion. Stone claimed that there was “no doubt whatsoever” that the inner workings of the Court were confidential and so a leak of any sort was unacceptable.
The Marshal and her staff did not think that the expected employee conduct was enough, so after interviewing each of the 97 employees, they were asked to sign affidavits. The justices, on the other hand, weren’t asked to sign sworn affidavits because the Marshal didn’t think it was necessary. Professor Stone believes this was because signing affidavits implies a lack of trust within the circle of justices and a suggestion that they did something wrong. So had the justices signed, it would have been seen as a sign of guilt. Whether or not this was the rationale Marshal Curley used is unconfirmed.
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.
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.
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
to pass Senate Bill S7527, or “Rap Music on Trial,”: effectively banning raps’ involvement in court. The bill awaits an assembly vote. In California, tangible progress has been achieved with the Decriminalizing Artistic Expression Act’s passage, making the law the first to preserve First Amendment protections in music. While headway is promising, in order to circumvent inconsistencies between states’ verdicts, the onus remains on the federal government to ensure artistic immunity.
Sponsored by US Representative Hank Johnson of Georgia, H.R. 8531, the Restoring Artistic Protection Act of 2022—or RAP Act—would restrict using an artist’s “original or derivative” creative license against them. The RAP Act would cover several mediums including poetry, film, and visual art. Language used throughout the text is reminiscent of the Elonis v.
United States ruling, which relies on a “reasonable person’s” interpretation of content. Congress pigeonholed the bill after referring it to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, and they have taken no action since.
Critics worry about ignoring lyrics that plainly depict an offense, especially when pursuing criminal justice. However, the RAP Act, like the Decriminalized Artistic Expression Act, is limiting, not restricting. According to the text, the RAP Act § 2b (2017) clarifies the importance of underscoring a piece’s relevance when the “defendant intended a literal meaning,” and provides “specific facts of the crime alleged.” The RAP Act is the lead broad legal measure with the potential to reduce arbitrary attempts to draw incriminating conclusions.
Inference, as it stands, has
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-
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.
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-
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.
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.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
The 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
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 population through implementing quality rehabilitation programs and alternatives to incarceration.
to this, private prisons are motivated to keep their facilities full at all times in order to maximize profits, leading to longer sentences and an increased likelihood of reoffending. There are also higher levels of violence in the private sector. A U.S. Department of Justice study shows that violent attacks by inmates on correctional staff were 163% higher in private than in public prisons, and inmate-on-inmate assaults were nearly
As a basic principle, justice should not be administered through the prism of profit. The companies that control and operate private prisons have a vetted financial interest in the growth rather than the reduction of mass incarceration. Private prisons are inherently corrupt enterprises that have no place in a safe and equitable criminal justice system. Policymakers should instead focus on implementing reforms based on evidence to reduce recidivism and improve life outcomes for prisoners.
The government should invest in rehabilitation and reentry programs to reduce prison populations, and address the underlying racial and socioeconomic prejudices that contribute to mass incarceration.
Policymakers should instead focus on implementing reforms based on evidence to reduce recidivism and improve life outcomes
In 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-
ever, this money is poured back into the institutions’ safety, programs, and quality. Private prisons also utilize their money to create a much safer and more productive environment for inmates and employees, not only in their own prisons but also within the governments. Private prisons were founded with the intention of reducing overpopulation in other facilities; this goal was and continues to be met.
Because both public and private facilities can now have a safe and appropriate amount of people under their care, employees and prisoners can receive the care and attention they need and reside in a much more mentally and physically healthier environment. Emily Wildra, a staff member at the Prison Policy Initiative, has said that overpopulation correlates to “increased violence, lack of adequate health care, limited programming and educational opportunities, and reduced visitation.” This is even more true during the COVID-19 pandemic, where the risks of infection would be much higher in overpopulated facilities. Private prisons are also able to allocate money that the government cannot afford to drug treatments and programs that reduce re-imprisonment, as seen by the doubled percentage of drug treatment programs in private institutions over the public. Private prisons pose no issues to our criminal justice system
here in the U.S. The quality and safety of private and public institutions are the same, and at the end of the day, no matter where prisoners are housed, they will still exist. Private prisons are no worse than state prisons—data would prove the opposite. If particular administrations would like to address their moral concerns for private prisons, concerns I would argue are invalid seeing as private prisons are either the same or better than our government-run facilities, they could utilize private sectors by creating incentives. Australia and New Zealand are perfect examples of these incentive programs; private prisons can earn bonuses/price cuts for beating the government with lower rates of reincarceration-specifically within BIPOC populations, and owe money for any riots, escapes, and unnatural deaths. Disabling the use of private prisons within our system would not be a step toward solving mass incarceration or any other issue associated with America’s criminal justice system. The attention spent by the public and legislators on the use of private prisons takes time and resources away from the actual revision of the criminal justice system. improve life outcomes for prisoners.
Note: This article does not represent the personal views of the author.
Should private prisons be a component of our criminal justice system?
In2022, President Biden announced a plan to cancel student debt of up to $20,000 for individuals who make less than $125,000,, costing the public $30 billion annually for the next decade. While any program has its merits and drawbacks, in the case of this program, it does not matter, for one simple reason. President Biden’s debt relief is not legal. And even if it were, it is the wrong prescription for what is indeed a very real problem.
The Biden Student Debt Relief
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 Education to waive student debt for certain categories of individuals in connection wars or national emergencies, including those who have suffered economic hardship due to these occurrences. This act was meant as a remedy to a limited set of circumstances and not as carte blanche for the President, through his education secretary, to offer near blanket amnesty for loans. The wide scope of the program is concerning, given that the program does not attempt to account for the impact of the pandemic in its dispersion of funds. Instead, the only criterion is
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?
President Joe Biden’s student debt relief program, which provides up to $20,000 in student loan forgiveness, has many skeptics and rightly so. Is this program a political ploy, that simply transfers the burden of one to another? Will it have long term adverse effects on the affordability of college? Are there other more effective methods of solving the student debt crisis? There are all valid questions and concernts. Yet, despite them, it should be said that every piece of legislation has deficiencies in some way or another.
There is no such thing as a ‘perfect bill,’ and so while there may be shortcomings to President Biden’s student debt relief program, folks shouldn’t let these shortcomings—–which are inherent to any piece of legislation—– blind them from the several benefits of such a program.
The main benefit of Biden’s student loan forgiveness is that it’s structured so that those who don’t need debt relief, won’t receive it. Historically, relief bills have erroneously benefited the wealthy, instead of benefiting the middle and lower classes. In recent times, the CARES Act is an example of this. A bill that was meant to be a sort-of economic rescue package for the middle and lower classes during the Covid-19 pandemic, the CARES ACT was riddled with tax exemptions which
mostly benefited the wealthy. Biden’s debt relief program doesn’t face these same challenges. It contains language that establishes strict income criteria such that only those who make less than $125,000 per year, or married couples or heads of households who make less than $250,000 per year, will receive loan forgiveness. According to University of Pennsylvania eEconomists, “about two-thirds of the benefit falls to households making $88,000 or less per year.”.
Low-income borrowers, despite having low amounts of debt, are most likely to default on loans. The impact of defaults is wide ranging; – having a low credit score (which is a side effect of loan nonpayment) makes it harder to borrow, whether that be a mortgage, a credit card
It would be prudent, and indeed in keeping with the intent behind the law and the provisions of the U.S. Constitution, to instead let Congress legislate a solution to the student debt crisis.
If the Biden Administration’s arguments were to be affirmed by the courts, then given that we seem to be living in a perpetual state of emergency all manner of legislation meant to be reserved for true emergencies may be invoked to carry out the President’s wishes without Congressional approval. This seems to be quite a dangerous precedent to set. Luckily, the courts have not affirmed Biden’s right to invoke the Heroes Act in such a manner, with a district court judge striking it down, and the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals
refusing to allow the Biden administration to resume it.
Biden’s student debt relief is also simply bad policy. By in effect promising a $20,000 federal rebate to college students, Biden’s student debt relief plan will only contribute to further incentivizing colleges to raise prices, given the increased power of students to now pay a higher price. Furthermore, there would presumably be a rise in students applying for college. While this may seem like a good idea, it in fact does have negative consequences. It encourages students to take degrees which either do not have the highest return on investment, or it encourages students who do not necessarily need a college degree to pursue one. Thus, it is not conducive to an efficient allocation
of university seats towards those who are truly in need of it.
This student debt relief plan also puts a band-aid on a gaping wound, providing a superficial solution without solving the deeper problem. For as long as colleges progressively increase their prices,, students will face ever increasing student debt burdens. By placing a band-aid over the wound, student debt relief in effect disincentivizes the U.S. government from working constructively towards solving the crisis, and instead allows them to escape their responsibilities here by offering what are essentially “giveaways.”
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.
On January 7, 2023, Kevin McCarthy was elected as Speaker of the House; what was expected to be a swift transition of power became one of the longest Speaker elections in U.S. history due to fifteen rounds of voting. This was largely due to backlash from far-right conservatives who questioned McCarthy’s allegiance to the Republican party and believed that the newly elected Speaker was not conservative enough. This rhetoric caused McCarthy to make concessions regarding his power as Speaker. More specifi-
cally, conservatives in the Freedom Caucus advocated for changes such as the institution of term limits for Congress members, the creation of a process that would make the Speaker easier to depose, and raising the nation’s debt ceiling. This election illuminates a larger discussion of the amount of power that the Speaker should hold. As second in line to the Presidency and the leader of 435 representatives, the powers of the Speaker should remain intact.
As defined in the Constitution, the primary role of the Speaker is to uphold the rules of the House. The political role of the Speaker is not ex-
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 leader, the Speaker should be able to put their own agenda aside in order to act in the best interest of the country. Moreover, the Speaker should hold enough power to distinguish the role from the other 434 House members.
The decentralization of power as a result of the concessions that conservatives suggest prevents the Speaker from effectively fulfilling their role in maintaining order. The Speaker must ensure that policy decisions are made efficiently. By giving House members at least seventy-two hours to review bills before voting and allowing them to depose the Speaker
Kevin 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
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 process is extended; this will prevent important policies from being implemented in a timely manner. As evidenced by former Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s leadership during the 201819 government shutdown, Trump’s impeachment, and the COVID-19 pandemic, the Speaker must be able to take swift action during times of immense need. Pelosi’s tenure as Speaker shows that whomever takes on this role must have sufficient power to check the executive branch. The ultimate role of Congress is to serve the American people–if the House cannot operate efficiently, the everyday lives of Americans will be altered significantly.
As Speaker of the House, McCarthy should act as a unifying force between Democrats and Republi-
cans. In the Constitution, it states that the Speaker must protect the rights of the minority. By acting in a partisan manner and prioritizing the interests of conservatives, McCarthy
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
not only would not fulfill his role as Speaker, but would undermine his legitimacy. Many of the Republicans calling for the limitation of the Speaker’s power are those who challenged the results of the 2020 election. Therefore, acting in favor
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 House, it might prove to be impossible to pass the drastic legislation necessary to avoid a climate disaster. If McCarthy is not removed or the speaker position made weaker, the critical window within which this legislation must be passed to avoid climate fallout might be missed entirely.
suing this practice.
This situation is made far worse when one considers the particulars of McCarthy himself. Worse than his history of baseless election denial is
It is imperative for the security of the nation’s democracy and environment that the Speaker’s power over the legislative process be greatly diminished.
In an era of heightened polarization and moral fervor, compromise loses its legitimacy.
The decentralization of power. . .prevents the Speaker from effectively fulfilling their role in maintaining order
Thispast June, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case that will determine the extent to which employers should allow for religious accommodations in the workplace. The case revolves around Gerald Groff, a former mailman for the U.S. Postal Service who was facing termination for refusing to work on Sundays. As a strict Sabbatarian Christian, Groff argues that the USPS violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by failing to accommodate his religious practice. Title VII bars employers from firing their employees for practicing their religion, unless the religious practice cannot be accommodated without causing “undue hardship” to the employer. In 1977, the Supreme Court ruled in Transworld Airlines v. Hardison that an “undue hardship” is met whenever accommodations become more than a ‘de minimis cost’ to the employer. Based on Hardison’s legal standard, the USPS claimed that Groff’s refusal to deliver mail on Sundays resulted in significant costs for the company, as his coworkers had to cover his shifts. Although there are compelling arguments to be made for company rights, the Court should ultimately rule in favor of Groff as the USPS’s claims are based on a dubious legal precedent that leaves religious individuals vulnerable to discrimination in the workplace.
Groff’s appeal is twofold. Firstly, he asks that the Court redefine the
legal standard established in the Hardison ruling. He lucidly argues that the threshold for what constitutes an “undue hardship” is too low and makes it easier for employers to discriminate against employees practicing their religion. Instead of a minimal cost, Groff advocates for the Court to interpret an undue hardship as one that involves a “significant difficulty or expense”. This stricter standard would better
The business sought to terminate Groff not because of his refusal to work on Sundays, but due to their unwillingness to grant an exemption for his religious beliefs. Thus, these arguments shouldn’t be regarded as ‘undue hardship’. In other words, there is no substantive indicator that accommodating Groff’s religious beliefs would have caused a ‘significant difficulty or expense’. The district court’s ruling in favor of the Postal Office was based on questionable evidence that the Postal Office themselves produced, showcasing how easily employers can evade religious accommodations in the workplace using the current “de minimis” standard.
protect the rights granted to employees under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
In this specific case, the Postal Office’s claim that Groff’s religious practices caused workplace disruption and decreased employee morale is a result of their refusal to accommodate his beliefs in the first place. Had the Postal Office properly accommodated Groff, his coworkers would not have developed “resentment towards management”.
Secondly, Groff asks the Court to clarify whether an employer can demonstrate undue hardship by merely showing the employee’s actions to be a burden on his coworkers rather than the business itself. In his dissenting opinion, judge Thomas Hardiman pointed this out by stating that “a burden on coworkers isn’t the same thing as a burden on the employer’s business”. Such particularities can – and were – overlooked under the current legal standard. Furthermore, considering coworkers’ discomforts toward an employee’s religious accommodations can lead to the systemic reinstatement of discrimination in the workplace.
Several minority religious groups, including the Sikh Coalition, Muslim Advocates and the Islam and Religious Freedom Action Team, have voiced their support for CONTINUED ON PAGE 24
The Postal Office’s failure to accomodate Groff’s religious practices is just one example of the systemic abuse of religious freedoms.
In2016, 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
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.”
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,
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
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.
. . .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-
CONTINUED FROM PAGE 10
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.
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-
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.
CONTINUED FROM PAGE 11
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.
by JANE JUSKO STAFF WRITER
Marisa 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 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.
“Dress for success.”
“The clothes make the man.”
In film, television, and ads, expressions like these sing the same tune: What you wear matters, not just to yourself, but to those around you. Although the pressures of appearance are by no means unique to the legal field, in a profession with dress codes spanning from powdered wigs to jeggings, it’s no wonder the question of “what to wear” causes a flurry of worry for many professionals. Paired with ever-accelerating cycles of trends and rapidly evolving socio-political implications in presentation, uncertainties are inevitable for any legal professional, particularly those historically marginalized from the legal industry. The tension
of attire in the legal field is most immediately observable on the basis of class. We all have a mental image of the shark lawyer: sharply tailored suit, shiny patent leather shoes, maybe Ray-Bans if they’re feeling dangerous. While the reality for most legal professionals may not be as glamorous as HBO’s Suits, there is a standard dress code. For socio-economically disadvantaged individuals, the bar of fashionable presentation may be just as difficult to navigate as the Bar Exam itself. The vast disparity between the luxury looks of highclass professionals and the outfits of your average J.D. Joe can be discouraging; however, relief is rapidly approaching. As older employers leave the workforce, the millennial wave gathers momentum, bringing an onslaught of equity.
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
“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.”
Humanrights were initially limited to our basic needs: food, water, and a residence. As society expanded, so did the scope of “human rights”; additional concepts became essential in describing what humans were entitled to. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Hague, Netherlands has played a significant role in mediating human rights discourse. The ICJ has unlimited jurisdiction over inter-country disputes, but its scope of adjudication becomes limited when these disputes involve human rights. The public looks towards the court as the ICJ determines what is considered a human right. However, the court faces a double bind: While the public looks towards the court for an example, a ruling can harm the court’s legitimacy if the ruling doesn’t match the current social attitude. Due to the ICJ’s inefficien-
cy, human rights should be socially defined domestically rather than globally.
The ICJ is notorious for its inefficiency in mediating disputes. Though the court has a thorough decision-making process, delays in deciding cases permit countries to overpower the court and stagnate human rights within a regime’s lifespan.
On June 11, 2018, Qatar filed a claim against the United Arab Emirates (UAE), accusing them of violating the International Convention on the Eliminatinon of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (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.
Specifically, the UAE implemented discriminatory measures against Qataris based on their nationality. Initially, the Court, on July 23, 2018, decided it could review the interpretation of CERD in this context. The Court initially decided the UAE must reunite Qatari families and grant affected Qataris access to
This notion is clear in Croatia v. Serbia: Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. In 1999, Croatia accused the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia of genocide. The crime of genocide contains two constituent elements: physical (the acts conducted inflict bodily or mental harm to the targeted group) and mental (intent). Following the filing, Yugoslavia objected to the Court’s
CONTINUED ON PAGE 29
. . .collective understanding of nuanced gender relations and identities needs to evolve, so does our acceptance of diversity in gender presentation, particularly in the workplace. Department stores may remain divided into “Men’s” and “Women’s,” but consumer interests have developed. For LGBT+ community members whose gender isn’t represented by a simple binary, the choice between skirt, slacks, or other, carries a significance deeper than polyester. Besides navigating the treacherous waters of workwear, non-binary and gender-nonconforming folks are tasked with self-expression in a professional setting without drawing unwanted attention or endangering themselves. Following questions of the spectacle and safety of individuals’ gender presentations come concerns about respectability. “At a law firm, what we’re looking for is for your presence to have a trustworthy and executive nature. Whether you identify that as being a suit and tie or you identify that as being in belted dress, either works as long as it comes across polished and modern and clean, wrinkle-free,” Lauren A. Rothman said in an interview with The New York Times As queer folks rise to meet present standards for professional attire, there must be a subsequent softening of our social fabric, opening up our hearts and minds towards authentic presentation, regardless of its conformity with expectations.
The elimination of our pre-
conceived notion of respectable workplace appearance need not be limited to gender: Race also demands this consideration. Legal professionals of color are already strained; they bend over backward to code-switch their speech, understand foreign cultural contexts, and justify what their background offers. What’s more, there’s an implicit bias against styles deemed distinctly “ethnic.” Certain patterns and garments are warned against, lest they be viewed as too loud, distracting, or different. For Black people, hair is one such problematized accessory. Luckily, pioneers have made recent strides to protect Black and brown professionals from employment or promotional discrimination through the law. The Crown Act was pioneered by the Crown Coalition, a collaboration
between Dove, the National Urban League, Color Of Change, and the Western Center on Law & Poverty. The act, implemented in 2019, demands legal protection from discrimination based on hair texture or protective styles of Black hair.
“Implicit and explicit biases against natural hair are deeply ingrained in workplace norms and society at large and continue the legacy of dehumanizing Black people… no one should be harassed, punished, or fired for the beautiful hairstyles that are true to themselves and their cultural heritage,” U.S. Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) said in an appeal to the Senate on March 27, 2021. Professionals and students sporting styles such as box braids, bantu knots, locs, twists, and more are now protected from the denial of employment and educational opportunities grounded in prejudiced preconceptions of respectability.
There is no right way to “dress for success.” For people who spend their working days studying rules, it might come as a shock that the only faux pas in fashion is exclusionary ideas of what a legal professional looks like. Nonetheless, it’s true: Clothes do not make the man, and neither does hair, makeup, or RayBans. Though it may seem like the journey is slow, the legal industry is surely marching toward acceptance and equity in workplace attire.
“Clothes do not make the man, and neither does hair, make-up, or RayBans. Though it may seem like the journey is slow, the legal industry is surely marching toward acceptance and equity in workplace attire.”
CONTINUED FROM PAGE 27
jurisdiction over Croatia’s claims. In 2008, the Court rejected Serbia’s objections. By then, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia became the Republic of Serbia, significantly shifting the Eastern European political climate. In 2010, the Republic of Serbia filed counterclaims, prompting the court to hold public hearings in 2014 and deliver its judgment in 2015. Following a 16-year process, the ICJ concluded it lacked jurisdiction.
Ultimately, legal processes takeconsiderable time. In fact, some cases take decades before reaching a resolution. However, the problem lies in how the public perceives the Court’s adjudication. The ICJ reflects the United Nations (UN) as its highest court.
Though the Court seeks transparency through public hearings, this
doesn’t rectify the dejection resulting from the Court’s repeated public acknowledgment of mistakes.
Primarily responsible for settling international human rights conflicts, the public trusts how the court’s decisions can affect their country’s image. The ICJ’s decisions reflect how citizens should view their countries in the contexts of global unity and nationalistic identity.
The public grows invested in the trial as they believe their country embodies what they stand for; the ICJ provides or removes legitimacy from this belief accordingly. But watching a case accomplishes nothing if the public isn’t granted a final verdict. Canceling leaves gray area, confusing the public about how to move forward.
The ICJ should instead relegate 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.
If the 1860s was a period of bloody violence giving way to the end of the slavocracy, the 1870s was a period of bloody violence largely reversing the previous decade’s progress. Humiliated by the North, Southern supporters of slavery channeled their burning grievances into widespread attempts to topple Reconstruction-era governments and recreating pre-Civil War systems of racial hierarchy. As backlash against Reconstruction radicalized, thousands of Southerners terrorized their Black fellow citizens, particularly those exercising their newfound
right to vote.
The end of Reconstruction, beyond its immediate impact on the Black residents of Southern states, also set the stage for a century and a half of the republic’s central civil battle: the fight for political equality to fulfill Reconstruction’s promise against the principle of near-absolute state sovereignty over elections.
Central to the 2013 Shelby County v. Holder case was not just a constitutional interpretation of the Tenth Amendment, but the same battle between voting rights and states’ rights defining the latter 19th century. Distraught over minimal racial progress in the American South,
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
“Placing human rights under diplomacy paces the way for the broader development of global consciousness, better achieving the ICJ’s goal: maintaining peace.”
WRITER
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
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 basic freedoms.”
What is accurate, though, is that the court is using a time-honored tradition of valuing an amorphous sense of grievance among states over their residents’ fundamental rights. VRA defenders see the debate as a clean-cut question of whether or not the right to vote should be protected. The majority, however, is more sensitive to claims that preclearance drags the South backward, insisting on reminding us of the racial warfare of before rather than progressing to
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 registration systems: one for federal elections, and another for state elections, finding it would discriminate against minority voters. As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted in her dissent, “Congress found there were more DOJ objections between 1982 and 2004 (626) than between 1965 and the 1982 reauthorization (490).” Following the Shelby decision, there have been a wave of discriminatory electoral changes in former preclearance areas, a trend the Roberts court is poised to let continue unabated.
These laws, and the wave of bills states passed following Shelby, are not proof the U.S. hasn’t improved since Jim Crow. What it proves, however, is how integral the tools designed to reign it in are decades later. The delusion central to Shelby is that these tools are no longer useful, a belief buoyed by their success. The vision of VRA defenders is not one of eternal vengeance against the South, but progress toward the legal equality Reconstruction promised.
“The majority, however, is more sensitive to claims that preclearance drags the South backward, insisting on reminding us of the racial warfare of before rather than progressing to future racial equality.”
TheFlorida Mental Health Act—the Baker Act—was implemented in 1972 to legally protect those with mental illness and fortify community mental health services. Specifically, it aims to preserve the civil rights of persons with mental illness such that involuntary evaluation and/or commitment is the last resort. When involuntary procedures are needed, the Baker Act strives to ensure one’s liberty remains intact throughout the process. The law also requires the Florida Department of Children and Families to provide mental health treatment programs. However, presently, “Baker Act” connotes a more dystopian reality.
The Baker Act intended to facilitate more voluntary mental health examinations. However, the most significant practice it has established is legal involuntary commitment. The law permits someone who (1) suffers from mental illness and (2) presents danger to oneself and/or to others or is seriously neglectful of oneself to be taken to a “receiving facility”—a local hospital or crisis unit—for up to 72 hours.
The legality of the Baker Act relies heavily on the harm clause. Essentially, the person unwillingly undergoing psychiatric evaluation or commitment presents potential danger to themselves or others. The Baker Act’s legal provisions intend for its long-term benefits to outweigh the opportunity costs. Unfortunately, this is rarely if ever the case. The Baker Act doesn’t adequately execute its objectives. In fact, the Treatment Advocacy Center gave Florida’s involuntary treatment programs a “D” score, the third lowest
possible score among the 50 states. The law’s downfalls are likely due to infrequent updates; its latest update in 2022 was only the second set of improvements (the first being in 1996) since it was first signed.2
The most evident issue with the Baker Act is municipal law enforcement agencies’ authority to assess mental health crises. Persons are eligible to be “Baker-acted” through three possible ways. The first is if someone signs an affidavit describing why a person meets Baker Act
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.
criteria that is later approved by a circuit judge, who issues an ex parte order (a temporary motion granted without the opposing party’s say). The second way is if a law enforcement officer is called to or present at a situation in which someone appears to be suffering from a mental illness and presents a risk to themselves or others. The third way is if a doctor or other healthcare provider decides a person meets Baker Act criteria. Law enforcement officers are critical actors in the involuntary examination process. They are not only entitled to decide on a person’s mental health state, but are also solely responsible for bringing the “Baker-acted” person to a receiving facility.
Consequently, law enforcement officers’ outsized role perpetuates
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
“The Baker Act is used to immediately deal with children’s mental illnesses, putting out small fires rather than confronting root issues.”
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.
To understand the inequities of the United States cash bail system, we must first know its origins. Prior to 1789, there was no legal precedent for the practice of bail until the Judiciary Act of 1789. Going forward, bail was placed on all crimes not punishable by death, allowing citizens to remain at home until their case was decided. This system was founded upon the Constitution, guaranteeing citizens to be innocent until proven guilty. However, a system intended to allow individuals their freedom until a conviction has ultimately failed to be upheld. Our government today has feared changing this system because of its inability to predict the future consequences of change. This rationale has been the U.S.’s biggest asset in preserving democratic principles, but it is also our greatest weakness.
Today, the cash bail system does not uphold the constitutionally promised presumption that all citizens are innocent but instead restricts people’s rights and denies their freedom. Udi Odfer, a director at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), stated that the U.S.
cash bail system is “one of the most corrupt and broken parts of our justice system.”
In 2014, the median annual income before incarceration, among incarcerated individuals, was approximately $19,185. This disparity has led low-income defendants to be more likely to be held in jail for longer periods of time than socioeconomically better-off defendants able to pay bail. Ultimately, the cash bail system has prevented more than 30% of inmates who were jailed pretrial from posting bail. Through systemic injustices affecting predominantly low-income communities, the cycle of going from jail to prison is a narrative common among low-income communities and communities of color in the United States.
For instance, studies have shown Black defendants are not only more likely to be denied bail but also more likely to be held in jail before trial than white defendants. Based on the Bureau of Justice Statistics, in large urban areas, Black Americans are at least 25% more likely to be held in pretrial detention and more likely to receive bail amounts twice as high
as those given to white defendants. This issue did not arise because of problems within our legislative system, but rather from the injustices rampant in the U.S. judicial system. In a study done in District Courts across Boston, Baltimore, Miami, and Salt Lake City, 95% of the defendants impacted by cash bail in these districts were people of color. Moreover, more than one-quarter of these federal courts remanded individuals during the bail process without even providing them with legal representation. The U.S. cash bail system functions as though each part of the U.S. government fairly abides by its promises; however, this has proven to be false. David Arnold and Will Dobbie of Princeton University alongside Crystal S. Yang of Harvard Law School state in their paper in The Quarterly Journal of Economics,“we find suggestive evidence that this racial bias is driven by bail judges relying on inaccurate stereotypes that exaggerate the relative danger of releasing black defendants.” If we are unable to control the racial biases affecting the cash bail system, eliminating it entirely may be the only form of action left.
Currently, in Chicago, lawmakers
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.
by PIETRO JUVARA STAFF WRITER
TheUniversity 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
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
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
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.
From the skeleton of IPRA, Sharon R. Fairley founded the Civilian Office of Police Accountability (COPA), in the hopes of correcting its mistakes. She tells me that her office had four key themes that they wanted to implement into COPA: independence, “we didn’t want the mayor’s people telling us how to investigate our cases”; integrity, “to ensure the process that the agency took to investigate matters had integrity”; timeliness, since “complainants had felt with IPRA that their concerns would go into a black hole and never be addressed”; and transparency, which started with making cases publicly available with redactions when necessary. For Fairley, this was “the only way for the community to evaluate the quality of what we do as an agency.” The four key themes sought to correct all of the key issues with IPRA. All of it was in an effort to build trust with the Chicago community, as well as the law enforcement force. Building COPA was the culmination of Fairley’s life experiences: “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
activity through her connections, as well as her research. Ultimately, her core values and upbringing led her back into education. “I come from a long line of educators, it was kind of a natural evolution for me to go back to law school.” As a Professor from Practice, Fairley teaches the next generations of law school students, as well as conduct her own research on the multitude of existing civilian accountability systems. She was happy to give us a preview of some of her current work: “I’m working on a project right now that’s all about coming up with empirical evidence to support why [civilian oversight] agencies need more resources. Sometimes it’s hard when you don’t have some empirical evidence to show that if you give us this money to invest in, it’s gonna help us fulfill our mission even better, quicker, faster, and with greater integrity.”
For Shannon R. 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.”
“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
Amendment 1 is an amendment to the Illinois constitution that affirms the right of every employee to engage in organizing and collective bargaining done through representatives in the workplace through unions. This amendment is meant to use these measures to strengthen the ability of unions to be used to change and set into place specific hours, wages, and working conditions, and to ensure safety in the workplace. On top of this, this amendment will prohibit right-towork laws. For context, a right-towork law is a law that puts it into the hands of the workers to decide if they want to join a union at their workplace.
Opponents of Amendment 1 usually cite that this Amendment in allowing for increased unionization will lead to the average household in Illinois paying more money toward taxes. From the Illinois Policy Institute, “Amendment 1 would guarantee that the typical Illinois family pays at least $2,149 in higher property tax bills over the next four years, no matter which politicians hold office or whether they follow through on their campaign promises. This is a conservative estimate, assuming the rapid growth of Illinois’ property tax burden holds steady. It’s likely property taxes would grow at an even faster rate, because
Amendment 1 would give Illinois government unions unprecedented bargaining powers that don’t exist in any other state.” It should be noted that the Illinois Policy institute has been a major opponent of progressive policies.
Supporters of Amendment 1 are usually supporters of unions and the expansion of unions. These supporters usually cite unions as being a source for increased wages and better working conditions.
From State Sen. Ram Villivalam (D), “The falling rate of unionization has lowered wages, not only because some workers no longer received the higher union wage, but also because there is less pressure on nonunion employers to raise wages. The ability of unions to set labor standards has declined.” From this Senator, we can see that the general sentiment behind this amendment is that it is sure to positively affect the growth of unionization in the United States. Amendment 1 was put onto the ballot on November 8, 2022, where it was passed with a vote count of 2,212,999 (58.72%) for and 1,555,929 (41.28%) against, meaning that it would go into effect, with the hope that this will lead to more unionization in the workplace to act against the 4% drop in union rates over the last 5 years, as was alluded to by Sen. Ram Villivalam in the last
section. Being 2022, it is too close to tell how effective this amendment will be, but news of newly organizing workplaces in Chicago and other areas of Illinois is continuing to develop daily. On November 2, 2022 before the amendment was passed, the UChicago Graduate Students United passed an endorsement alongside organizers at Northwestern University in a meeting with 200 people. Now that the amendment has been passed, it is likely that even more schools across Chicago will move towards graduate student unionization. The endorsement for Amendment 1 has quickly moved into unilateral action by the Graduate Students Union at the University of Chicago to turn the suggestions that unions are even more encouraged into the state of Illinois into action as the union spurred an election to gain a seat at the bargaining table at the end of January. The union will be able to hear about if this education is a success in March, but in terms of the Amendment we can already see that even as close as our school its effects are already being felt. Outside of the university, there’s also a hope that with the increase in union membership across the city there will be a decrease in poverty as the two seem to be very connected. All in all, it seems Amendment 1 will continue to make strides to protect workers across Illinois, and the people of Chicago will continue to see its effects.
Anewly passed Illinois law bans the purchase of most semi-automatic weapons and large-capacity magazines. Current semiautomatic weapons owners will be required to register with the Illinois State Police by January 1, 2024 and its usage is restricted to private property or approved sites, such as shooting ranges. Despite recent controversy over the term “assault weapons,” this bill has been colloquially nicknamed an “assault weapons ban” by both proponents and opponents. For clarity, assault weapons generally refer to automatic or semi-automatic weapons capable of accepting detachable magazines, a pistol grip, and occasionally other features. Some gun
rights organizations find the term to be misleading, as “assault weapons” are often referred to as military-style, despite having high civilian usage. The issue of safety has been a crucial aspect of debates centering this bill. Opinions differ on how to address violent crime in Chicago, with some advocating for increased policing efforts, while others call for redirecting resources to address underlying causes. Many Hyde Park residents expressed safety concerns for the area: Anna York, 76, a Hyde Park resident since 1982, stated, “It’s a wonderful place to live, but there are these really serious issues that are here with us.” Jackie Jackson, the owner of Kilwins Hyde Park,
Avictory 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
and effective form. Included in this coverage are refills for said opioid antagonists. HB 4408 now amends the protection of policyholders, ensuring that by January 1st, 2024, no providers can impose copayments on coverage of naloxone hydrochloride. This protection is key, as naloxone hydrochloride is the most popularly used and important opioid antagonist, branded as NARCAN.
There are few things in modern medicine that we could call imme-
shut down the shop in 2022 after her storefront was damaged by stray bullets. She said that more policing would make her feel safer. Steven Lucy, the owner of Open Produce, asserts that increased policing to an already heavily patrolled neighborhood won’t change the violent crime rate, and alternative solutions should be explored.
Additionally, many Hyde Park residents also believe that removing semi-automatic weapons and high-capacity magazines from violent crimes will reduce the risk of a lethal shooting. UChicago Crime Lab director Kim Smith says that considering ¾ of shootings begin with an altercation involving a gun, removing widespread availability of high-capacity magazines could make these shootings less likely to result in
CONTINUED ON PAGE 38
diate “miracle cures.” NARCAN is arguably one of them. It effectively reverses the occurrence of an opioid overdose, through the quick, safe, and easy administering of a concentrated nasal spray – which is not harmful, even if administered to non-overdosing patients. NARCAN is currently mostly available to the general public in most areas of the United States through prescription, pharmacy order, and municipal or state programs. However, to the dismay of harm-reduction advocates, it is not offered over-the-counter. Despite this, HB 4408 greatly increases
CONTINUED ON PAGE 39
. . .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
Thestale 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
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
. . .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
CONTINUED
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
addictions and incentivizing drug abuse. For example, in 2022, information about safe-smoking kits was deliberately misconstrued as “federal spending on crack pipes.” Opponents, often conservative politicians and pundits, either misunderstand or obfuscate the aims of these policies, guiding a perspective that misses the forest for the trees when it comes to the aims of harm-reduction policies and initiatives. Harm-reduction endeavors aim to mitigate the death and destruction of the already 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 pol-
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 surviving an overdose does not treat addiction, but it is an important step in ensuring that more suffering Americans have a chance to be treated.
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
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.
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.
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-
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.
The ARO is intensifying the construction of single-unit, luxury housing which has become the linchpin of gentrification devastating Chicago’s historic neighborhoods
Thestate of Illinois passed a bill recently that allows public school students to take upwards of five mental health days, inspiring another bill that allowed school employees to do the same. The bill stipulates that those who choose to be absent in an effort to focus on their mental well- being are allowed to make up any work they may have missed. It affirms the provision of contact information belonging to school personnel who can provide help, such as a counselor, after the student has obtained two absences on the grounds of mental health.
The idea of a bill catering to students struggling with mental health was brought about between 2020 and 2021 when the pandemic resulted in an all-around decrease in mental health. Even before the pandemic, children in the United States were already facing a mental health crisis due to various factors, a major contributor being school related stress.
Bill 0576 in Illinois is only one of many across the nation that have caved into demands for mental-health resources. States like Virginia, Maine, California, Kentucky, and Colorado have their own versions of Bill 0576, all of which are attempts to aid post-pandemic recovery for children in schools. Offering students the opportunity to take time off for their mental well being is a step in the right direction for every state involved as it actively works towards destigmatizing the topic and increasing awareness. There has been a growth of support for children
sturggling with mental health; iIt is fascinating to witness the change in which see how states have responded to the mental health crisis and how in doing so there has been a growth in support for children struggling. Most of us can agree that growing up, In our upbringings, the idea of mental health days in school was unheard of, which subsequently makes this making this post-pandemic policy seem revolutionary.
Although it is still too early to see the statistical effects the new policy may have on public school students, breaks from academic settings have been an option for higher level education institutions for decades, including the University of Chicago. Leaves of absences in college settings are known to have positive impacts as they are a viable alternative to withdrawals from classes or rather, falling into chronic absenteeism. According to the Department of Education, more than 20% of high school students and over 14% of middle school students across the country are chronically absent, making this a pressing issue for school districts to address. Whilst leaves of absences in higher education are not the exact same as Bill 0567, it can still be expected for the bill to prove positive for students in Illinois much like it has for those in college by allowing them to rest and start to gain a mentality that involves self-care.
Since the enactment of the bill, policymakers have considered extending mental health days to teachers as well, hoping that they too could recover from the negative
effects of the pandemic. Children in school struggled coping with the lack of socialization and troubles of learning online because of COVID-19, but teachers too dealt with their own stressors having to adapt to unforeseen circumstances. The bill for teachers was also a success in Illinois, and as of May 2022, teachers were granted the ability to use sick days for mental health recuperation.
Bill 0567 raises the possibility of mental health days for UChicago students outside of the leaves of absences already offered. While it would be beneficial for students struggling to keep up with high stress levels of class rigor, it would also pose the problem of being detrimental in our attemptsing to keep up with missed work. Our fast-paced quarter system makes it difficult for students to be able to miss classes, even if the reason is for mental health purposes. Having the ability to take a day off for mental health would become obsolete if students are still tasked with the responsibility of ensuring they do not fall behind or are unprepared when returning to class. Thus, offering mental health days for our student population would undoubtedly be a step forward in removing the stigma behind mental illness but possibly 2 steps back in actually providing a meaningful break. The question remains: what would implementing our own version of Bill 0567 at UChicago look like for students and employees?
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.
