Volume III, Issue I (Winter 2025)

ULM Undergraduate Law Magazine

IN THIS ISSUE

legal reparations for historical atrocities in east asia: a legal and moral imperative | page 18

cheap justice: the chronic overworking and underfunding of american public defense | page 42

ghost trains and gridlock in chicago’s future | page 86

UNDERGRADUATE LAW MAGAZINE ABOUT

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

MASTHEAD & STAFF

Editor-In-Chief

Aya Hamza

Managing Editors

Senior Ryanne Leonard

Junior Ana Estupinan

Executive Editors

Ahmed Ahmed

Divya Mehrotra

Iman Snobar

Staff Writers

Fimisokan Adesemoye

Isabel Alia-Arias

Sebastian Arnal

Alia Bencheqroun

Brodie Bojorquez

Jack Bordeaux

Simon Camelo

Kimberly Chavez

Meghan Derby

Mona El-Kishky

Joshua Enebo

Cyrah Gayle

Gianna Grant

Associate Editors

Alejandro Sandoval Elizondo: Upcoming Chicago Policy

Elijah Bullie: Opinion

Héloïse Vatel: Legal Analyses

Kevin Guo: Legal Analyses

Michelle Du: Interviews

Nikulas Soska: Two Views

Rocio Portal: Opinion

Maya Gutierrez

Michael Hansen

Jonathan Ji

Devon Jiang

Isabella Kelly

Letom Kpea

Yoo-Bin Kwon

Ashley Lee

Harris Lencz

Jennifer Li

Vincent Li

Jolin Liu

Scarlett Lopez Rodriguez

Addison Marshall

Style Manager

Austin San Juan

Illustration Manager

Lia Yufei He

Treasurer

Kathryn Fang

Digital Content Managers

Doan Tran

Tejas Shivkumar

Jack Martinez

Denise Michalopoulos

Jahlanny Morrobel-Pena

Samuel Morse

Sara Munshi

Zoe Nelson

Dat Nguyen

Nik Ochoa

Lauren Palfrey

Zoe Parkin

Andrea Pita Mendez

Teddy Pitofsky

Christopher Rodriguez

Joachim Sciamma

Community Relations Manager

Tomas Vallejo

Print Manager

Natalia Girolo

Leena Sfar

Sanjay Srivatsan

Emberlynn St. Hilaire

Ovia Sundar

Maya Sundararajan

Jean Sung

Rivka Tamir

Haley Thomas

Ariel Trejo

Nitya Upadrasta

Aparna Viswanathan

Megan Wei

Oscar Zhang

Karen Zhu

Letter from the Editor

BRIEF OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO UNDERGRADUATE LAW MAGAZINE, HEREINAFTER “ULM,” AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF REIMAGINING RETURNS ON INVESTMENTS

QUESTION PRESENTED

Whether the next generation of legal practitioners must reassess the field’s return on investment amid abysmal reported outcomes, who has the luxury to avoid doing so, and how substance is enforced by humor can offer added value.

IDENTITY AND INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE

Amicus curiae is ULM, a tenacious staff excited to explore fields of interest and eager to demonstrate their understanding. Above all, the team identifies as a synergetic community available for members to learn from and lean into one another. Many writers actively consider legal careers. Fresh law graduates enter a uniquely volatile job market, reconciling professional plans with personal principles. Despite promises of stability and professional composure, the coming generation follows their grievances to guide their next steps.

ARGUMENT

On their way to an LSAT administration, a nervous test-taker opens the Wall Street Journal to find an article detailing how law school applications have tripled amid rising economic uncertainty, given the profession’s perceived job security. Three intense hours later, they turn to Instagram, where Bloomberg Law has posted a think piece on whether a juris doctorate guarantees the same return on investment it once did. LinkedIn is no longer composed of decade-long law firm partners announcing resignations. At the same time, young attorneys compile a list of offices sorted by the degree to which they have bent their staff and the rule of law to appease the current administration’s whims. Students brought to a brawl with the “why law” question at Thanksgiving dinners are now being forced to introspect and find the answer alone.

Irrespective of the Dow or the Oval Office today, the world needs lawyers. And it will find them: those with or without the keen edge that makes for great lawyering. The difference is who the news stories ultimately deter. Headlines cannot singly drive students’ decision-making in an already turbulent world, and they would know this if they consider a legal professional, who encapsulates their goal. Have they enjoyed life experiences you dream of recreating? At this stage in their life, what were they chasing? Was it laid out with a clear idea at the end of a tunnel? The defining difference between law and other pre-professional routes is that you get the most return on investment if you put yourself into greatness in what you are doing now, instead of getting tripped up by tunnel vision. It makes our discourse so rich and uncommon in most other fields.

Now, to turn to prospective attorneys, consider your aspirations. How do you move through the world as a person? When locked in on delivering the next succinct point via an Instagram create mode story or a thesis? When breaking the ice in a room? Now, allow me to break the fourth wall here.

The best advice I have received were those I first resisted: whether I deemed it too slow, too fast, too simple, or too out of reach.

One thing they shared? I looked up to where those advisors are now. The principles I respect them for are born from time teaching English in Laos, busing tables while booking TV commercials, or locking in at pace.

CONCLUSION

On the other side of the table, I want to have the worldly experience to afford me vibrant conversation capital, the strong moral sense I proudly abide by, and the legal savvy to dually put my interests and skills into conversation. We must reconcile and embrace the things that make us unique assets and define the sharp intellect that has gotten us to where we are today. Truly, sit in that. What is a story you would like to be able to tell? Better yet, would it not be great for your interest in the world to speak for itself?

Release expectations to instead embrace all the unknown possibilities, allow your extracurricular life (no, not just RSOs) to inform the more rigid curriculum. Go out with people you have everything to learn from and pay close attention to those you might not think you could learn something new from at face value.

I foremost remind our beloved ULM, you, reader, and myself to excel beyond static knowledge. Indulge in interests that ground and activate you in a way where the return on the investment from who you become far exceeds any initial plans or expectations.

Carpe diem,

Aya Hamza Refounding Editor-In-Chief

THE MASTHEAD MEET

aya hamza editor-in-chief

ryanne leonard senior managing editor

estupinan junior managing editor

ahmed ahmed executive editor

michelle du associate editor

divya mehrotra executive editor

kevin guo associate editor elijah

iman snobar executive editor

nikulas soska associate editor lia yufei he illustration manager

manager

LEGAL ANALYSES

FROM REMOVAL TO REVOCATION: INDIGENOUS CITIZENSHIP UNDER THREAT

by ARIEL TREJO STAFF WRITER

TheUnited States, now under a new administration, has experienced overwhelming change in a short period of time. In Donald Trump’s first week in office, he signed 36 executive orders, addressing issues from climate change to immigration. One of the executive orders, which sparked significant discourse, sought to end birthright citizenship,1 effectively denying citizenship to the U.S.-born children of unauthorized immigrants. This order has led many to call into question who is considered a citizen and who is not.

Although Donald Trump has a history of targeting Middle Eastern2 and Latin American Immigrants,3 his order has raised concerns among Indigenous individuals, who could potentially be included in this revocation of birthright citizenship. The basis for this challenge lies in the language of the Fourteenth Amendment, which

1 Brewer, Graham Lee and Har, Janie. “Trump’s Attempt to End Birthright Citizenship Would Overturn More than a Century of Precedent,” AP News, January 25, 2025, https://apnews.com/ article/trump-birthright-citizenship-native-chinese-executive-order-c163bbadd20609bd09fd5c5bccc6ba8d.

2 “A Licence to Discriminate: Trump’s Muslim & Refugee Ban,” Amnesty International UK, accessed February 21, 2025, https://www.amnesty.org.uk/ licence-discriminate-trumps-muslim-refugee-ban.

3 García, Uriel J., et. al., “‘A Lot of Fear Going on’: Texas Immigrant Community on Edge during Trump’s First Weeks,” The Texas Tribune, January 31, 2025, https:// www.texastribune.org/2025/01/31/texas-immigrants-undocumented-trump-deportation/.

grants citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”4 The ambiguity in this language, combined with historical legal exclusions, raises concerns that Indigenous people—many of whom have fought for centuries to be recognized as both sovereign and U.S. citizens—could once again find their status in jeopardy.

This is not the first time in history that Indigenous people have worried about being displaced from their land or had their citizenship called into question. The Indian Removal Act of 1830 forcibly removed Indigenous tribes from their lands,5 a pivotal moment in history as it was just one of the many times Indigenous people have been discriminated against in the U.S. At the time, President Andrew Jackson wanted to exchange tribal lands in the Southeast for unsettled lands west of the Mississippi River in an effort to prepare for white settlers. While some northern tribes relocated without conflict, the “Five Civilized Tribes” in the Southeast resisted, as they had established communities on these lands.6 This resistance led

4 Historical background on citizenship clause | constitution annotated | congress. gov | library of Congress, accessed February 22, 2025, https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt14-S1-1-1/ ALDE_00000811/.

5 “Indian Removal Act,” Encyclopædia Britannica, February 14, 2025, https:// www.britannica.com/topic/Indian-Removal-Act.

6 “The Trail of Tears and the Forced Relocation of the Cherokee Nation (Teach-

to the forced removal of the Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek, and Seminole tribes, resulting in the deaths of thousands.

Regarding Trump’s executive order, U.S. Justice Department lawyers cited the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which explicitly excluded “Indians not taxed” from citizenship.7 The Civil Rights Act of 1866 declared that all persons born or naturalized in the U.S. were citizens, regardless of race.8 However, the act was not intended to include Indigenous people, meaning that those living in tribal nations or maintaining their identity outside of U.S. jurisdiction were not granted citizenship or protections under this law. It was not until 1924, following years of conflicting views and disputes over tribal sovereignty, that Congress

CONTINUED ON PAGE 8

ing with Historic Places) (U.S. National Park Service),” National Parks Service, accessed February 21, 2025, https:// www.nps.gov/articles/the-trail-of-tearsand-the-forced-relocation-of-the-cherokee-nation-teaching-with-historic-places. htm#:~:text=Among%20the%20relocated%20tribes%20were,war%20that%20 ended%20in%201843.

7 “The Citizenship Clause,” National Constitution Center – constitutioncenter.org, accessed February 21, 2025, https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/amendment-xiv/ clauses/700?gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAiA5eC9BhAuEiwA3CKwQuzEB0ZumwXd-mIaUU47jc42XhVTO_OYNQOGVHvx_zaEztfisl6kBhoCv2IQAvD_ BwE.

8 “Teaching about the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924: 100 Years On,” Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, May 22, 2024, https://dpi.wi.gov/news/ dpi-connected/teaching-about-centennial-indian-citizenship-act-1924.

PURDUE PHARMA AND THE SACKLER FAMILY PRESCRIBED WITH A SETTLEMENT

“We sell hope in a bottle” read one advertisement1. “The rate of addiction for patients who are treated by doctors is much less than 1%,” read another2. Purdue Pharma developed and began distributing Oxycontin in 19963. An opiate that reduces pain while also allowing users to experience euphoria when consuming a specific dosage, Oxycontin’s marketing as a miracle drug enabled Purdue Pharma to reach $1 billion in Oxycontin sales in 1996.

The aforementioned promotions are some examples of the advertisements that caused Purdue Pharma to pay more than $600 million in fines due to misleading regulators, doctors, and patients about risks of the drug and the potential for Oxycontin to be abused in 20074. After nearly a decade since the ruling, the Sackler family’s reign in the pharmaceutical industry

1 Lurie, Julia. ‘Court Documents Show How OxyContin’s Sales Team Pushed “Hope in a Bottle” Eye-popping details from a recently unsealed lawsuit.’ Mother Jones, July 19, 2018. https://www.motherjones.com/ politics/2018/07/court-documentsshow-how-oxycontins-sales-teampushed-hope-in-a-bottle/

2 Detrano, Joseph. “The Four-Sentence Letter Behind the Rise of Oxycontin.” Rutgers University Center of ALcohol and Substance Use Studies. https://alcoholstudies.rutgers.edu/the-four-sentence-letter-behind-the-rise-of-oxycontin/ 3 Oxycontin Diversion and Abuse. “Background.” National Drug Intelligence Center, January 2001. https://www.justice.gov/archive/ndic/ pubs/651/backgrnd.htm#:~:text=OxyContin%20was%20developed%20 and%20patented,Demi%20contains%20 just%202.25%20mg.

4 Meier, Barry. “In Guilty Plea, OxyContin Maker to Pay $600 Million.” New York Times, May 10, 2007. https://www.nytimes. com/2007/05/10/business/11drug-web. html

by SIMON CAMELO STAFF WRITER

may be coming to a conclusion with the most recent settlement reached between California, New York, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia as the recipients and members of the Sackler family and their former company, Purdue Pharma, as the debtors5.

On January 23, 2025, California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced that the bipartisan states negotiating committee and the aforementioned states reached a settlement with the Sackler Family and Purdue Pharma worth $7.4 billion for creating and exacerbating the U.S. opioid crisis. Under the management of the Sackler family, Purdue Pharma created, manufactured, and falsely marketed opioids as a safer and better alternative to other pain-killing medications. Unfortunately, these efforts from Purdue Pharma and The Sackler’s have become the main cause for the increase of addiction rates and overdose deaths within the United States.

The implications of this settlement reach further than simply slowing down the current opioid epidemic in the United States. The current settlement came as a result of the Supreme Court blocking an original settlement due to liability concerns. The original settlement was worth around $6 billion dollars and contained a key difference: the Sackler family would not have been

5 “Press Release: Attorney General Bonta Helps Secure $7.4 Billion from Purdue Pharma and the Sackler Family for Fueling the Opioid Crisis.” Office of Rob Bonta, Attorney General, January 23, 2025.

https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-helps-secure-74-billion-purdue-pharma-and-sackler-family

able to be held liable for any future lawsuits regarding opioids6. The majority in the decision that struck down the original settlement pointed towards illegality of “non-debtor releases” which would have allowed for Purdue Pharma to restructure the company in a way that legally protects the Sackler family by filing for bankruptcy without the consent of the creditors and the victims of the opioid crisis7. The dissenting opinion, written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh and joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Chief Justice John Roberts, pointed toward federal bankruptcy law allowing bankruptcy court to approve appropriate plan provisions to ensure that the assets of the company going bankrupt are fairly distributed amongst creditors, as well as uncertainty as to whether the victims would receive any compensation for the damage done to their lives8. Both sides offer credible justifications for their opinions. Under the new settlement, the Sackler family is no longer in control of Purdue Pharma and will no longer sell opioids within the United States, and millions of

CONTINUED ON PAGE 9

6 Hurley, Lawrence. “Supreme Court blocks Purdue Pharma Opioid Settlement, Threatening Billions of Dollars for Victims.” NBC News, June 27, 2024. [Over] https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-blocks-purdue-pharma-opioid-settlement-rcna139066

7 Kruzel, John. “US Supreme Court Blocks Purdue Pharma Bankruptcy Settlement.” Reuters, June 27, 2024. https://www.reuters.com/legal/ us-supreme-court-blocks-purdue-pharma-bankruptcy-settlement-2024-06-27/

8 Howe, Amy. “Supreme Court Blocks Oxycontin Bankruptcy Plan.” SCOTUS Blog, June 27, 2024. https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/ supreme-court-blocks-oxycontin-bankruptcy-plan/

FROM REMOVAL TO REVOCATION: INDIGENOUS CITIZENSHIP UNDER THREAT

CONTINUED FROM PAGE 6

passed the Indian Citizenship Act,9 granting Indigenous people U.S. citizenship while allowing them to maintain a form of “dual citizenship” under tribal jurisdiction. Despite this, the act did not grant Indigenous people the right to vote, as voting rights were determined by individual states. Prior to the act, Indigenous people were only considered citizens if they served in the military or assimilated into American society outside of their tribal lands.10

9 Dirks, Sandhya. “100 Years Ago, Indigenous People Were Granted U.S. Citizenship by Law,” NPR, May 29, 2024, https://www.npr.org/2024/05/29/nxs1-4985003/100-years-ago-indigenouspeople-were-granted-u-s-citizenship-bylaw.

10 Denetclaw, Pauly. “100 Years Later: A Congressional Act That Didn’t Ensure Equal Justice • Maine Morning Star,” Maine Morning Star, August 27, 2024, https://mainemorningstar. com/2024/06/05/100-years-later-a-congressional-act-that-didnt-ensure-equal-justice/#:~:text=Before%20 the%20Indian%20Citizenship%20

The historical exclusion of Indigenous people from U.S. citizenship raises critical concerns about the implications of revoking birthright citizenship today. Citizenship, while a legal safeguard, is not necessarily the ultimate goal for many Indigenous communities: sovereignty is. However, citizenship provides them with certain legal protections and access to their land. If Indigenous people were to lose their recognized U.S. citizenship, they would face an unprecedented crisis: stripped of both their legal standing within the U.S. and their ability to assert their sovereignty. The potential loss of citizenship is not just a bureaucratic oversight; it is a deliberate disregard for their rights and a threat that could undermine their claims to land, resources, and self-governance.

The exclusion of Indigenous

Act%2C%20Indigenous%20people,the%20Dawes%20Act;%20and%20 through%20military%20service.

voices in discussions about citizenship is not an accident, but a continuation of a long-standing pattern of Indigenous neglect and erasure. The parallels between past and present are clear. From the forced removals under the Indian Removal Act to their exclusion from the Civil Rights Act of 1866, Indigenous identity has been systematically challenged by the United States government. Today, proposals to end birthright citizenship threaten to once again push Indigenous people into a state of legal ambiguity. If Indigenous people are not recognized as U.S. citizens, where do they belong, especially when the very land they live on was taken from them through colonization? The legal uncertainty surrounding their status is not just a matter of policy—it is a direct attack on their rights, their identity, and their place within a nation that has historically sought to erase them.

PURDUE PHARMA AND SACKLER FAMILY PRESCRIBED

documents regarding Purdue Pharma and the Sackler’s opioid business will be made public over the next six years9. Given the stakes at hand – namely the destruction of a family name, demolition of a business, and accountability for manufacturing a deadly epidemic, the Sackler family’s compliance and commitment to the new settlement can provide hope that future settlements will bring definitive ends to violators and their acts along with increased identification of accountability for violations committed and the harm they have produced.

At the same time, the court’s ruling can have the opposite effect. Accountability involves the admittance

9 “Press Release: Attorney General Bonta Helps Secure $7.4 Billion from Purdue Pharma and the Sackler Family for Fueling the Opioid Crisis.” Office of Rob Bonta, Attorney General, January 23, 2025.

of guilty and intentional malpractice within an endeavor. Given that companies and individuals can no longer utilize what can be deemed as a loophole for accountability, settlements will likely take longer to resolve.

Anticipating that companies and individuals will be more hesitant to engage in settlement offers, the most impacted party continues to be the victims of those harmed by the actions of the violators. In the case at hand, the court withheld necessary monetary compensation to vulnerable individuals and likely lowered the maximum distributable aid. In a letter to their local judge and an interview with National Public Radio, Honolulu resident Keola Kekuwa explains being revived three times for an opioid overdose and losing an ideal job, love, and his identity due to his opioid addiction10. Given

WITH A SETTLEMENT

https://www.npr. org/2021/08/09/1025171160/victimsof-purdue-pharmas-painkillers-readtheir-letters-to-the-court CONTINUED FROM PAGE 7

https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-helps-secure-74-billion-purdue-pharma-and-sackler-family

10 Mann, Brian. “As Purdue Pharma Bankruptcy Nears Approval, Family Members Write About The Human Toll.” NPR, August 9, 2021.

that non-debtor releases have now been voided, companies and individuals will likely engage in rigorous restructuring practices to mitigate their debt obligations to their victims, leading to further delays and decreases in potential aid. The Supreme Court has made a bold choice in removing a loophole that now no longer allows companies and individuals to be spared accountability for destroying lives. Although this effort can lead to more effective outcomes, it will also delay the outcomes and aid deployed to individuals who are in desperate need. The latest settlement between the Bipartisan States Negotiating Committee and numerous other states with Purdue Pharma and the Sackler family demonstrates that settlements of high magnitude can still lead to favorable outcomes in this new era emphasizing accountability.

ERODING DUE PROCESS: HOW DEPARTMENT OF STATE V. MUNOS RESHAPES IMMIGRATION LAW

by ISABEL ALIA ARIAS STAFF WRITER

Since its inception, the U.S. immigration system has been built on the convention of family reunification, which it recognizes as a fundamental right of U.S. citizens. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (INA) enshrines this principle by creating expedited pathways for family-based immigration, particularly for spouses or immediate relatives of U.S. citizens. However, because immigration law is primarily statutory, it remains highly fluid and subject to the control of the executive and legislative branches.1 Courts play only a limited role in immigration law unless the rights of U.S. citizens are directly implicated. The Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Department of State v. Muñoz on the rights of government officials to deny visas without due process marks a precedent that weakens the constitutional safeguards for marriage and family unity.2

In 2010, Sandra Muñoz, an American citizen, married Luis Ascencio-Cordero who was an undocumented migrant from El Salvador, with whom she shared a child. Three years later, they filed a spousal petition with the government to secure a green card for Ascencio-Cordero. This petition was approved, and as part of the process, he had to return to El Salvador for a screening interview in the U.S. Consulate. He was expected to

1 Kandel, William. A. U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy. CRS Report No. R43145 (Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2013-2018). https:// crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/ R43145.

2 Department of State v. Muñoz, 602 U.S. _ (2024), (U.S. Supreme Court, 2024).

return to the U.S. after a few weeks. During the interview, the consular officer asked Ascenio-Cordero about his tattoos. Ascencio-Cordero had gotten them during his teenage years. They depicted a wide range of subjects including “Our Lady of Guadalupe, Sigmund Freud, ‘tribal’ pattern with a paw print, and theatrical masks with dice and cards.”3 Throughout the case, several experts were called to discuss the meaning of his tattoos.

The significance of these tattoos is multifaceted. On one hand, they are personal expressions deeply rooted in cultural traditions. For example, the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe is not only a religious symbol but also a cultural icon for protection and identity among Latin Americans. On the other hand, certain images, such as the tribal pattern with a paw print and the theatrical masks, have been co-opted in some circles as shorthand for gang membership. This duality is at the heart of the controversy: what is a cultural expression for one can be perceived as a criminal marker by the government.

Ascenio-Cordero’s visa was subsequently denied, six months after his consular interview. The reasoning given for his denial was a statute in which any noncitizen who a consular officer has “reasonable ground to believe” will engage in unlawful activity in the United States can be inadmissible. Ascencio-Cordero has no criminal history, which caused Muñoz to go through multiple avenues to attempt to force the government to provide a factual basis for her husband’s inadmissibility. At every turn, the government merely cited the statute with-

3 Id. at Dissenting, 9.

out further explanation. This caused Muñoz to sue the federal government for abridging her constitutional liberty interest in her husband’s visa application by failing to give a sufficient reason for why he was inadmissible. Three years later, the government disclosed that the visa denial was because of suspicion that Ascencio-Cordero was affiliated with MS13, an international criminal gang, due to his tattoos. This revelation is particularly troubling, given that Catholic imagery such as Our Lady of Guadalupe holds deep protective and cultural meaning in Latin American communities. The reinterpretation of these cultural symbols as indicators of criminal activity sets a dangerous precedent. However, the Lower Courts of Appeal ruled in favor of Muñoz, claiming that her right to marriage and family life was protected by the Due Process Clause, which guarantees that no person shall be deprived of a fundamental right without due process of the law. Marriage has long been recognized as a right protected by due process, and the lower court reasoned that the government’s failure to provide a detailed justification for its decision within a reasonable timeframe violated Muñoz’s rights. This ruling was overturned by a 6-3 Supreme Court ruling, authored by Justice Barrett, which held that Muñoz has no liberty interest in her husband’s visa application. In an attack on the right to marriage, it argued that U.S. citizen spouses do not have a liberty interest in living with their partners. Justice Barrett’s majority opinion relies on the doctrine of consular nonreviewability established by the United States ex rel. Knauff v.

“By placing absolute power in the hands of consular officers and removing judicial oversight, the Supreme Court’s ruling in Department of State v. Muñoz erodes due process protections in immigration law.”

Shaughnessy ruling.4 This doctrine claims that an executive officer’s decision to admit or exclude a noncitizen is final and conclusive and not subject to judicial review.5 However, there exists a narrow exception when the denial burdens the constitutional rights of a U.S. citizen. Barrett argued that Muñoz needed to demonstrate that the visa denial itself violated a constitutional right to allow judicial review. The Court overturned years of precedent by asserting that while the right to marriage may be fundamental, there is no fundamental right to live with a non-citizen spouse in the United States. Barrett’s reasoning used the Glucksberg test, to determine whether a right is constitutional, and claimed that it failed the first step.6 The right to live with one’s noncitizen spouse is not an asserted right deeply rooted in the nation’s history.

However, this reasoning overturns the protections granted to the institution of marriage. The right to marriage and cohabitation with one’s spouse has long been considered fundamental. Maynard v. Hill described marriage as “the most important relation in life” and the “foundation of family.”7 Loving v. Virginia established marriage as a cornerstone of substantive due process, a principle further reinforced in Obergefell v. Hodges.8 The dissenting opinion criticized the majority for mischaracteriz-

4 U.S. ex rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537 (1950).

5 Id. at 538.

6 Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997).

7 Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 210, (1888).

8 Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967); Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015).

ing Muñoz’s claim. She was not asserting a broad right to have her husband admitted but was rather challenging the government’s ability to block her from living with him without judicial oversight. The issue should not be whether the visa denial burdens Muñoz’s individual right, but whether it burdens the general right to marriage - and it does by not allowing for due process. The dissent acknowledges that the visa denial in this case may be justified due to the eventual disclosure which they deemed was “facially legitimate and bona fide reason”. This reasoning is grounded in Kleindienst v. Mandel, which held that, in some cases, the government can restrict entry to non-citizens if there is a “facially legitimate and bona fide reason” for doing so, even if the reasons are not fully explained to the individual involved.9 The dissent argues the issue was the lack of due process in a reasonable timeframe and lack of protections given to the institution of marriage. This case effectively removes the right to marriage as an exception for the doctrine of consular nonreviewability. By placing absolute power in the hands of consular officers and removing judicial oversight, the Supreme Court’s ruling in Department of State v. Muñoz erodes due process protections in immigration law. The decision cements the executive branch’s ability to unilaterally deny visas without providing substantive reasoning, effectively stripping U.S. citizens of their ability to challenge arbitrary and potentially erroneous decisions. This shift consolidates un9 Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753, 769 (1972).

checked power within consular offices, completely reducing transparency and accountability in immigration decisions. If the courts cannot review such decisions, there is little recourse for individuals impacted by unjust rulings. The lack of judicial oversight is especially detrimental to immigration law because it is entirely based on statutes, allowing the executive and legislative branches to enact laws at their discretion. In the absence of guaranteed protections for immigrants, judicial precedents are crucial in establishing safeguards in the application of these laws. Looking ahead, this precedent threatens to expand executive discretion further, allowing for broader denials under vague and unchallengeable suspicions. It intertwined cultural perception with immigration policy. In undermining judicial oversight, the ruling does not merely affect individual families; rather, it sets a dangerous precedent that fundamentally reshapes the balance of power in immigration law, diminishing constitutional protections for all U.S. citizens who seek to reunite with their loved ones.

SECTION 230 AND WHAT IT TELLS US ABOUT LEGISLATION ON FAST-MOVING INDUSTRIES

by TEDDY PITOFSKY STAFF WRITER

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 was enacted to protect internet service providers from liability for content posted by users on their platforms. At the time of the statute’s enactment, the internet was in its infancy, and Congress sought to encourage both investments and voluntary content monitoring1 by providing protections for companies. However, as the internet has matured, the broad protections provided by Section 230 have contributed to the proliferation of various forms of harmful content on the internet.

At the birth of the internet, many interactive services were very simple, providing little more than neutral platforms for the exchange of information. Chat rooms, for example, allowed users to talk with others over the internet, in some cases, without any content moderation of any kind. After leading internet companies adopted business models based on advertising, however, they became incentivized to keep users on their platforms and, to that end, developed sophisticated recommendation algorithms to push content to users in order to keep them engaged.2 This form of internet media is profoundly different than the early, neutral chat rooms, raising questions as to whether it should operate under the same legislation.

In recent years, terrorist at-

1 Gonzalez v. Google LLC, 2 F.4th 871 (9th Cir. 2021).

2 Brannon, Valerie C. and Holmes, Eric N. “Section 230: An Overview,” CRS Reports, last modified January 4, 2024, https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/ pdf/R/R46751.

tacks have been orchestrated over the internet. One such case was ruled on by the Supreme Court in Google v. Gonzales, in which the family of a woman killed in Paris during a terrorist attack sued YouTube and, by extension, its owner Google, alleging the attack was orchestrated through YouTube’s platform. The Gonzales lawyers argued that Google should not benefit from Section 230 immunity for two main reasons. Firstly, the pages viewed by YouTube users were a combination of third-party content uploaded by users and advertisements sold by YouTube, meaning the pages viewed were not purely third-party content of the type covered by Section 230.3 Secondly, YouTube’s algorithm promoted terrorist content rather than acting as a neutral platform on which the offensive content was uploaded and that YouTube must be held responsible for the promotion of the offensive content.4 The claims around advertising, while prominent in Gonzales’ argument in the lower courts, were secondary in the SCOTUS case. Given that Section 230 was created to encourage the development of internet companies, and advertising is their major source of income, considering the advertising claims was necessary for establishing the facts of the case. The latter concern, about algorithmic amplification, played a central role in the case in the lower courts. There, reading Section 230 broadly, the Ninth Circuit ruled that because YouTube did not intend to promote terrorist content, and specifically pro-

3 Fisher, Deborah. “Gonzales Vs. Google (2023),” Free Speech Center, accessed 2023, https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/ article/gonzalez-v-google/.

4 Id.

hibited content of the nature, it enjoyed the protections of Section 230.5 However, on appeal, the Supreme Court declined to rule on the breadth and applicability of Section 230 after finding the plaintiffs did not establish that YouTube was liable for their algorithmic activity even without Section 230 protections, removing the need to consider whether the immunity applied.6

Recently, the Third Circuit issued a very different ruling in a similar case, Anderson v. TikTok, Inc., 116 F.4th 180 (3d Cir. 2024), finding that TikTok’s algorithm did not qualify for Section 230 protections, as it was “editorial content.”7 Anderson reviewed the case of a teenager who died while trying to attempt the “blackout challenge,” a TikTok trend in which users would try to suffocate themselves until they lost consciousness. This “trend” was promoted by TikTok’s algorithm and led many teenagers to harm or even kill themselves.8 Writing for the court, Judge Patty Shwartz made a crucial distinction between passively providing a platform for third-party internet content and actively promot-

5 Carvão, Paulo. “The Supreme Court Has Spoken on Gonzalez v Google – Now It’s Congress’s Turn To Address Section 230,” Harvard Advanced Leadership Initiative Social Impact Review, Harvard College, https://www.sir.advancedleadership.harvard.edu/articles/supremecourt-spoken-gonzalez-v-google-nowcongresss-turn-section-230.

6 Gonzalez, 2 F.4th at 871.

7 Arrieche, Alejandro. “Devastating TikTok Lawsuit May Have Killed Section 230: Is Social Media Doomed?,” Saltz Mongeluzzi Bendeski Trial Lawyers, last modified August 31, 2024, accessed February 18, 2025, https://www.smbb.com/ news-article/devastating-tiktok-lawsuitmay-have-killed-section-230-is-socialmedia-doomed/.

8 Id.

“And rather than protecting only start-up investment, the statute now protects some of the world’s largest and most profitable companies.”

ing it through the algorithm. In her ruling, Judge Shwartz wrote “TikTok makes choices about the content recommended and promoted to specific users, and by doing so, is engaged in its own first-party speech.”9 Additionally, the court noted that TikTok repeatedly showed videos of the challenge to Anderson, until she was convinced to try it herself. If the facts had been different, and Anderson had only viewed the video once, without being directed to it by TikTok’s algorithm, the court would likely have ruled that TikTok enjoyed Section 230 protections.10

Both the circumstances and arguments presented in Google and Anderson were similar, and yet the rulings were vastly different. In Google, the Supreme Court ruled that YouTube was not liable, even independent of Section 230, and in Anderson, the court ruled that TikTok was both liable and shouldn’t receive Section 230 protections, even though the plaintiffs in both cases made arguments about algorithms as original content. This inconsistency perhaps arises from the fact that Section 230’s simplistic ap-

9 Id.

10 Tom McBrien, Tom. “In Anderson v. TikTok, the Third Circuit Applies Questionable First Amendment Reasoning to Arrive at the Correct Section 230 Outcome,” Electronic Privacy Information Center, last modified October 10, 2024, accessed February 16, 2024, https://epic. org/in-anderson-v-tiktok-the-third-circuitapplies-questionable-first-amendmentreasoning-to-arrive-at-the-correct-section-230-outcome/.

proach, adopted when the internet was viewed as an exciting new public utility, has been overwhelmed as the internet has become significantly more complex and commercially driven. The statute was implemented in 1996, a year before the first social media platform, SixDegrees, was founded,11 and 13 years before the first social media algorithm was implemented by Facebook.12 Thus, the confusion regarding Section 230 protections as they relate to media algorithms seems inevitable, as tensions have arisen between what the statute says and what sound public policy is.

Section 230 protections may be too drastic when applied to the internet of today. According to the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), “when a judge decides that a lawsuit triggers Section 230, then the judge must dismiss the case, regardless of whether they believe the company acted wrongfully or not,”13 essentially making the law a “get-out-of-jail-free

11 Hafeez, Yumna. “First Social Media: The Evolution & Influence in 2025,” Social Champ, last modified June 11, 2024, accessed February 20, 2025, https://www. socialchamp.com/blog/first-social-media/.

12 Barrett, Nicholas. “How have social media algorithms changed the way we interact?,” British Broadcasting Corporation, last modified October 12, 2024, accessed February 10, 2024, https://www.bbc. com/news/articles/cp8e4p4z97eo.

13 McBrien. “In Anderson v. TikTok, the Third Circuit Applies Questionable First Amendment Reasoning to Arrive at the Correct Section 230 Outcome,” supra note 10.

card” for major internet corporations. Perhaps this level of protections worked when internet companies were smaller, but now, these protections harm Americans, preventing them from pursuing relief from “foreseeable, avoidable, and irresponsible tech company behavior.”14 And rather than protecting only start-up investment, the statute now protects some of the world’s largest and most profitable companies.

In a fast-moving industry like the internet, laws will inevitably become outdated and inapplicable, if not counterproductive. The conflicting rulings in Google and Anderson demonstrate how rulings on Section 230 can be vastly different, even when the circumstances of the cases are fairly similar. Fast-moving industries have become more numerous as technology becomes more advanced. The way laws can be structured to flexibly adapt to fast-changing circumstances is a critical issue that requires considerable examination, particularly in the AI era.

14 Id.

568 CARTEL: ELITE UNIVERSITIES’ SHARED FINANCIAL AID AWARD METHOD VIOLATES U.S. ANTITRUST LAW

by VINCENT LI STAFF WRITER

Nearly90% of undergraduate students at private, nonprofit 4-year institutions receive financial aid of various forms to support their education.1 A student’s ability to attend college is especially sensitive to how much needbased financial aid they receive, which is typically mathematically decided as a function of factors such as expected family contribution and the number of children in the household. Therefore, universities’ choice of financial aid calculation methodology directly affects the prices of higher education.

In January 2022, financial aid recipients at 17 elite universities, including the University of Chicago, sued their schools for violating antitrust law by colluding as a price-fixing cartel to reduce financial aid collectively. These 17 universities are members of the “568 Presidents Group,” which uses a shared set of principles—or the “Consensus Methodology”—to determine financial aid awards. However, Section 1 of the Sherman Act prohibits agreements that restrain trade or commerce among states or with foreign nations.2 In particular, price fixing constitutes a per se violation of the Sherman Act, as it is so blatantly anticompetitive that no further inquiry into the actual economic effects in the relevant market is needed, resulting in the lawsuit.3 Horizontal price-fixing agreements are immediate suspects of antitrust violations under Section 1 of

1 Hanson, Melanie. “Financial Aid Statistics,” (2025). Education Data Initiative (EducationData.org).

2 15 U.S.C. § 1.

3 Federal Trade Commission, “The Antitrust Laws,” Federal Trade Commission, accessed February 24, 2025, https:// www.ftc.gov

the Sherman Act, since they harm competition, cause artificially inflated prices, and detriment consumer welfare.4

The legal issue in the lawsuit was whether the 568 Cartel’s collusion—in the form of sharing a financial aid award methodology—violated antitrust law.

As members of the 568 Presidents Group, the defendants all adopted the Consensus Methodology to determine need-based financial aid awards. Members meet at least biannually to ensure compliance with the method. Additionally, the defendant schools are consistently highly ranked private universities.

In this case, the 568 Cartel’s coordination to agree on the same methodology to calculate need-based financial aid effectively constitutes price-fixing since determinations such as expected family contributions directly affect the aid package. Absent the collusion, universities are incentivized to compete for candidates by offering more generous financial aid. The formation of the 568 Presidents Group, as a result, reduces or even eliminates competition among elite private universities and results in higher costs of attendance.

The higher cost of attendance, due to reduced competition, is directly born by students and their families since they have low price elasticity of demand. Here, the relevant market can be vaguely defined as the U.S. higher education market. However, the competitive nature of college applications decreases the number of substitutes available for the average candidate, who finds it harder to switch to a different option as attendance costs increase. Moreover, the common preference for higher-ranked universities justifies an even narrower

market definition, where it becomes unlikely for consumers of higher education to substitute away from a price increase without essentially settling for lower-quality services.

Nevertheless, the defendants claimed an antitrust exemption based on Section 568 of the Improving America’s Schools Act, which permitted higher education institutions where “all students admitted are admitted on a need-blind basis” to use “common principles of analysis” to determine needbased financial aid.5 The 568 exemption applies only if all participant schools of the agreement admit all students on a need-blind basis, which was not the case here.

In reality, certain members of the 568 Cartel engaged in need-aware admission practices in which a student’s ability to pay affects their chance to receive an offer. For example, Vanderbilt has been alleged to have prioritized waitlisted students who can afford full tuition.6 Universities that were not legally discovered to practice need-aware admission practices also utilized the same methodology to award financial aid. No member of the agreement is entitled to the exemption as long as at least one university does not truly make admission decisions on a need-blind basis. Therefore, the 568 Cartel’s agreement to use the same need-based financial aid determination method violates U.S. antitrust law.

5 15 U.S.C. § 1 note; Pub. L. No. 103382, title V, § 568, 108 Stat. 3518, 4060 (1994).

6 See Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 142–143, Henry v. Brown University, No. 1:22-cv-125 (N.D. Il. Feb. 6, 2023), ECF No. 307.

THE CHAGOS DISPUTE

Inthe vast expanse of the Indian Ocean lie seven atolls that constitute the Chagos Archipelago. These islands were wrested from French control as a stipulation of the treaty that ended the Napoleonic Wars, entering the British Empire at the same time as Mauritius, which was also seized from the French in the same conflict. The Chagos and Mauritius would spend the next century and a half under British rule as the Crown Colony of Mauritius.1 In 1965, on the eve of Mauritius’ independence, the British purchased the Chagos from the self-governing colony for £3 million, creating the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT).2 The retention of the Chagos owed largely to military concerns. Britain and its ally, the United States, were keen to utilize this strategically located territory for a military facility. And on Diego Garcia, the largest island in the Chagos, Britain and the U.K. did just that, building a communications facility that later became a full-fledged base.3 To facilitate the base’s construction, the native Chagosians were expelled from the archipelago to Mauritius and Seychelles, and harsh restrictions on civilian presence in the BIOT precluded their return.4

The decision to hand over the Chagos Archipelago was not an uncontroversial one in Mauritius. Some Mauritian politicians felt that the compensation Mauritius received for the

1 Lynch, Timothy P. “Diego Garcia: Competing Claims to a Strategic Isle,” 16 Case W. Res. J. Int’l L. 101, 105 (1984)

2 Lynch, Timothy P. “Diego Garcia: Competing Claims to a Strategic Isle,” 105.

3 Bashfield, Samuel. 2024. “Mauritius

One Step Closer to Diego Garcia Sovereignty.” War on the Rocks, October 11, 2024

4 Brown, DeNeen L. 2023. “They were deported to build a U.S. naval base. Now they want reparations.” The Washington Post, October 8, 2023.

by SANJAY SRIVASTAN STAFF WRITER

sale of the Chagos was much too low, and others opposed it due to an ideological conviction that the BIOT was rightfully Mauritian land. In particular, the MMM party, which held the latter view, was also opposed to the militarized nature of the BIOT.5 These matters came to the forefront in 2017 when the United Nations General Assembly asked the International Court of Justice to issue an advisory opinion on who had a legitimate claim to the Chagos Archipelago. In 2019, the court, in a 13-1 ruling, held that the transfer of the Chagos Archipelago to the United Kingdom was illegitimate and that the territory ought to be returned to Mauritius.6

This ruling, advisory as it was in nature, was not a binding one, but it did create diplomatic pressure on the U.K. to give up the Chagos Archipelago. This pressure did not result in a commitment to cede the islands during the five years of the Conservative government in the aftermath of the ICJ’s advisory ruling. But during the brief 49-day premiership of Liz Truss, the British government opened negotiations with Mauritius on the future of the Chagos.7 It was only in 2024, after the Labour Party won a landslide victory and Keir Starmer became Prime Minister, that the British Government announced its intention to hand over the Chagos Archipelago, thrilling advocates of a handover of the territory to Mauritian sovereignty.8

5 Lynch, Timothy P. “Diego Garcia: Competing Claims to a Strategic Isle,” 105. 6 https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/ files/case-related/169/169-20170623REQ-01-00-EN.pdf

7 Mitchell, Archie, and David Maddox. “Diego Garcia Row: Truss and Cleverly Blamed as Starmer ‘surrenders’ Airbase Islands.” The Independent, October 6, 2024.

8 Siddique, Haroon, et. al. “Britain to Re-

The terms of the Chagos’ handover to Mauritius were designed to safeguard the joint US-UK military base in Diego Garcia and, in doing so, ensure that the strategic rationale behind the BIOT’s foundation could be maintained after the dissolution of the BIOT. In return for £9 billion, payable over the course of the 99-year lease, Diego Garcia would remain under British control. Yet, no sooner than it was announced, the handover deal became enmeshed in controversy, both domestically and internationally. And the biggest threats to the Chagos deal emerged from two parties that had the power to scuttle the deal: the newly elected American and Mauritian governments. In November 2024, the United States elected Donald Trump to a second, non-consecutive term in power, and from the outset, the Trump administration made it patently clear that it did not approve of the handover. The Trump administration’s opposition to the handover of the Chagos Archipelago largely rested on fears over the future of the military base Diego Garcia, as well as concerns over Chinese influence over Mauritius. The British government, in recognition of the United States’ military stake in the future of the Chagos (and perhaps in recognition of the uneven power balance in the British-American “special relationship”), has been keen not to proceed with a deal that would anger Trump. They have sought to assuage American concerns about China by arguing that a handover with a deal that secures British-American military interests in the Chagos would preclude concerns over the construction of military bases

CONTINUED ON PAGE 23

turn Chagos Islands to Mauritius Ending Years of Dispute.” The Guardian, October 3, 2024.

CASTE AND THE LAW: CALIFORNIA AS A CASE FOR CASTE

by OVIA SUNDAR STAFF WRITER

Caste,an ancient system and hierarchy, has undergone numerous changes in its 3,0001 years of existence. Caste functions as a system of social stratification in many South Asian countries, dictating one’s employment and livelihood based on the community they were born into, infiltrating every aspect of one’s life. Where one is allowed to attend school, work, who one is allowed to interact with or marry, and in more extreme cases, who one is allowed to speak to, be around, and where one is allowed to be are all determined by caste. In essence, caste can be thought of as a pyramid, with those at the top of the hierarchy possessing the highest amounts of social capital and power, with those at the bottom having less, subjugated by the upper castes. Those cast out of the system altogether, referred to as “untouchables,” are seen as impure and not part of functioning society, operating on its margins.

The modern-day system and practice of caste is complicated and far-reaching, no longer exclusive to South Asia. South Asian immigration has been on the rise across the world, and countries such as the United States have been experiencing South Asian immigration for more than a century. While analyzing these trends, it becomes evident that caste is not left behind when South Asians migrate. The American legal system, however, has not caught up to this trend, and has proved to be inadequate in addressing caste-related matters.

For example, an early case

1 Florida State College at Jacksonville. “Hinduism: Caste System in Ancient India.” In World Religions. 2017. https:// fscj.pressbooks.pub/worldreligions/ chapter/caste-system-in-ancient-india/.

in the fight for citizenship for South Asians uses caste as a central point of rationale, one of the first documented usages of caste in the American legal sphere. In the case United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind (1923),2 Thind, from Punjab, India, who moved to the U.S. for higher education and had served in World War I, was denied his citizenship due to his lack of Caucasian ancestry. Thind’s lawyer argued for his citizenship on the grounds of two questions: “1. Is a high caste Hindu of full Indian blood, born at Amrit Sar, Punjab, India, a white person within the meaning of section 2169,

“Nearly 100 years later, caste has certainly not disappeared from the legal sphere and continues to permeate South Asian American communities.”

Revised Statutes? 2. Does the act of February 5, 1917, (39 Stat. L. 875, section 3) disqualify from naturalization as citizens those Hindus, now barred by that act, who had lawfully entered the United States prior to the passage of said act?” Thind’s lawyer used his caste identity to prove his proximity to whiteness, as a high-caste Indian was one with “Aryan blood.” Thind’s

2 Pillai, Daksha. “United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind: Dual Legacies of a Forgotten Supreme Court Case.” The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History. https://www.gilderlehrman.org/sites/ default/files/file_media/38_Pillai.pdf.

case, a landmark in the grounds for South Asian citizenship, became one of the first cases documenting and legitimizing caste identity in the American legal system.

Nearly 100 years later, caste has certainly not disappeared from the legal sphere and continues to permeate South Asian American communities. Caste identity remains intersected with labor, employment, and education, and the gap in the legal system to adequately address these issues as caste related has become glaringly obvious.

One such case is the case of Lakireddy Bali Reddy v. United States of America (2005).3 Lakireddy Bali Reddy, an Indian man living in Berkeley, California, at the time of his arrest, was a powerful figure in his hometown Velvadam, in Andhra Pradesh, India, as well as in Berkeley. Reddy was a landlord, owning large amounts of property second only to the University of California in Berkeley. He wielded high amounts of social and economic capital and was a well-regarded figure in the area. It was revealed upon his arrest, however, that he was trafficking illegal immigrants from his hometown in India to the US, using them as his sex slaves or as labor on his many properties. The case, shocking to those in the Berkeley area, came to light when one of the girls he brought over, only 13, died of carbon monoxide poisoning on one of his properties. It was found that Reddy had sexual relations with her, and many of the other young girls he brought over. The details of the case also revealed a hidden system at play: caste. Velvadam, where many of the

3 Reddy v. United States, Nos. C 02-3752 CW, CR00-40028 CW (N.D. Cal. May. 19, 2005)

“Caste discrimination is not an archaic event: it is still occuring. The lack of legal measures to ensure justice in caste-related matters has allowed such discrimination to be swept under the rug.”

immigrants were from, was a predominantly Dalit, or “untouchable,” community. Reddy was a member of a dominant caste, though he was from the same town. Reddy promised many of the immigrants that they would have access to a better life in Berkeley, free from economic and caste-related struggle. Berkeley did not prove to be the sanctuary he promised, for many reasons. “Reddy ruled over his victims like a feudal lord, imposing his law rather than U.S. law. . . by importing the rules of the caste system, an apartheid that India has fought to eradicate but that still governs the daily lives of many Hindus.”4 Reddy’s power over the immigrants rested on his caste identity. It served as a foundation for their treatment, establishing for the immigrants standards and rules they were held to, even in the country where they were promised freedom. Caste was a lynchpin in Reddy’s success, yet American law did not hold him accountable on the basis of caste discrimination.

Another case exposing this lapse is Department of Fair Employment and Housing v. Cisco Systems, Inc (2020).5 A Dalit engineer working at Cisco in Silicon Valley alleged lower wages and unfair treatment by his dominant caste coworkers and superiors on the grounds of his caste. The Department sued Cisco and the engineers involved on grounds of discrimi-

4 Chabria, Anita. “His Own Private Berkeley.” Los Angeles Times. Last modified 2001. https://www.latimes.com/archives/laxpm-2001-nov-25-tm-7947-story.html.

5 Department of Fair Employment and Housing v. Cisco Systems, Inc., No. 5:20cv-04374 (N.D. Cal. filed June 30, 2020).

nation, to which Cisco responded that the case had no grounds as caste was not a protected category in California state discrimination laws. The state had no way to seek justice for caste discrimination, as it wasn’t codified in law, despite the lived experience at hand. The Department withdrew its case against the engineers involved in caste discrimination, and the case was then discussed purely from a labor standpoint. This case, especially in a field of work heavily dominated by South Asians, made obvious the lack of caste-based protections employees have. Racial discrimination cannot be akin to caste-based discrimination in the eyes of the law, since these engineers were all the same race. This nuanced form of discrimination goes unnoticed in the eyes of the law and allows it to prevail.

The two cases above fueled the fight to add caste as a protected category to California state discrimination laws. Bill SB 403,6 proposed by California State Senator Aisha Wahab (D) in February 2023, proposed to add caste to California discrimination-protected categories, allow legal avenues to address caste discrimination, and legitimize it in the eyes of the law. The move, however, was met with heavy backlash from members of the South Asian community. Members of prominent Hindu rights organizations saw SB 403 as discriminatory towards South Asians because it enforced different applications of the law within the race. Public pressure mounted, and the bill was vetoed by

6 Discrimination on the Basis of Ancestry, S. 403, 2023d Leg. (Cal., as introduced, 2023).

Governor Newsom, on the grounds that it was “unnecessary,” and that caste discrimination could be absolved under one of the existing protected categories. California law currently protects employees from the following types of discrimination: on the grounds of race, ancestry, age, disability, gender, sexual orientation, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, or military status. Caste, as shown by the Cisco case, is inadequately addressed when absorbed under the category of race. There is no unique protection for those affected by caste discrimination under current legislation.

Caste discrimination is not an archaic event: it is still occurring. The lack of legal measures to ensure justice in caste-related matters has allowed such discrimination to be swept under the rug. SB 403 is one way lawmakers and community members have attempted to address caste independent of other forms of discrimination, but deep-rooted systems of belief have not proven to be countered easily. Given the prevalence of caste-related issues and the increasing discourse around caste in America after the proposal of SB 403 and other similar legislation across the U.S., much is still left to be seen with how caste is addressed by the American legal system and society.

LEGAL REPARATIONS FOR HISTORICAL ATROCITIES IN EAST ASIA: A LEGAL AND MORAL IMPERATIVE

by ASHLEY LEE STAFF WRITER

Throughout history, wartime atrocities have left lasting scars on nations and individuals alike. In East Asia, the legal and moral question of reparations for Japan’s wartime actions, particularly concerning forced labor and the institutionalized sexual slavery of “comfort women,” remains unresolved. While Japan contends that past treaties, such as the 1965 Treaty on Basic Relations with South Korea and the 1972 China-Japan Normalization Agreement, legally settled all claims, contemporary legal challenges suggest otherwise. These treaties, negotiated under Cold War-era political pressures, failed to adequately address individual victims’ rights, prompting renewed legal and diplomatic disputes. As international legal norms evolve to prioritize individual rights and justice for crimes against humanity, the argument for continued reparations strengthens. Between 1937 and 1945, millions of Koreans and Chinese were subjected to forced labor under Imperial Japan, often in harsh and exploitative conditions for companies such as Mitsubishi, Nippon Steel, and Mitsui.1 Similarly, the comfort women system forced thousands of women—primarily from Korea, China, and the Philippines—into sexual servitude for the Japanese military.2 Although Japan has acknowledged aspects of these crimes through diplomatic statements, such as the 1993 Kono Statement, it has not provided direct government reparations

1 Chen, Edward. Japan’s Wartime Labor and the Struggle for Reparations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019), 45.

2 Yoshida, Reiji. Comfort Women and Imperial Japan: A Historical Investigation (New York: Routledge, 2001), 78.

to victims, relying instead on state-tostate treaties and symbolic efforts such as the 1995 Asian Women’s Fund, which was largely funded by private donations rather than official government resources.3 Victims and human rights organizations argue that these measures are inadequate and fail to fulfill Japan’s legal obligations under international law.

Beyond the legal claims, the moral dimension of these atrocities must be considered. The suffering endured by forced laborers and comfort women represents not only violations of international law but fundamental breaches of human dignity. Justice, in this case, is not solely about financial compensation; it is about recognizing the humanity of the victims and holding accountable the institutions and states that enabled these abuses. Failing to provide meaningful reparations perpetuates a historical narrative that prioritizes political expediency over ethical responsibility, undermining reconciliation efforts in the region.

Japan has consistently pointed to treaties such as the 1965 Japan-South Korea Normalization Treaty and the 1972 China-Japan Agreement as final settlements for all wartime claims. The 1965 treaty provided South Korea with $800 million in economic aid and loans, and Japan has argued that this agreement fully settled all historical disputes.4 However, South Korea’s 2018 Supreme Court ruling against Nippon Steel and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries

3 Soh, C. Sarah. The Comfort Women: Sexual Violence and Postcolonial Memory in Korea and Japan (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008), 102.

4 Lee, Jin-Wook. “Legal Finality and the 1965 Japan-South Korea Normalization Treaty: A Critical Analysis,” Asian Journal of International Law 10, no. 2 (2020): 245.

determined that individual victims retained the right to claim compensation, emphasizing that the treaty did not explicitly extinguish personal claims for forced labor.5 Similarly, while China officially renounced state reparations in 1972 as part of its normalization agreement with Japan, Chinese courts have increasingly accepted lawsuits against Japanese corporations, reflecting a shifting legal landscape that acknowledges the ongoing harm suffered by individuals.6

Japan’s reliance on these treaties fails to recognize a critical legal development: state-to-state agreements do not necessarily nullify the individual rights of victims to seek justice for crimes against humanity. This perspective is supported by legal precedents such as European Court of Human Rights rulings on Holocaust reparations, which establish that war crimes and human rights violations cannot be dismissed solely by diplomatic agreements.7 The international legal community has increasingly recognized that historical injustices require continued engagement, rather than being considered closed through Cold War-era settlements that prioritized economic and diplomatic interests over victims’ rights.

A significant legal barrier to reparations is Japan’s invocation of sovereign immunity, which prevents

5 Park, Tae-Jin. “The 2018 South Korean Supreme Court Ruling on Forced Labor: Reopening Historical Claims in International Law,” Korean Journal of International and Comparative Law 7, no. 1 (2020): 54.

6 Zhang, Wei. “China’s Legal Approach to Wartime Reparation Claims: A New Phase in Diplomatic-Legal Strategy?” Journal of East Asian Studies 18, no. 3 (2021): 317.

7 Bazyler, Michael. Holocaust Justice: The Battle for Restitution in America’s Courts (New York: NYU Press, 2006), 112.

“The evolving international legal landscape, which increasingly prioritizes individual rights over rigid treaty interpretations, suggests that past agreements should not serve as insurmountable barriers to justice.”

foreign states from being sued in domestic courts. Japan has used this defense to block lawsuits filed by survivors of forced labor and comfort women.8 However, contemporary international law has begun to erode the traditional concept of absolute sovereign immunity, particularly in cases involving human rights violations. The International Court of Justice and the UN Human Rights Council have ruled that sovereign immunity does not provide blanket protection for states involved in crimes against humanity.9 Furthermore, the landmark 2012 case Germany v. Italy demonstrated that domestic courts can override sovereign immunity in cases of forced labor and war crimes.10 The increasing willingness of courts to challenge sovereign immunity in cases of historical injustice suggests a growing international consensus that such defenses should not obstruct justice for victims.

In addition to legal developments, ongoing diplomatic tensions between Japan, South Korea, and China illustrate the broader political implications of reparations. South Korean courts have moved to seize Japanese corporate assets as compensation for forced labor victims, prompting retaliatory economic measures from Japan.11

8 Cassese, Antonio. International Law and Sovereign Immunity: Human Rights Exceptions (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 61.

9 International Court of Justice, Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy: Greece Intervening), 2012.

10 Bianchi, Andrea. “Sovereign Immunity and Human Rights: The Case of Germany v. Italy,” European Journal of International Law 23, no. 4 (2012): 870.

11 Moon, Seung-Won. “Japan’s Economic Retaliation and Legal Conflicts with South Korea: Implications for Trade

These disputes have placed pressure on both governments to seek a resolution that balances legal responsibility with diplomatic stability. Similarly, China, which once renounced reparations in favor of diplomatic normalization, has strategically allowed legal claims against Japanese firms, using historical justice as leverage in its broader geopolitical rivalry with Japan.12 This underscores the complex interplay between historical grievances and contemporary geopolitics, where moral and legal considerations often become entangled with national interests.

To address the lingering issues of reparations, a combination of legal and diplomatic strategies must be pursued. Expanding international legal precedents to support individual claims in international courts is one possible avenue.13 In addition, greater corporate accountability measures should be enforced to hold Japanese firms accountable for their historical use of forced labor.14 Diplomatic solutions, such as a jointly administered reparations fund between Japan, South Korea, and China, could provide a pragmatic resolution while allowing Japan to maintain its diplomatic standing.

Lessons from other historical reparation cases further support the viand Diplomacy,” Pacific Affairs 92, no. 4 (2019): 556.

12 Zhao, Ling. “China’s Legal Strategy in Wartime Compensation Cases Against Japan,” East Asian Legal Studies Review 25, no. 1 (2021): 101.

13 Brooks, Roy L. When Sorry Isn’t Enough: The Controversy over Apologies and Reparations for Human Injustice (New York: NYU Press, 1999), 142.

14 Schlichtmann, Klaus. Japan in the Global Community: Toward Reconciliation and Reparations in International Law (New York: Routledge, 2017), 53.

ability of these approaches. Germany’s compensation model for Holocaust survivors provides a precedent for sustained legal and financial accountability, while the U.S. government’s reparations for Japanese-American internment during World War II illustrates that legal closure does not necessarily preclude future redress.15 These examples highlight that justice for historical injustices can be achieved through a combination of legal, political, and moral actions. The disputes over Japan’s wartime reparations exemplify the enduring nature of historical injustices and the necessity of continued legal and diplomatic engagement. The evolving international legal landscape, which increasingly prioritizes individual rights over rigid treaty interpretations, suggests that past agreements should not serve as insurmountable barriers to justice. Sovereign immunity and legal finality are no longer absolute defenses in cases involving crimes against humanity. Instead, reparations must be understood as a dynamic and ongoing process that adapts to contemporary legal and moral standards. By embracing a multifaceted approach—one that combines legal adjudication, corporate responsibility, and diplomatic reconciliation—the countries of East Asia can move toward a future in which historical justice is no longer subordinated to political expediency but recognized as a fundamental principle of human rights and international law.

15 Kang, David C. East Asia Before the West: Five Centuries of Trade and Tribute (New York: Columbia University Press, 2012), 75.

WHAT’S HIDDEN IN YOUR HANDBAG? APPARENTLY ANTITRUST CONCERNS

OnAugust 10, 2023, Tapestry Inc — the parent company of Coach, Kate Spade, Stuart Weitzman — and Capri Holdings — the parent company of Versace, Jimmy Choo, and Michael Kors — announced their merger, valued at $8.5 billion. By November 14, 2024, however, the merger had been formally terminated. With the merger, Capri was meant to utilize Tapestry’s consumer engagement model, enhance their portfolio through increased product and region offerings, and streamline operations through their production process combination.1 Instead, the Federal Trade Commision (FTC) sued to block this merger in April 2024 on the basis that it would result in a domination of the “accessible luxury” handbag market. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the motion for a preliminary injunction to temporarily prevent Tapestry and Capri from progressing with the merger, holding that (1) the FTC provided enough evidence to support a relevant submarket of “accessible-luxury handbags,”2 (2) anticompetitive effects could be expected given Tapestry would have a market share of 59% post-merger,2 (3) there would be significant barriers to entry for new competitors,2 and (4) not granting the FTC’s motion for preliminary injunction “would likely cause irreparable harm to the public.”2

When targeting possible practices that could result in monopolistic entities during court proceedings, the Clayton Act is often cited; this case is no different. As it relates to Fed. Trade

1 See Fed. Trade Comm’n v. Tapestry, Inc., No. 1:24-CV-03109 (JLR), 2024 WL 4647809, at *56 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 1, 2024).

2 Id. at *24; at *38; at *48; and at *69

by FIMI ADESEMOYE STAFF WRITER

Comm’n v. Tapestry, Inc., the Clayton Act requires only that the FTC prove that the merger in question could significantly lessen competition through a three-part, burden-shifting framework.3 It begins with the plaintiff establishing a prima facie case (providing enough support to assert a claim is true through the initially presented evidence) that the proposed transaction would be anticompetitive in nature. Should the plaintiff be successful, the defendant then has two choices: “present evidence that the prima facie case inaccurately predicts the relevant transaction’s probable effect on future competition, or to sufficiently discredit the evidence underlying the prima facie case.”4 Finally, should the defendant succeed, the plaintiff must supplement the initial prima facie evidence to further substantiate anticompetitive effects.5

Proving the validity and existence of an “accessible luxury” market served as a significant element in upholding the anticompetitive outcome of the Tapestry-Capri transaction. For this, the determination of the relevant market is a necessary predicate because, without a market, there is no context for the analysis of lessened competition.6 A relevant and competitive market includes products with sufficient cross-elasticity of demand There should be ample exhibition

3 See Fed. Trade Comm’n v. Hackensack Meridian Health, Inc., 30 F.4th 160, 166 (3d Cir. 2022)

4 United States v. AT&T, Inc., 916 F.3d 1029, 1032 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (quoting United States v. Anthem, 855 F.3d 345, 349 (D.C. Cir. 2017)) (cleaned up).

5 See Fed. Trade Comm’n v. Penn State Hershey Med. Ctr., 838 F.3d 327, 337 (3d Cir. 2016).

6 See Tapestry, 2024 WL 4647809, at *7.

of this principle where “consumers would respond to a slight increase in the price of one product by switching to another product.”7 The “accessible-luxury handbag” market was defined as existing between “mass market” and “true luxury”. It possessed the following peculiar characteristics:8 bags are made from genuine leather (similar to those of true luxury), they are usually priced between $100 and $1000 with frequent discounts, and production is commonly outsourced to manufacturers in Southeast Asia (similar to mass market companies). In essence, “accessible luxury” handbags are quality-made products at a lower cost.9 The presence of these companies within the defined niche was further supported by FTC expert analysis of company documents contending that the six combined brands would occupy approximately 80 percent of the market, exceeding the 30 percent threshold for anticompetition.10

The defense asserted that competitors could easily enter the market, which not only didn’t disprove the existence of the narrow market the FTC aimed to define, but they failed to provide evidence against significant barriers to entry.11 Additionally, they were unsuccessful in proving that brand autonomy would serve as internal competition and prevent any possible anticompetitive effects of the transaction that might otherwise be

7 Regeneron Pharms., Inc. v. Novartis Pharma AG, 96 F.4th 327, 339 (2d Cir. 2024) (cleaned up).

8 See Tapestry, 2024 WL 4647809, at *9.

9 Id. at *12.

10 Id. at *42.

11 Id. at *43.

“Though the case exhibits a commitment to fighting antitrust, the more significant effect will be related to Capri Holdings searching for a new method to keep their flagship brand, Michael Kors, afloat despite its dwindling market influence.”

seen.12 They also attempted drawing on the narrowly-scoped failing company doctrine, which can be used as a defense stating that anticompetitive effects from a merger would be preferable to the anticompetitive effects resulting from the elimination of a competitor should the business fail with the blocked transaction. They were unable to do so because the court found that the Capri was not experiencing impending risk of failure despite the recent trend of revenue loss within Michael Kors.13

Tapestry failed to disprove the calculation of a 59% space within the defined market, while the FTC compiled additional evidence that supported their claim along with ordinary-course documents from Tapestry and Capri admitting their previous significant competition and responses to each other within the market.14

After the FTC’s establishment of the anticipated anticompetitive effects of this transaction, the court moved to grant the preliminary injunction, particularly due to the expected harm to the public. The identified harm was contrary to the companies’ posi-

12 Id.

13 Id. at *55.

14 Id. at *57.

tion that handbags were leisure items customers would not purchase if too costly. Instead, the societal significance of handbags to women’s fashion tastes and as daily tools meant that an increase in prices (as predicted by the excessive share of the Tapestry-Capri brands post-merger) could not be remedied after further proceedings if the proposed merger continued.15 As such, the injunction was granted on October 24, 2024, ultimately leading to the public dissolution of the Tapestry-Capri merger less than a month later on November 14, 2024.

In considering these proceedings, it appears unlikely that this case will dissuade future mergers in other companies. In fact, it serves as an example of what not to do, should they be confronted with a similar challenge from the FTC. Legal teams have a prominent case study in how to develop arguments that could dispel worries about their domination of niche, differentiated markets. Though the case exhibits a commitment to fighting antitrust, the more significant effect will be related to Capri Holdings searching for a new method to keep their flagship brand, Michael Kors,

15 Id. at *69.

afloat despite its dwindling market influence. After the elimination of the merger, shares in Capri fell four percent in one day, not boding well for the already declining company. Moving forward, they will likely focus on revitalizing their brands, streamlining operations, and considering other partnerships. To avoid another merger block and fight complaints of domination within the “accessible luxury” handbag market, the best options for partnerships would be companies not reliant on sales of similar caliber handbags or those operating in other industries. Regardless, the decision in FTC v. Tapestry successfully blocked the proposed merger and may allow for a continued marginalization of Capri Holdings within the market, but it upholds previous antitrust efforts as outlined through the Clayton Act and exemplified in Brown Shoe Co. v US.

FINDING A LOOPHOLE TO THE CONSTITUTION IN THE TEXAS HEARTBEAT ACT

Senate Bill 8 (SB8), also known as the “Texas Heartbeat Act,” has posed a unique legal challenge to those who have sought to bring injunctions against the act. At its core, the act is a statewide ban on abortion when a fetal heartbeat has been detected, which can prevent abortion as early as 6 weeks of pregnancy. In addition to barring abortion except under unique circumstances, the act also empowers citizens to bring civil lawsuits against any person who violates – or aids and abets a violation of – SB8. Any person can bring such a lawsuit, as long as they are not a state official. SB8, consequently, has been labeled a “bounty hunter law,”1 as citizens may be encouraged to track down anyone who has assisted a violation of the act for the mere purpose of collecting a reward, with a minimum of $10,000.

When SB8 was first passed in 2021, it was unconstitutional under Roe v. Wade, in which the Supreme Court held that a person’s right to have an abortion before fetal viability was protected under the Constitution.2 SB8 was in clear conflict with this precedent, since fetal viability is considered to occur around 24 weeks of pregnancy.3 This prompted a group of Texas abortion providers to pose pre-enforcement challenges to the act in late

1 Bowman, Emma. “As states ban abortion, the Texas bounty law offers a way to survive legal challenges,” NPR, July 11, 2022, https://www.npr. org/2022/07/11/1107741175/texas-abortion-bounty-law.

2 See generally Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).

3 See, e.g., MKB Mgmt. Corp. v. Stenehjem, 795 F.3d 768, 773 (8th Cir. 2015) (holding that a similar heartbeat bill originating from North Dakota was unconstitutional because “states may not prohibit pre-viability abortions” under Supreme Court precedent).

by ZOE NELSON STAFF WRITER

2021, seeking to enjoin private enforcement of the act.4 If injunctive relief was granted, the suit would essentially prevent a civil action from being filed under SB8. The issue was that it wasn’t clear who, exactly, claimed responsibility for enforcing the act – and therefore, who was liable for enforcing a law that was unconstitutional.

Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908), was a Supreme Court case which dealt with this issue. Under the Eleventh Amendment, states cannot be sued because they are entitled to sovereign immunity. Ex parte Young, however, held that if a state official enforces an unconstitutional law, then that individual may be sued in federal court, because they are not acting on behalf of the state. Enforcing officials in this scenario are both private citizens and state actors. Someone performing an unconstitutional action cannot be held to be performing it on behalf of the state, making them a private citizen. At the same time, the state official may be a state actor under the Fourteenth Amendment, which orders that no State can deprive a person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Therefore, the official can be challenged for infringing on due process rights (as a state actor), but can also be sued (as a private citizen). The important distinction here is that the state itself still cannot be sued, but the person enforcing a statute can be enjoined from enforcing it. However, the same logic that was used in Ex parte Young cannot be applied to SB8. Because the law can only be enforced by private citizens, and one cannot sue the entire citizenry of a state in federal court, it is practical-

4 See generally Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson, 595 U.S. 30 (2021).

ly impossible to enjoin enforcement of SB8. This is an issue that the plaintiffs brought up in Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson. Such a lawsuit would normally target state officials who enforce the law, but in this case, state officials are not permitted to enforce the law. Instead, the plaintiffs brought lawsuits against the Texas Attorney General, a state court judge, and various state officials involved in medical licensing, among others. They argued that though these officials were not directly responsible for enforcing the act, there was “residual enforcement authority”5 for licensing officials. Such a theory was partially upheld by the Supreme Court in Whole Woman’s Health. The court ruled that Ex parte Young did not apply to most of the defendants because (1) Ex parte Young was not intended to set a precedent for federal courts to bring injunctions against state-court judges, (2) such an injunction against the “machinery” of a state court would violate “the whole scheme of our Government,” and (3) Article III does not confer on federal courts the power to “supervise governmental operations.”6 However, the majority opinion agreed that medical licensing officials did hold some authority in enforcing the act. This dilemma shields SB8 from federal judicial review almost entirely. The case posed the question to the Supreme Court of whether a state could evade federal pre-enforcement challenges to a law by designing it in such a way that only private citizens could enforce the act, and the Court’s response was, essentially, yes. The constitutionality of the act was not even mentioned in the Court’s majority opinion. As a

5 Id. at 541 (Thomas, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).

6 Id. at 527.

“This dilemma shields SB8 from federal judicial review almost entirely.”

result of the decision, the strategy used by SB8 will surely be extended to other states, and not only when passing bans on abortion. Indeed, as an amicus brief filed by 28 state attorneys general stated, “where longstanding Supreme Court precedent clearly and unambiguously forceloses a particular policy as unconstitutional, a state cannot be permitted to disregard that precedent and shield that law [from] federal judicial review.”7 This could have implications

7 Brief for Massachusetts et al. as Amici Curiae Supporting Plaintiff’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, United States v. Texas, 566 F. Supp. 3d 605 (W.D. Tex. 2021) (No. 1:21-cv-796-RP), ECF No. 9.

THE CHAGOS DISPUTE

CONTINUED FROM PAGE 15

by China in the surrounding islands.9 It remains to be seen how convincing the US government will find this argument.

That very November, Mauritius went to the polls as well, and, like in the United States, a new government was elected that was less positively disposed to the Chagos handover deal. The newly elected PM, Navin Ramgoolam, made it clear that he wished to renegotiate the treaty to Mauritius’ further advantage.10 His new administration has claimed that it has gained significant concessions, including tying payments to inflation and an agreement on frontloading payments, with

9 Wintour , Patrick. “Starmer to Tell Trump That UK’s Chagos Deal Will Avoid Tensions with China.” The Guardian, February 21, 2025.

10 Lawless, Jill. “Mauritius Wants to Rethink a Deal with the UK over Remote Islands Housing a Key US Base.” AP News, December 18, 2024.

for free speech, marriage equality, gun control, and voting rights, to name a few issues. The question, then, is whether the Supreme Court will still utilize the logic used in Whole Woman’s Health if other cases reach the level of federal judicial review. In terms of partisanship, this issue will likely affect both sides, considering it can be used not only to impose conservative policies such as abortion bans, but also to override constitutional privileges (such as Second Amendment rights) in more liberal states. California Governor Gavin Newsom already pledged to

“empower private citizens to enforce a ban on the manufacture and sale of assault weapons in the state” in 2021,8 following the model used by SB8. Whole Woman’s Health, as a result, essentially gives states a workaround against the Supremacy Clause — giving them the freedom to make unconstitutional laws without consequences.

8 The Associated Press, “California’s governor pledges to model an assault weapons ban on Texas abortion law,” NPR, December 12, 2021, https://www. npr.org/2021/12/12/1063489922/ california-governor-gavin-newsom-assault-weapons-ban-texas-abortion-law.

Britain paying significantly more than the initial deal would have stipulated and sooner too. Reports also suggested that Britain would offer double the initial payment to Mauritius, that is £18 billion instead of £9 billion, to retain control of Diego Garcia.11 These claims were denied by the British government, but it is nevertheless true that the initial handover deal is not one that Mauritius is amenable to.

There are also concerns from another stakeholder on the Chagos dispute that cannot be ignored: that from the Chagosians themselves. The Chagosians, exiled from their homeland for decades, have sought redress in the form of reparations. The Mauritian government has argued that the British payments for Diego Garcia

11 Walker, Peter. “UK Government Denies Rift with Mauritian PM over Chagos Islands Deal.” The Guardian, December 17, 2024.

are to be regarded as such.12 Yet many Chagosians also wish to return to their homes on the archipelago, which may not necessarily be possible even if the handover to Mauritius were finalized. The current handover treaty is unclear on the exact nature of the Chagosians’ right to return, and the many Chagosians expelled from Diego Garcia still face the prospect of not being able to return to their homes when the rest of the archipelago is handed over to Mauritius.13 Given the importance of decolonization as a driver of the handover of the Chagos, the relevance of the Chagosians’ concerns & their legal right to return cannot be ignored in a discussion of the return of this territory to Mauritius.

12 Cleave, Iona. “UK’s £9bn Chagos Islands Deal Is ‘Reparations’, Say Mauritian Politicians.” The Telegraph, February 15, 2025.

13 Zhu, Yuan Yi. “A Real Decolonisation Dispute.” The Critic Magazine, May 2023.

TEXAS’ AGE VERIFICATION LAW: THREAT TO FREE SPEECH AND DIGITAL PRIVACY

by KAREN ZHU STAFF WRITER

Recentlegislation across 19 states—including Texas and Mississippi—has introduced mandatory age verification requirements for websites hosting content deemed “harmful to minors.” Enacted in 2023, Texas House Bill 1181 (HB 1181) compels commercial websites—those with more than one-third of their content classified as “sexual material harmful to minors”—to verify every user’s age using government-issued identification or biometric data. 1 Although proponents claim these measures protect children, the law raises serious constitutional concerns regarding First Amendment rights and digital privacy. Texas’ age verification law is unconstitutional because it fails to meet the strict scrutiny standard, imposes undue privacy risks, and is impractical in protecting minors, thereby infringing on fundamental free speech rights.

HB 1181 presents a critical test of how Supreme Court precedents on content-based speech regulation apply in the digital age. In First Amendment cases, courts traditionally apply one of two standards of review. Under the more lenient rational basis review, a law need only be reasonably related to a legitimate government interest. By contrast, when a law restricts a fundamental right, such as free speech, it must satisfy strict scrutiny. Under this rigorous standard, the government

1 Tex. HB 1181, 88(R) Leg., R.S. 2023 (Relating to the publication or distribution of sexual material harmful to minors on an Internet website; providing a civil penalty).

must demonstrate a compelling interest and show that the law is narrowly tailored as the least restrictive means available. As the Court explained in Ashcroft v. ACLU, “because the Act imposes a restriction on the content of protected speech, it is invalid unless [the State] can demonstrate that it passes strict scrutiny.”2 This principle is further underscored by decisions in Reno v. ACLU, United States v. Playboy Ent. Grp. , and Sable Communications v. FCC, when the Court has consistently rejected broad, content-based restrictions unless they are narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest.3

Although protecting minors is undoubtedly a compelling interest, HB 1181’s broad and intrusive age-verification requirements are both overinclusive and underinclusive. By compelling users to submit sensitive personal data, the law burdens the free speech rights of adults, even though the content, whether in romance novels or R-rated films, is fully protected by the Constitution. Moreover, the Fifth Circuit’s decision to apply rational basis review in this context departs from established precedent that mandates strict scrutiny for content-based burdens on speech.

Texas argues that improved technology makes rigorous age verification more necessary. However, technological advancements do not alter the fundamental free speech protections guaranteed by the First Amendment, nor do they justify sweeping restrictions on legal expression. In Brown v. Entertainment Merchants

2 Ashcroft v. ACLU, 542 U.S. 656, 665–66 (2004)

3 Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 874 (1997); United States v. Playboy Ent. Grp. 529 U.S. 803, 813 (2000); Sable Communications v. FCC, 492 U.S. 115, 126 (1989).

Association (2011), the Court rejected the notion that new enforcement tools could override constitutional safeguards when California attempted to ban the sale of violent video games to minors.4 The Court explained that “whatever the challenges of applying the Constitution to ever-advancing technology, the basic principles of freedom of speech and the press, like the First Amendment’s command, do not vary when a new and different medium for communication appears.”5 This reasoning confirms that even as technology evolves, the government’s burden to meet strict scrutiny remains unchanged, and technological improvements cannot be used to justify an infringement on protected speech. Beyond First Amendment concerns, HB 1181 raises serious privacy and surveillance issues. The law requires users to submit government-issued identification or biometrical data to access certain content, increasing significant risks to data security and personal privacy. Even if websites do not retain this information long-term, the mere requirement to submit identification creates opportunities for surveillance, data breaches, and misuse of personal information. This mandatory disclosure of sensitive personal data may produce a chilling effect on protected speech as users self-censor to avoid potential exposure to their browsing habits. HB 1181 is also highly ineffective in practice. Users seeking adult content can easily bypass the law by employing VPNs or proxy services to access overseas websites not bound by Texas regulations. For instance, even though China enforces an extensive

4 See Brown v. Ent. Merchants Ass’n, 564 U.S. 786, 794 (2011).

5 Id. at 790.

“This ease of circumvention raises a critical question under strict scrutiny: can a law serve a compelling governmental interest if it leaves significant gaps in its protective scheme?”

censorship regime with its Great Firewall, millions of Chinese citizens still access banned content using VPNs. This ease of circumvention raises a critical question under strict scrutiny: can a law serve a compelling governmental interest if it leaves significant gaps in its protective scheme? As the Supreme Court observed in Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, “[a] law cannot be regarded as protecting an interest of the highest order when it leaves appreciable damage to that supposedly vital interest unprohibited.”6 In other words, if HB 1181 is so easily bypassed that it fails to effectively shield minors from inappropriate content, then it cannot be said to narrowly tailor its measures to achieve its compelling objective.

Furthermore, existing alternatives demonstrate that government intervention through mandatory ID verification is neither necessary nor the least restrictive means to protect minors. Many adult websites already implement voluntary age-gating mea-

6 Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 547 (1993)

sures such as “Enter only if you are 18+” disclaimers and robust parental control software is widely available. By ignoring these options, Texas shifts the burden from parents and market-based solutions to the state, further undermining the law’s constitutional justification.

The broader implications of upholding HB 1181 and its application of rational basis review standard extend far beyond this specific case. Failing to apply strict scrutiny threatens fundamental constitutional protections, weakening judicial review of laws restricting essential freedoms like speech and religion, discriminating based on race or national origin, and burdening religious practices or political participation. This dangerous precedent would signal that courts can apply lesser standards even when core constitutional rights are implicated, potentially undermining decades of civil rights protections. The impact would fall heaviest on marginalized communities, particularly in cases involving LGBTQ+ content and sexual health education, which are often un-

fairly labeled as “harmful to minors.” In conclusion, Texas’ age verification law is not only an unconstitutional restriction on protected speech, but it also sets a dangerous precedent that could erode a wide range of constitutional protections. HB 1181 fails to meet the strict scrutiny standard because its broad, intrusive requirements burden adult speech and expose users to significant privacy and security risks. Moreover, its ease of circumvention—through VPNs, proxy services, or access to overseas websites—undermines its ability to genuinely protect minors, thereby nullifying its purported compelling governmental interest. If upheld, this law would signal that even fundamental rights such as free speech, privacy, religious freedom, and political participation could be compromised by overly broad governmental mandates. Instead of imposing such invasive measures, policymakers should promote parental choice and market-driven, voluntary content moderation solutions that safeguard minors without infringing on constitutional rights.

LINA KHAN: REDEFINING ANTITRUST LAW IN A DIGITIZING ECONOMY

by MICHELLE DU ASSOCIATE EDITOR

Athirty-two-year-old only four years out of law school might have seemed like an odd choice to be the next Chair of the Federal Trade Commission. Yet, since Lina Khan’s appointment to the position in 2021, her creative leadership to modernize the FTC has sealed her mark on antitrust law. During her tenure, Khan set a precedent for proactive antitrust enforcement that adapts to technological developments and evolving legal and economic structures.

Khan first began shaping discussions around antitrust law when she published “Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox”1 in the Yale Law Review. In the article, Khan detailed how Amazon’s multi-sectored business model—one in which it acts as a retailer, television producer, book publisher, payment service, and cloud server space host, among other roles—has allowed it to evade antitrust scrutiny. She argued that online platforms are incentivized to engage in predatory pricing and exploit information asymmetry to undermine competitors, concluding that competition cannot be measured solely through price and output, and that competition law must adapt to the digital age. Unsurprisingly, Biden’s appointment of Khan in 2021 received backlash from representatives of Big Tech, who claimed that Khan was biased against them.2

1 Khan, Lina M. “Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox.” The Yale Law Journal 126, no. 3 (2017).

2 Farah, Lynn. “Who is Lina Khan, the outgoing FTC chair who took on Silicon Valley? The Biden-appointee challenged Jeff Bezos’ Amazon and Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta during her tenure, but will re-

To the happiness of some and the disappointment of others, Khan has brought fresh energy to an agency previously criticized for allowing largely-unchecked mergers of industries. She garnered support from both sides of the aisle, including praise from Matt Gaetz and Elizabeth Warren, for her efforts to challenge Big Tech businesses and protect the data of American consumers. At the same time, however, she has drawn criticism from business leaders and companies who view her as a “bully” with “unchecked power,”3 standing “in the way of shareholders making money.”4

Courts have consistently applied the Sherman Act, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act, and the Clayton Act to antitrust claims throughout the past century. Congress first passed the Sherman Act in 1890, outlawing “every contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade.”5 The FTC Act and the Clayton Act, on the other hand, were both passed in 1914. The FTC Act established the FTC and empowered it to bring cases against activities such as “unfair methods of competition” and “unfair or deceptive acts or practices,”6

portedly resign soon.” South China Morning Post. Last modified January 31, 2025. https://www.scmp.com/magazines/ style/entertainment/article/3296696/ who-lina-khan-outgoing-ftc-chair-whotook-silicon-valley-biden-appointee-challenged-jeff-bezos.

3 Jones, Callum. “Lina Khan’s legacy could prove to be fragile as Trump pick takes helm of FTC.” The Guardian. Last modified January 19, 2025. https://www. theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jan/19/ lina-khan-ftc-legacy-trump.

4 The Washington Post. “FTC Chair Lina Khan vs. Big Tech.” June 12, 2024. In Post Reports. Podcast, audio. https://www. washingtonpost.com/podcasts/post-reports/ftc-chair-lina-khan-vs-big-tech/.

5 15 U.S.C. § 1.

6 15 U.S.C. § 45.

while the Clayton Act outlawed practices like monopolistic mergers and acquisitions.7

In the past few decades, antitrust enforcement has lagged behind technological developments and their influence on markets, as the last major case involving a technology company took place in the late 1990s against Microsoft. According to Timothy Wu, Special Assistant to the President for Technology and Competition Policy under the Biden Administration, Khan’s efforts, in conjunction with recent Department of Justice cases against Apple, Meta, and Google, pushed back on the Chicago School of antitrust law. The Chicago School, developed in the 1970s and 80s, forwarded a “consumer welfare” approach,8 maintaining that consumers are protected even when monopolies prevail because prices are low and markets are efficient. However, the digital economy’s infrastructure has developed significantly since the passage of antitrust laws and the development of the Chicago School theory, which could not have anticipated the digital economy. The wide range of features that online platforms provide— such as photo services, messaging, internet search, gaming applications, and navigation—combined with business models that offer services for free on one platform while charging on another, has fundamentally altered competition, consumer choice, and privacy in the digital economy. Predatory pricing is further magnified by the vast amount of data that big tech companies collect

7 “The Antitrust Laws.” Federal Trade Commission. https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/ guide-antitrust-laws/antitrust-laws.

8 McArdle, Elaine. “(Anti)Trust Issues.” Harvard Law Bulletin. Last modified October 1, 2024. https://hls.harvard.edu/ today/antitrust-issues/.

about consumer preferences. Many scholars argue these network effects in the digital economy create a market environment susceptible to centralization, monopolies, and anti-competitive practices, as the multi-purpose nature of platforms allows companies to strategize between services. Khan critiques over-reliance on the “consumer welfare” criterion, opting for a Neo-Brandeisian structural approach that condemns bigness at incipiency. To protect competition and foster innovation, she claims that antitrust laws require enforcers to “arrest potential restraints to competition in their incipiency,”9 insisting that the Chicago School’s assumption that concentration of market power drives efficiency has weakened antitrust enforcement.

While some characterize Khan’s actions at the FTC as overstepping the legitimate scope of antitrust law, the FTC litigated a record number of cases under her watch, leading to successes such as the first litigated victory in a vertical merger case in over 50 years.10 Additionally, protecting user privacy in the digital age has been a priority of Khan’s FTC. The FTC has brought enforcement actions related to issues involving voice data, video data, DNA information, and reproductive privacy data. It also banned BetterHelp, GoodRx, and Premom from disclosing health data for advertising purposes, aggressively enforced the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, and required companies to delete models obtained through unlawful means,11 like

9 Crandall, Robert W., and Thomas W. Hazlett. “Antitrust Reform in the Digital Era: A Skeptical Perspective.” The University of Chicago Business Law Review 2.2. 10 Smith, Talmon Joseph. “Can Lina Khan Hold On?” The New York Times. Last modified September 28, 2024. https:// www.nytimes.com/2024/09/28/business/dealbook/lina-khan-interview.html.

11 “FTC Finds Amazon Ring Cameras Responsible for ‘Egregious Violations of

in the cases against Ring and Amazon/ Alexa.12 In FTC v. Kochava, Inc., the FTC sought a permanent injunction barring Kochava from selling sensitive and precise geolocation data, as it violated user privacy and exposed users to secondary harm—thus participating in an “unfair . . . act or practice” in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act.13

In accordance with the view that antitrust laws should prevent unfair competition in emerging fields— not just mature fields—Khan stated, “We really want to make sure that the opportunity for competition and the potential for disruption is preserved [in the AI marketplace], rather than this moment being co-opted by some of the existing dominant firms.”14 Even when unsuccessful, such as the FTC’s attempt to block Meta’s acquisition of the virtual reality start-up Within, introducing unconventional arguments about mergers and acquisitions hurting potential competition in a market that could thrive is valuable in its own right.15 That said, the FTC has secured

Users’ Privacy,’ Requires Data Deletion.” Electronic Privacy Information Center. Last modified May 31, 2023. https://epic. org/ftc-finds-amazon-ring-cameras-egregious-violations-of-users-privacy-requires-data-deletion/.

12 Jillson, Elisa. “Protecting the privacy of health information: A baker’s dozen takeaways from FTC cases.” Federal Trade Commission. Last modified July 25, 2023. https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2023/07/protecting-privacy-health-information-bakers-dozen-takeaways-ftc-cases.

13 See generally Fed. Trade Comm’n v. Kochava Inc., 671 F. Supp. 3d 1161 (D. Idaho 2023).

14 Neal, Jeff. “Four Questions with FTC Chair Lina Khan.” Harvard Law Today. Last modified February 23, 2024. https://hls. harvard.edu/today/ftc-chair-lina-khandiscusses-ai-antitrust-concerns-at-harvard-law-school/.

15 McCabe, David. “Why Losing to Meta in Court May Still Be a Win for Regulators.” The New York Times. Last modified December 7, 2022. https://www. nytimes.com/2022/12/07/technology/

significant victories under Khan’s leadership, including blocking grocery chain Kroger’s acquisition of Albertsons. Several high-profile FTC lawsuits are set to go to trial, including Federal Trade Commission v. Meta Platforms, Inc., a case in the District of Columbia in which the FTC alleged that Meta acquired Instagram and WhatsApp a decade ago in an anti-competitive move. Additionally, the FTC joined 17 state attorneys general in suing Amazon for coercive and illegal conduct, including implementing anti-discounting measures and requiring sellers to use Amazon’s expensive fulfillment service to obtain “Prime” eligibility.16

Now that Khan has stepped down and President Donald Trump has appointed Andrew Ferguson as the chair of the FTC, many are eager to see how antitrust action and litigation against Big Tech will change (or not) in the next administration. Ferguson, Khan’s successor, vowed to stop Khan’s “war on mergers” and end the FTC’s “attempt[s] to become an AI regulator.”17 Some analysts believe that under Ferguson’s leadership, the FTC will return to a consumer welfare standard of analyzing mergers and acquisitions. However, the populist and bipartisan support for Khan’s actions raises the question of whether subsequent administrations can—and will—unravel her legacy.

meta-vr-antitrust-ftc.html.

16 “FTC Sues Amazon for Illegally Maintaining Monopoly Power.” Federal Trade Commission. Last modified September 26, 2023. https://www.ftc.gov/newsevents/news/press-releases/2023/09/ ftc-sues-amazon-illegally-maintaining-monopoly-power.

17 “Antitrust in 2025: Shifting Sands and What to Expect.” Cooley. Last modified January 31, 2025. https://www.cooley. com/news/insight/2025/2025-01-31antitrust-in-2025-shifting-sands-and-what-to-expect.

TIKTOK REFUGEES: THE LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE RISE OF FOREIGN-OWNED MEDIA PLATFORMS

by TEJAS SHIVKUMAR DIGITAL CONTENT MANAGER

Last year, on March 13, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act. On January 17, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the bill, finding that it did not violate the First Amendment.1 The bill stated that “a foreign adversary-controlled application is directly or indirectly operated by (1) ByteDance, Ltd. or TikTok. . .; or (2) a social media company that is controlled by a foreign adversary and has been determined by the President to present a significant threat to national security,”2 and required the owners of such apps to either complete a “qualified divestiture” or be banned from the United States. The careful structuring of the bill’s language focused most of the attention on TikTok, which is owned by the Chinese company ByteDance. However, with Tiktok’s ban (though subsequently reinstated following the promise of cooperation with TikTok from Trump’s government)3, U.S.based users of the app have turned to one of its popular counterparts in China—Xiaohongshu, otherwise known as “Little Red Book” or “Rednote.” Xiaohongshu is a content sharing app,

1 Rhoden-Paul, André. “US Supreme Court upholds TikTok ban law” BBC News, British Broadcasting Corporation, 15 Feb. 2025, www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3e18qylq5do. Accessed 15 Feb. 2025.

2 Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, Pub. L. No. 118-50, Div. H, § 2(g)(3), 138 Stat. 895, 955 (2024).

3 Shepardson, David. “TikTok Restores US Service after Trump Says ‘We Have to Save It’.” Reuters, 20 Jan. 2025, https:// www.reuters.com/technology/tiktokgoes-dark-us-users-trump-says-save-tiktok-2025-01-19/.

much like Instagram, that is popular among Chinese-speaking users primarily. At the end of 2023, Xiaohongshu recorded 300 million active users monthly, mainly located in East and Southeast Asia (with some international users forming a minority of the app’s users).4 While Xiaohongshu is considered more friendly in terms of discourse, with users frequently posting LGBTQ+ and feminist content, the application itself operates under strict oversight of the Chinese government. “Government Relations Teams” manage the censoring and removal of content outside of designated guidelines.5 As such, while Xiaohongshu presents an opportunity for cross-cultural communication and exchanges, its rise in popularity in the U.S. raises concerns about the kind of scrutiny it will be subject to following the scrutiny TikTok faced, and the legal complications of its presence in the U.S. digital landscape.

Xiaohongshu’s data collection methods present the largest legal challenge. Because of its inclusion under the Protecting Americans From Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, it could likely be the next subject of the act’s mandates. Xiaohongshu’s user data collection policies are listed in the Terms and Conditions of the app. Specifically, Section III lists Xiaohongshu’s data storage and transfer policies: “Please understand that pur-

4 “Red Hot: Key Facts About Xiaohongshu, the Chinese App Taking the US by Storm.” Barron’s, 15 Jan. 2025, https:// www.barrons.com/articles/red-hot-keyfacts-about-xiaohongshu-the-chineseapp-taking-the-us-by-storm-103f56c0. 5 Boyd, Alexander. “How Xiaohongshu Censors ‘Sudden Incidents’.” China Digital Times, 27 July 2022, https://chinadigitaltimes.net/2022/07/how-xiaohongshu-censors-sudden-incidents/.

suant to applicable laws, regulations and regulatory requirements, sharing and transferring of anonymized personal information of which the recipient cannot recover and re-identify the subject do not need to give further notice to you and obtain your consent.”6

In combination with Xiaohongshu’s obligations to the PRC (mentioned in their terms and conditions), this requirement allows Beijing to take direct actions based on the data they collect from Xiaohongshu. As stated in Chapter V, Article 55 of the Cybersecurity Law of the People’s Republic of China (PRC):

“When a cybersecurity incident occurs, the cybersecurity incident emergency response plan shall be immediately initiated, an evaluation and assessment of the cybersecurity incident shall be conducted, network operators shall be requested to adopt technical and other necessary measures, potential security risks shall be removed, the threat shall be prevented from expanding, and warnings relevant to the public shall be promptly published.”7

This poses a significant concern to national security for the US, as it enables the Chinese government to directly intervene in data access and to censor posts. While data collection and release from other apps is common, Xiaohongshu’s case is unique

6 “Terms of Service.” Xiaohongshu, Xiaohongshu, https://agree.xiaohongshu.com/h5/terms/-1/419. Accessed 15 Feb. 2025.

7 Creemers, Rogier, et al. “Translation: Cybersecurity Law of the People’s Republic of China (Effective June 1, 2017).” DigiChina, Stanford University, 29 June 2018, https://digichina.stanford. edu/work/translation-cybersecurity-law-of-the-peoples-republic-of-china-effective-june-1-2017/.

“As Xiaohongshu continues to expand its U.S. presence, its compliance—or lack thereof—with evolving regulatory frameworks will shape how the U.S. navigates the intersection of sovereignty, sercurity, and digital existence at large. . .”

because of the direct link established to the PRC within these terms and conditions. Because of Xiaohongshu’s explicitly stated relationship to the PRC and their set protocols for responding to and reporting content violating the PRC’s governmental principles, the popularity of Xiaohongshu in the U.S. may place it under heightened legal scrutiny in the U.S., potentially following a path similar to TikTok.

An additional layer of concern for Xiaohongshu’s presence in the U.S. is its dual role as an advertising platform where “influencers” can make profits by serving as marketers to their audiences, but can also post opinionated content capable of stoking public sentiments running counter to what the government desires. Xiaohongshu is home to a group of individuals known as “wanghong”—a term for influencers that can turn their fame online into profits, much like any social media influencer on Instagram or Youtube.8 However, regulation of the platform and content on it is less touchable by U.S. laws that platforms such as Instagram typically abide by. In general, the constitutionality of regulation is dependent upon First Amendment considerations. Specifically, when it comes to sponsored content, actions taken are dependent on FTC regulations surrounding advertising on social media. The FTC’s guidelines mandate that advertisements must be disclosed in a manner that is “clear and conspic-

8 Meng, Z. Entrepreneurialism, Precarity and Self-Governance: Examining Cross-Platform Creator Labor Across Chinese and US-Based Social Media Economies. 2025.

uous,”9 yet provide minimal direction beyond this requirement. Because of this, there have been cases where the FTC has stopped but failed to provide remedies for advertising issues. The CSGO Lotto promotion program and the Xbox One promotions run by Starcom MediaVest Group were notable incidents when influencers and companies were subject to FTC suits, but the FTC’s vague guidelines failed to prevent similar occurrences in different product spaces.10 Along with the complications of data release and app oversight as mentioned above, the U.S. government faces further issues with regulating the influencer economy on apps such as Xiaohongshu as a result of the FTC guidelines’ lack of applicability for foreign media platforms.

The concerns above raise a larger question over whether foreign media platforms should have sovereignty or whether oversight is impossible without control or banning, as in the case of TikTok. Solutions brought up to tackle this problem include sector-first approaches with regards to data. As Ganesh Sitaraman describes in

9 Federal Trade Commission. “FTC’s Endorsement Guides: What People Are Asking.” Federal Trade Commission, 29 June 2023, https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/ftcs-endorsement-guides-what-people-are-asking. Accessed 16 Feb. 2025

10 Luong, Ashley. “All That Glitters is Gold: The Regulation of Hidden Advertisements and Undisclosed Sponsorships in the World of Beauty Social Media Influencers.” *William & Mary Business Law Review*, vol. 11, no. 2, 2020, pp. 565–602. William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository, https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent. cgi?article=1191&context=wmblr.

his Stanford Law Review article, “The Regulation of Foreign Platforms”, a sector-first approach would group services into different categories and apply regulations accordingly; TikTok and Xiaohongshu fall into the communications platform category, and their regulation would be focused more on foreign “influences” as opposed to fiscal platforms such as Alipay, which are subject to financial regulations.11 Additionally, Sitaraman believes having similar treatment regarding data accessibility for U.S and foreign platforms may be the case under such an approach—a belief that leads us back to the question of how much friction Xiaohongshu’s data policies and the CCP’s affiliation with Chinese communication platforms would cause within the U.S. legal system.

This raises a dilemma: whether the U.S. can effectively regulate foreign platforms without compromising First Amendment principles of digital freedom of speech, and whether sector-first regulation could strike a balance between national interest and a desire for an interconnected global digital sphere and its socioeconomic advantages. As Xiaohongshu continues to expand its U.S. presence, its compliance—or lack thereof—with evolving regulatory frameworks will shape how the U.S. navigates the intersection of sovereignty, security, and digital existence at large in an era of increasingly international media.

11 Sitaraman, Ganesh. “The Regulation of Foreign Platforms.” Stanford Law Review, vol. 74, no. 5, May 2022, pp. 1073–1149. https://review.law.stanford.edu/ wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2022/05/ Sitaraman-74-Stan.-L.-Rev.-1073.pdf.

TWO VIEWS

DEATH BY LAW: WHY ASSISTED SUICIDE SHOULD NEVER GAIN LEGISLATION

by SARAH MUNSHI STAFF WRITER

Assisted suicide in its entirety is often framed as a question of personal autonomy: shouldn’t individuals maintain the right to choose the course of their death? Then, it should be available and a choice stemmed in will, rather than inaccessibility. While this argument seems initially compelling, it neglects the ethical, legal, and hidden social implications that legalizing assisted suicide would incur. Such a process would open doors to coercion, inequality, and denigration of those who most require compassion. Truly, the domino effect of this legislation would diminish the value of human life as it is currently known. This issue can first be observed from the very basis of all legalization: the U.S. Constitution. Whether it be law, policy, or government action, to contradict the Constitution’s provisions automatically renders the thought invalid. This is a component of the concept of judicial review under Marbury v. Madison (1803).1 The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments safeguard the right to life. The right to protection against any deprivation of life would transcend an individual’s will and/or desire to take theirs. Verbatim, the Fifth Amendment prohibits states from “depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without due

1 National Archives. (2021). Marbury v. Madison (1803)

process of law.”2 Further than technical legal doctrine, this clause represents a foundational belief that life is to be preserved, with no mitigating circumstances. Assisted suicide, then, directly contradicts this constitutional imperative, through explicit involvement with the intentional and irreversible commitment to ending one’s life.

“If the prospect of living or not living was up for discussion, it is only natural that what it means to ‘live’ in of itself would become an item of debate, rather than accepted reality. ”

Not only is assisted suicide unconstitutional, but it also contradicts established legal precedent. The court in Washington v. Glucksberg (1997)3 showed that the U.S. Supreme Court firmly contended no constitutional right to assisted suicide, on the basis that it wasn’t a “fundamental liberty interest.” Their case elicited how

2 Congress.gov. (2025). U.S. Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment | Resources | Constitution Annotated | Congress. gov | Library of Congress

3 Justia Law. (2025). Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997)

it was not “deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and traditions”, insofar as it did not outweigh the “interest in preserving life”, the latter of which is significantly more “compelling.”4 Through observing the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law to all citizens (ratified 1869), assisted suicide too would inadvertently lead to the marginalization of vulnerable individuals. If the prospect of living or not living was up for discussion, it is only natural that what it means to ‘live’ in of itself would become an item of debate, rather than accepted reality. In other words, life becomes expendable. Certain individuals, including the elderly, disabled, and mentally ill, suddenly bear the option to legally conclude their life. Such groups may already feel pressured due to societal and familial burdens;5 then, legalizing such a practice - albeit unintentional - signals that such individuals’ lives are less valuable. This is a direct violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s spirit. How can we claim in good faith, even implicitly, that some lives are worth more or less than others? Hence, from a legal standpoint,

CONTINUED ON PAGE 32

4 National Constitution Center – constitutioncenter.org. (2025). Washington v. Glucksberg | Constitution Center. 5 Cornell.edu. (2025). Washington v. Glucksberg, 117 S.Ct. 2258, 138 L.Ed.2d 772 (1997)

Should Assisted Suicide Be Legalized?

THE RIGHT TO DIE: AN ARGUMENT FOR THE LEGALIZATION OF PHYSICIAN ASSISTED SUICIDE

by JACK MARTINEZ STAFF WRITER

Eightyears ago, my aunt lost her battle with breast cancer. Despite beating the disease twice, she passed in early 2017 after the cancer returned a third time. After her death, my family found solace in knowing that her last moments were free from excruciating pain. Having undergone several rounds of chemotherapy, she elected to forgo treatment and allow the disease to run its course. For the families of fatally ill patients, the choice my aunt made feels fundamental. The right to die with dignity on one’s terms feels like one of the most important choices a person can make. Yet, throughout the United States, physician-assisted suicide remains illegal.1 However, with an increase in diagnosed degenerative diseases and the patient’s fundamental right to bodily autonomy, these laws should be reversed.

To contextualize the heavy themes in this piece, it’s important to note that this discussion will center around what’s called consensual assisted suicide; which refers to patients who knowingly ask a doctor to end their life for them. This paper recognizes that there are more fraught areas of assisted suicide, however, we will focus on what the available law currently addresses:

1 CNN Editorial Research Board. “Physician-Assisted Suicide Fast Facts” CNN, May 29, 2024.

(“Physician-Assisted Suicide Fast Facts” CNN, https://www.cnn. com/2014/11/26/us/physician-assisted-suicide-fast-facts/index.html )

consensual assisted suicide. Two cases largely govern the legality of assisted suicide: Washington v. Glucksberg and Vacco v. Quill.2 In Washington, justices were asked to determine whether assisted suicide could be considered an ‘essential liberty’ under the Fourteenth Amendment’s due

“The right to die with dignity on one’s terms feels like one of the most important choices a person can make”

process clause.3 The petitioners argue that, because physician-assisted suicide is a personal choice made by the patient, it is an ‘essential liberty’ that the 14th Amendment protects states from infringing on. Justice Rehnquist, author of the majority opinion, disagreed with the petitioners.4 The court held that

2 Green, Allen.” Summary of the two recent U.S. Supreme Court cases on Assisted Suicide.” Office of Legislative Research, December 22, 1997 https://www.cga.ct.gov/PS97/rpt/olr/ htm/97-R-1055.htm#:~:text=You%20 asked%20for%20a%20summary,(June%2024%2C%201997)

3 Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997) https://supreme.justia.com/ cases/federal/us/521/702/.

4 Id.

physician-assisted suicide falls squarely outside the Fourteenth Amendment ‘essential liberty’ designation because suicide is considered to be “offensive to our national traditions and practices.”5 Rehnquist argued that, after surveying the common law and statutory history of suicide, there exists no record of legalization.6 Consequently, the court held that assisted suicide is not a ‘liberty’ protected under the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause.7 Vacco, on the other hand, examined the equal protection implications of assisted suicide. Petitioners in this case argued that a New York law that allowed patients to refuse life-saving care, yet outlawed assisted suicide, violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.8 Justice Rehnquist, again, found that assisted suicide was not protected under the Foureenth Amendment’s equal protection clause because there was a clear distinction between refusing medical care and order-

CONTINUED ON PAGE 33

5 Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997)

6 Id.

7 Green, Allen.” Summary of the two recent U.S. Supreme Court cases on Assisted Suicide.” Office of Legislative Research, December 22, 1997 https://www.cga.ct.gov/PS97/rpt/olr/ htm/97-R-1055.htm#:~:text=You%20 asked%20for%20a%20summary,(June%2024%2C%201997)

8 Vacco v. Quill, 521 U.S. 793 (1997) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/521/793/.

DEATH BY LAW: WHY ASSISTED SUICIDE SHOULD NEVER GAIN LEGISLATION

CONTINUED FROM PAGE 30

assisted suicide can never be legitimatized or justified under American constitutional law. The state’s interest in preserving life should and always will outweigh a citizen’s autonomy regarding the continuance of life.

Another great danger of legalizing assisted suicide is the door it opens for coercion. Proponents often argue that assisted suicide is one of the only viable responses to end human suffering, but how can we be assured they are of sound mind when making such a decision? Decisions are seldom made in isolation. Then, the concept of ‘mental competence’ is central to this debate; external influences such as financial, familial, emotional, or social concerns have a high capacity to hinder one’s thinking process. This is seen through past examples: In 2005, Kate Cheney, 85, passed away via assisted suicide under Oregon’s law. Her only medical concern was early signs of dementia, and two physicians denied her lethal dosage due to her lacking the “very high level capacity required to weigh options about assisted suicide.” Her daughter then “became angry” and requested a third evaluation in private, the results of which asudden deemed her “competent”. Despite the death going through, the physician admitted that Cheney’s choice may have been “influenced by her family’s wishes” and even remarked her daughter “may be somewhat coercive.”6 What

6 tpinedo (2012). Oregon and Washington State Assisted Suicide Abuses and Complications

differentiates this from plain murder? There are further examples including Thomas Middleton, 2008, whose assisted death was simply a means for his estate trustee to commit real estate fraud of $90,000,7 or Patrick Matheny, who was unable to self-administer the drugs and hence was force fed-them by his brother-in-law under ill intent.8 Such cases are microcosms of the bigger issue: it is simply impossible for hidden agendas and ulterior motives to be eradicated or even detected until it is too late. And this is all assuming that, at the very least, psychiatrists have patients’ best interests in mind (upon considering mental health cases). Yet, in Oregon, between 2011-2014, less than 3% of patients were even referred for psychological evaluation before receiving prescriptions for lethal drugs.6 How can we be certain an individual is not making this decision due to mental impairment? If someone is suffering from major depressive disorder, it is not even external influence but internal dialogue that should deem them unfit to make life-determining decisions. Not only this, but only 6% of Oregon psychiatrists are confident to diagnose depression after a single visit, yet Oregon and Washinton’s State definitions of consultation only permit one visit.9

7 Patients Rights Action Fund. (2022). Thomas Middleton - Patients Rights Action Fund

8 Guardian staff reporter (1999). Death with dignity dealt a fatal blow. The Guardian

9 DCHS-AS--Assistant Secretary--5000

Perhaps the few individuals saved from suffering would be a point to consider legislation, but the cases in which a life is taken without utmost and absolute consent is too big a risk to justify its installation. Even on an ethical level, doctors swear to the Hippocratic Oath upon earning their license, which elicits to “do no harm to others” under all circumstances.10 Prescribing a lethal dosage does indeed incur the utmost harm. To commit to a life of helping others, only to be the one to take one away, is nothing but a mockery of the healthcare code. The complexity of regulation, ambiguity around coercion, and infringement on the role of a doctor all indicate a complete ban is the only solution. Solid grounds can never exist to warrant doctors to morally and legally permit the taking of the most sacred entity: life.

(2023). Death with Dignity Act. Washington State Department of Health

10 Penn State College of Medicine Current Students. (2021). Oath of Modern Hippocrates

THE RIGHT TO DIE: A LEGAL ARGUMENT FOR THE LEGALIZATION OF. . .

CONTINUED FROM PAGE 31

ing one’s suicide.9 Therefore, since the two acts were deemed sufficiently different, the law could not be overturned on Fourteenth Amendment grounds.

However, the court’s rationale in both of these cases is incongruent with its rulings, incongruent with the history of suicide, and incongruent with modern law. Firstly, the court’s argument in Washington contradicts its precedent. The court held that assisted suicide doesn’t constitute an essential liberty. Yet, since the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, the court has numerous precedents recognizing ‘bodily autonomy’ as an essential ‘liberty.’ For example, with labor law, the court held in Lochner V. New York that a maximum work hours limit was unconstitutional because workers had a right to control their bodies and their labor.10 They even went as far as to argue that “the government does not have the power to protect individuals from the consequences of their own decisions.”11 This recognition of bodily autonomy also extends to medical practice. Although Roe has been overturned, there are numerous cases which protect a patient’s bodily autonomy. For example, Casey recognized a woman’s right to an abortion by holding that the state cannot place an ‘undue burden’ on a woman while receiving abortion care. The court found that such an undue burden would violate their essential liberty to control their own body.12 Furthermore, the court also held in Griswold v. Connecticut, that a couple was

9 Id.

10 Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/198/45/.

11 Id.

12 Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) https:// supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/ us/505/833/.

allowed to make private decisions about contraceptives; yet again protecting the right of a patient to control their bodily autonomy.13 Though, despite the numerous precedents affirming a citizen’s right to bodily autonomy, Washington holds that suicide, arguably the ultimate decision about bodily autonomy, is not an ‘essential liberty.’

Detractors would likely argue that suicide is unique because it has never been legalized. To borrow from Rehnquist’s decision, suicide is “offensive to our national traditions and practices.” Yet, the problem with that argument is that there is no national tradition of enforcing suicide laws. Although they were on the books in many states, perpetrators of suicide were rarely if ever prosecuted. Since the FBI began keeping records of criminal prosecutions in 1985, prosecutions for the crime of suicide don’t break the top 50, let alone the top ten, most prosecuted crime most prosecuted crimes in the United States.14 In fact, suicide was so rarely prosecuted, that, in 2023, the US government no longer considers suicide a crime.15 This data clearly shows that Rehnquist’s survey of suicide history focuses on the wrong metric. There can’t be a clear ‘national tradition’ which takes offense to suicide if most prosecutors refused to pursue individuals who had survived suicide attempts and the US government eventually decriminalized the act altogether.

This brings us to the court’s holding in Vacco. In this case, Rehnquist

13 Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/381/479/.

14 FBI, FBI Crime Data Explorer, https:// cde.ucr.cjis.gov/LATEST/webapp/#/pages/explorer/crime/crime-trend.

15 “Suicide-Definition” Cornell Legal Information Institute https://www.law. cornell.edu/wex/suicide.

made the argument that assisted suicide does not fall under the equal protection clause because it is wholly different from a patient refusing life saving treatment. Though, the Vacco ruling has an interesting caveat. In the majority of the court’s concurring opinions, Justices O’Conner, Ginsberg, Stevens, Souter, and Beyer argued that the distinction should, ultimately, be left up to the states.16 Today, 28 years after the Vacco decision, 11 states have repealed their distinctions and 14 more have pending legislation in front of their legislatures.17 For half the states in the union, there exists no distinction between assisted suicide and the refusal of lifesaving care. This means that, if Vacco were put in front of the court today, justices may reconsider their dismissal of the equal rights questions associated with assisted suicide.

Ultimately, assisted suicide should be legalized on the federal level. With a clear precedent governing the right to bodily autonomy, a decriminalization of laws against suicide, and a failure to distinguish between assisted suicide and the refusal of lifesaving care, assisted suicide is clearly protected by the Fourteenth amendment. Though, aside from the legality, assisted suicide has the ability to take pain away from so many suffering from degenerative diseases. Instead of living through excruciating physical and emotional pain, patients can end their lives on their own terms, surrounded by friends, family, and loved ones.

16 Green, Allen.” Summary of the two recent U.S. Supreme Court cases on Assisted Suicide.” Office of Legislative Research, December 22, 1997 https://www.cga.ct.gov/PS97/rpt/olr/ htm/97-R-1055.htm#:~:text=You%20 asked%20for%20a%20summary,(June%2024%2C%201997)

17 Death with Dignity, In Your State, https://deathwithdignity.org/states/

Should We Regulate Ghost Guns?

GHOST GUNS AND GOVERNMENT OVERREACH: WHY ATF REGULATIONS THREATEN GUN RIGHTS

by OSCAR ZHANG STAFF WRITER

TheBureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) has recently intensified efforts to regulate ghost guns—privately made firearms without serial numbers— raising concerns about government overreach and the erosion of Second Amendment rights. The right to manufacture firearms for personal use has long been protected under U.S. law, yet the ATF’s regulations impose undue restrictions that primarily impact law-abiding citizens rather than addressing the root causes of gun violence. While some may argue that ghost guns contribute to crime, excessive regulation sets a dangerous precedent for expanded firearm restrictions and governmental overreach, threatening constitutionally protected gun ownership rights.

The ATF’s recent regulatory push represents an unconstitutional expansion of executive power, bypassing Congress and undermining the principle of separation of powers. Historically, federal law has permitted individuals to manufacture firearms for personal use without serialization requirements. According to the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), individuals are legally allowed to manufacture firearms for personal use, provided they do not engage in business or sale without a federal firearms license.1

1 “Gun Control Act.” Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, 21 Oct. 2022, www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/gun-control-act.

However, the ATF’s attempt to unilaterally redefine what qualifies as a firearm, without explicit legislative approval, grants an unelected regulatory body the power to impose restrictions beyond its intended scope. For instance, the GCA defines a firearm as a weapon that expels a projectile by explosive action or the receiver of such a weapon, yet the ATF’s recent rules expand this definition to include unfinished firearm parts, such as 80% lower receivers, effectively creating new legal restrictions that Congress has not enacted. This overreach challenges the established legal framework, sidestepping Congress’s authority to make laws and setting a precedent for executive agencies to impose sweeping regulations without democratic accountability. If agencies like the ATF can unilaterally expand their authority in this manner, it weakens the legislative process and opens the door to further regulatory overreach in other areas of policy.

Beyond concerns about executive overreach, the ATF’s regulatory actions present a significant threat to constitutional liberties, particularly the Second Amendment. The right to manufacture firearms for personal use has long been protected, yet these new regulations impose undue restrictions that primarily impact law-abiding citizens rather than addressing the root causes of gun violence. Moreover, these measures create a dangerous precedent for expanded firearm restrictions, potentially leading to broader bans on legally owned weapons. If left unchecked, this gradual erosion of

gun rights could set the stage for further governmental encroachments on constitutional freedoms, reinforcing a slippery slope where increasing regulatory control diminishes individual liberties under the guise of public safety. Legal precedent supports this concern. In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that firearm regulations must be in line with the Second Amendment’s intent to preserve the right to bear arms for lawful purposes and rejected the charge imposed by ATF.2 More recently, in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Court reaffirmed that individuals have a fundamental right to own firearms for self-defense.3 The ATF’s attempt to impose new regulatory constraints on ghost guns, without clear and specific legislative authorization, raises serious questions about whether such actions align with these precedents. This shows ATF could infringe upon the individual rights recognized in Heller. While the government has a legitimate interest in regulating firearms to ensure public safety, such regulations must not violate the core individual right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes.

While concerns about executive overreach and constitutional liberties highlight the broader implications of ATF regulations, it is also essential to consider the direct impact on individuals who rely on private-

CONTINUED ON PAGE 36

2 United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)

3 District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW: A DEFENSE OF THE ATF’S COMMONSENSE REGULATION OF GHOST GUNS

by MEGHAN DERBY STAFF WRITER

Aghostgun is an unserialized, and thus untraceable, firearm assembled from components purchased in a kit or separately.1 While the right to possess a firearm is a constitutionally protected freedom, ghost guns undermine this freedom by circumventing reasonable restrictions on gun ownership and endangering society at large. 692 of the 45,240 total ghost guns recovered nationwide between 2016 and 2021 were in connection to a homicide or homicide attempt investigation.2 In 2022, in response to the increased recovery of unserialized firearms, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives classified these kits and components under the 1968 Gun Control Act’s statutory definition as “any weapon…which will or is designed to or may readily be converted” into a functional firearm.3 This rule clarified that all gun kits and parts must be serialized, sold by a licensed dealer, and are subject to a Brady Background Check.

However, a federal district court—and later the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals—overturned the 2022 ATF rule when it was challenged in court. The Fifth Circuit held that

1 Totenberg, Nina. “Can ghost guns be regulated as firearms? The Supreme Court will decide.” NPR, 8 Oct. 2024, https://www.npr.org/2024/10/08/nxs1-5106803/supreme-court-ghost-guns.

2 “Ghost Guns Recoveries and Shootings.” Everytown for Gun Safety, https://everytownresearch.org/report/ ghost-guns-recoveries-and-shootings/..

3 Schwinn, Steven D. “Garland v. VanDerStok.” American Bar Association, https://www.americanbar.org/groups/ public_education/publications/preview_ home/garland-v-vanderstock/.

the ATF rule “flout[ed] clear statutory text and exceed[ed] the legislatively imposed limits on agency authority.”4 The constitutionality of the ATF rule was brought to the Supreme Court in still pending Garland v. VanDerStok (2024), and thus the question remains open––should the ATF be legally authorized to regulate ghost guns, and is their regulation net-beneficial to American public safety?5 While the ATF necessarily expanded the scope of the Gun Control Act with this 2022 common sense rule, this rule is constitutional because it extends the statute’s original intent to accommodate advancements in gun manufacturing and distribution The ATF should regulate ghost guns because their capacity to evade federal and state gun regulations facilitates crime that cannot be traced to a perpetrator, thus posing a clear and imminent danger to public safety.

The Gun Control Act of 1968, or GCA, defined a firearm as “any weapon…which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive.”6 The definition also includes “the frame or receiver of any such weapon.”7 Thus, the framework

4 “What You Need To Know About Garland v. VanDerStok Ahead of Oral Argument.” Everytown for Gun Safety, October 7, 2024. https://www.everytown.org/ vanderstok-ghost-guns-scotus-oral-argument/

5 “Garland v. VanDerStok.” Oyez. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2024/23-852.

6 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3).

7 “What You Need To Know About Garland v. VanDerStok Ahead of Oral Argument.” Everytown for Gun Safety, October 7, 2024. https://www.everytown.org/ vanderstok-ghost-guns-scotus-oral-argument/

for regulating ghost guns is textually established in this statute because the standard for a “firearm” is not only the fully assembled weapon but also some of its parts. The 2022 Final Rule authored by the ATF incorporated these gun kits and parts under this definition, thus requiring all those engaged in the business of firearms to obtain a federal license, record the acquisition and transfer of firearms, and conduct a background check before transferring a firearm to a non-licensee.8 However, the respondents in Garland v. VanDerStok refuted the Final Rule’s redefinition of “frame or receiver” and “firearm,” arguing that it exceeded the ATF’s congressionally mandated authority to enforce existing statutes according to their textual meaning.9 The essential basis of the respondents’ argument is that a kit of parts is not a gun, and thus should not be regulated as one. However, Southern Methodist University law professor Erik Ruben counters this position by proposing that the statute was intended to be “broad, and flexible.”10 The 1968 law “was passed in part to stop the problem of that day, which was the mail-order shipment of firearms across state lines…These kits present the modern-day version of the mail-order firearms that were a problem back in 1968.”11 Ultimately, a set of parts that can be efficiently assembled into a firearm is a firearm.

CONTINUED ON PAGE 36

8 Id.

9 Garland v. Vanderstok, 144 S. Ct. 44 S.C. 2023

10 Totenberg, Nina. “Can ghost guns be regulated as firearms? The Supreme Court will decide.” NPR, 8 Oct. 2024, https://www.npr.org/2024/10/08/nxs1-5106803/supreme-court-ghost-guns. 11 Id.

GOVERNMENT

ly made firearms for self-defense. For many Americans, particularly those in high-crime areas, access to legal firearms is not just a matter of rights but of personal safety. Privately made firearms serve as a vital means of self-defense, particularly for individuals living in high-crime areas who may face barriers to legally purchasing traditional firearms. Ghost guns offer a legal alternative for law-abiding citizens who may not meet stringent purchasing requirements but still seek protection. Criminals will inevitably obtain weapons through illegal means, and regulating ghost guns does little to deter crime while disproportionately burdening responsible gun owners. Restricting access to unserialized firearms punishes law-abiding individuals without addressing the underlying societal factors contributing to violent crime.

The ruling in McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), following District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) that was introduced in the last paragraph,

further reinforces the right to self-defense, as the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments, preventing undue restrictions on firearm ownership.4 By imposing new regulations on ghost guns, the ATF risks infringing upon the protections affirmed in this case.

Additionally, for low-income individuals, traditional firearms may be financially out of reach due to expensive background checks, licensing fees, and purchasing costs. Ghost guns provide an affordable self-defense alternative, ensuring that financial status does not determine one’s ability to protect themselves. The Supreme Court’s decision in Heller (2008) emphasized that self-defense is a core component of the Second Amendment, and restricting access to affordable firearm alternatives disproportionately impacts those in vulnerable

4 McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010)

communities.5 By regulating ghost guns, the ATF effectively creates economic barriers to firearm ownership, contradicting the fundamental right to self-defense upheld by the Court. The ATF’s regulation of ghost guns is both unnecessary and unconstitutional, setting a concerning precedent for further government control over firearm ownership. These restrictions undermine the Second Amendment and disproportionately impact law-abiding citizens while failing to curb criminal activity. Instead of imposing new, ambiguous regulations, lawmakers should focus on enforcing existing firearm laws and tackling the actual causes of violent crime. Expanding government oversight without legislative approval is not only inefficient but also threatens the foundational principles of American gun rights.

5 District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

GHOST GUNS AND GOVERNMENT OVERREACH: WHY ATF REGULATIONS. . .

CONTINUED FROM PAGE 35

Accessibility to internet resources and technological advancements in industrial production now allow untrained persons to assemble a fully functional firearm at home, with no background check or registration necessary. This development was unforeseeable in the mid-twentieth century. However, gun kits represent a common thread of gun manufacturers and sellers evading federal regulations to increase sales, which the GCA intended to

prevent. Extending the GCA to regulate gun kits and parts leverages the original language of the statute while remaining flexible to modern public safety concerns. By regulating rather than banning gun kits, the ATF commonsense rule is a constitutionally legitimate extension of the GCA that should be upheld. If left unregulated, ghost guns will continue to haunt American communities. The availability of ghost

gun kits and parts creates a gaping, dangerous loophole that undermines gun control policies, poses substantial threats to public safety, and undermines law enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and criminal activity. Ultimately, the American public is safer and freer when the law regulates threats that would otherwise be invisible, and thus ghost guns should be federally regulated.

OPINION

RISING STOCK OWNERSHIP: A WORRISOME TREND IN CONGRESS

by NATALIA GIROLO PRINT MANAGER

Asstock ownership has steadily risen with each congressional class1 in the last decade, there have been increased calls by the public and lawmakers alike to introduce more stringent restrictions on congressional investment portfolios. According to analyses from investment watch groups, congress stock investments have routinely outpaced the S&P 500,2 one of the primary indexes for measuring stock market gains. Attempts to limit congressional stock market activity have floundered ever since the initial restrictions of the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act signed into law in 2012. Recently, bipartisan bills such as the TRUST in Congress Act, which seeks to transfer congressional investments to blind trusts, and the Bipartisan Restoring Faith in Government Act, which bans stock ownership altogether for lawmakers, have been introduced in the House of Representatives. The introduction of such bills presents a stark moment of opportunity for members of Congress to fortify the United States Government’s commitment to impartially serving the democratic will of its

1 Gonsalves-Brown, Sophia, and Maha Quadri. “Congressional Stock Trading Continues to Raise Conflicts of Interest Concerns.” Campaign Legal Center, 2024, campaignlegal.org/update/congressional-stock-trading-continues-raise-conflicts-interest-concerns.

2 Giorno, Taylor. “Dozens of Lawmakers Beat Stock Market in 2024: Report.” The Hill, 7 Jan. 2025, thehill.com/business/5072670-dozens-of-lawmakersbeat-stock-market-in-2024-report/.

constituents.

Under the STOCK Act, members of Congress must file publicly available financial statements each year and periodic transaction reports within 45 days of making a stock trade.3 13 years later, however, it has become increasingly clear that the STOCK Act is an ineffectual method of ensuring proper congressional conduct in regard to investment activity. The first-time penalty for a late disclosure of stock trading is minimal – only a $200 fine. While repeated offenses see incremental increases in the fine, it is negligible compared to the salaries of lawmakers. Such minimal punishment does nothing to ensure compliance. In fact, in 2022, Business Insider reported that the 117th Congress class saw 78 members of Congress violate the STOCK Act in some form with minimal repercussions for the involved parties.4 However, a greater concern surrounding the STOCK Act is that it does not address the significant conflict of interest issues that arise when members of Congress own stock.

Independent analysts who monitor stock market trades have raised alarms about congressional investment gains, which are estimated from the periodic transaction reports. In 2024, the average stock portfolio increased in valuation for Democratic and Republican members of Congress by 6.2 and 1.2 percentage points respectively above

3 STOCK Act of 2012, S.2038, 112th Congress, (2012)

4 Levinthal, D. Business Insider. 78 Members of Congress Have Violated a Law Designed to Root out Insider Trading and Prevent conflicts-of-interest. March 2022.

that of the S&P 500.5 While this cannot be used to definitively cry foul play, it does raise the question of whether members of congress are leveraging the information they gain during session to inform their investment choices. Even if all congress members are above board under the current STOCK Act restrictions, their ability to vote on bills, work with lobbyists, and sit on committees – all of which can have direct effects on stock prices – poses a serious threat to their ability to put the American people’s interests above the corporations they are personally invested in.

The proposed idea of banning stock ownership has both congressional and public6 bipartisan support, yet certain members of Congress under scrutiny, such as Representative Nancy Pelosi, have maintained it is their right to participate in free trade.7 Supporters of congressional stock ownership argue their stock trades do not fall under insider trading laws, nor do their investments influence their congressional voting behavior. However, the potential for undue corporate influence through lawmakers’ prioritization of investment

5 Giorno, Taylor. “Dozens of Lawmakers Beat Stock Market in 2024: Report.”

The Hill, 7 Jan. 2025, thehill.com/business/5072670-dozens-of-lawmakersbeat-stock-market-in-2024-report/.

6 University of Maryland. Ban on Stock Trading for Members of Congress Favored by Overwhelming Bipartisan Majority | Program for Public Consultation. publicconsultation.org/united-states/stock-tradingby-members-of-congress/. July 2023.

7 Giorno, Taylor. “Dozens of Lawmakers Beat Stock Market in 2024: Report.”

The Hill, 7 Jan. 2025, thehill.com/business/5072670-dozens-of-lawmakersbeat-stock-market-in-2024-report/.

“...their ability to vote on bills, work with lobbyists, and sit on committees- all of which can have direct effects on stock prices - poses a serious threat to their ability to put the American people’s interests above the corporations they are personally invested in.”

interests poses a significant threat to the democratic process. The absence of an effective method to ensure ethical congressional behavior only exacerbates the issue. While the STOCK Act was a step in the right direction, the rise in stock ownership in Congress and the inherent conflict of interest it produces for members of Congress necessitates stricter regulations.

The past outcomes of bills proposing outright bans of congressional stock ownership makes the success of

the Bipartisan Restoring Faith in Government Act unlikely. However, the TRUST Act, which requires only a transfer of investments to a blind trust, can serve as a compromise between proand anti- stock ownership members of Congress. Lawmakers would retain their investments, but be barred from the active management and knowledge of their holdings while in Congress, thus neutralizing any potential conflict of interests. The bill also requires the immediate family of lawmakers to place

their investments in the blind trust, which opponents of the bill have criticized. However, this is a logical inclusion to prevent close family members from acting on behalf of congressional loved ones or capitalizing on the information shared with them by the nature of their relationship. Thus, enacting the TRUST in Congress Act will serve to fortify government independence from and impartiality to corporate interests –a crucial requirement for maintaining the integrity of the U.S. Government.

ROLLING THE DICE ON REGULATION: THE DARK SIDE OF LEGAL ONLINE SPORTS BETTING

by BRODIE BOJORQUEZ STAFF WRITER

While you and your friends might have sat excitedly on the couch watching Super Bowl LIX, you might have noticed one of them checking their phone anxiously between plays to see if their parlay hit. This year, nearly $1.39 billion was wagered on online platforms in anticipation of the Eagles and Chiefs rematch, marking a substantial increase of about $200 million compared to last year. And it’s not just the big game that’s highlighting the growth of online sports betting. Nearly 1 in 5 Americans have placed a bet on a sporting event in the past year.1 Gambling has become more

1 Landers, Chris. “$1.39 billion is being wagered on the Super Bowl: Biggest bets on Chiefs, Eagles.” Fansided, Feb 9, 2025. https://fansided.com/1-39-billion-isbeing-wagered-on-the-super-bowlbiggest-bets-on-chiefs-eagles; https:// www.nerdwallet.com/article/invest-

convenient than ever, with platforms like Draft Kings and FanDuel offering promotions and rewards daily to new and veteran users alike. While not yet legal in all fifty states, sports betting laws have made significant headway in the past five years. States like New York legalized online sports betting in 2022, yet have done little to establish market regulations and consumer protections. Instead, the new laws have amplified the predatory tactics of platforms like FanDuel and DraftKings, exploiting users rather than offering a safe and equitable betting environment. Online betting sites inundate users with “deals,” “riskfree” bets, and “free money” advertisements, often masking the high-risk nature of gambling and sites’ underlying algorithms designed to encourage compulsive gambling. While sports gamblers should recognize how dangerous ing/2025-sports-betting-and-gamblingsurvey

gambling addictions are, online sports betting platforms should be held legally accountable for their misleading marketing practices and inducements that add to the culture of addiction.

Consumer watchdogs are starting to take notice of the potential harms of sports betting– Recent lawsuits against online betting platforms articulate a rising public concern over their exploitative business practices. In a lawsuit filed this past January, New York plaintiffs Clara De Leon and Eric W. Mirsberger Jr. are seeking damages for DraftKings’ allegedly deceptive marketing tactics. The plaintiffs allege that one of the most concerning aspects of DraftKings’ marketing strategy are their “No Sweat” bets, “advertis[ing] an all-upside gambling experience, falsely promising new users that they will get free money which they can wager without any

CONTINUED ON PAGE 40

risk.”2 While online sports betting has been legal for three years in New York State, the complaint’s filing suggests that legislation has done little to remedy the dangers that sites like Draft Kings pose to consumers, and has merely removed the legal obstacle that would have made potential users hesitant to gamble.

According to the Rutgers Addiction Research Center, more than five million Americans suffer from gambling addictions, and eight percent of addicts will ever seek help.3 Considering these statistics, it is deplorable that DraftKings’ most lucrative promotion of their business model is predicated on the notion of “risk-free” bets. According to another lawsuit filed by Samantha Guery against DraftKings in New York state last year, new users or those reticent to gambling were lured into creating a DraftKings account and placing a bet by the “risk-free” bet advertisements.4 These “risk-free” bets were marketed such that if the user’s initial bet did not hit, they would be awarded a free bet of the same amount. However, the lawsuit alleges that the plaintiffs were actually paid less than half of the original wager. After joining DraftKings to place a “riskfree” bet, some users began a cycle of gambling addiction that they might not have started had they not been seduced

2 De Leon et al v. DraftKings, Inc. 1:2025cv00644

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/ gov.uscourts.nysd.635491/gov.uscourts. nysd.635491.1.0.pdf

3 “Statistics on Gambling Trends in the United States.” The Rutgers Addiction Research Center.

https://www.addiction.rutgers.edu/ about-addiction/facts-and-figures/gambling/

4 Graf, Rachel. “DraftKings Sued Over ‘Risk-Free’ Bets That Were Anything But.” Bloomberg News: Law, April 17, 2024. https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/draftkings-sued-over-risk-free-betsthat-were-anything-but

by the false promise of free money.

The “No Sweat Bet” advertisement campaign not only sought to initiate new users into the DraftKings consumer base, but they also worked to create a relationship of trust between the user and site through celebrity endorsements. Using a celebrity’s image to promote a product is nothing new, but using them to promote a gambling habit is particularly dangerous. By pairing beloved celebrities with “No Sweat” text and an official sports league logo, DraftKings deliberately attempts to create a veneer of familiarity and legitimacy between them and potential customers. One advertisement features comedian Kevin Hart smiling while holding a basketball, with the National Basketball Association logo in the corner above a “No Sweat Bet” sign that advertises up to $1,500 in bonus bets. Such a tactic downplays the severe damage that a bet gone awry can have on livelihoods and only puts money in an already successful company’s pocket through an insidious method of marketing.

Under consumer protection laws, companies like DraftKings have a clear duty of care to their consumers to ensure that their marketing practices are transparent, truthful, and not misleading. According to the Consumer Protection Law of New York State, any act or sale “which unfairly takes advantage of the lack of knowledge… of a consumer…to the consumer’s detriment” is illegal and deemed an “unconscionable trade practice.”5 The law generally seeks to protect consumers from deceptive, fraudulent, or unfair business practices that exploit their lack of knowledge or bargaining power. DraftKings’ suspi-

5 New York City Administrative Code §20-701. https://codelibrary.amlegal. com/codes/newyorkcity/latest/NYCadmin/0-0-0-35313

cious practices directly violate legal obligations and should be classified as an “unconscionable trade practice.” Consumer protection laws are designed to shield the public from unfair business practices that exploit consumers’ trust or lack of knowledge. By misleading consumers about the true terms of its offers DraftKings is not only breaching its duty of care but is also engaging in practices that could result in significant financial harm to vulnerable individuals. As a responsible party, DraftKings has a legal and ethical responsibility to provide clear, accurate, and honest information about the risks involved in its services, ensuring that consumers are not misled into making decisions that could lead to substantial financial losses.

The legalization of online sports betting has brought both increased enjoyment for users and significant concerns regarding the protection of consumers and the risk of addiction. While gambling offers a thrilling recreation for many, it is a lucrative pastime for very few. The deceptive marketing tactics employed by these companies have facilitated a dangerous cycle of addiction and financial distress. Consumer protection laws have yet to adequately address the exploitative practices that pervade online sports betting, and companies like DraftKings must be held accountable for their misleading advertisements and unethical business models that intentionally exploit vulnerable individuals. To mitigate these risks, stronger regulatory frameworks are needed—ones that require full transparency from operators and prioritize consumer welfare over profit. Until such measures are implemented, the current legal landscape will continue to allow businesses to exploit gaps in consumer protection, placing the financial and emotional well-being of millions at risk.

CENSORING ACCESS, IGNORING ABUSE: WHY AGE VERIFICATION IS NOT ENOUGH

by HALEY THOMAS STAFF WRITER

Pornography has long influenced human sexuality, with depictions dating back over 40,000 years and drastically increasing since. Over the past century technological advances saw porn’s transformation into a globalized, mainstream industry that is now worth over $172 billion.1 While some view pornography as a safe outlet for unfulfilled desires or even an educational tool, its widespread accessibility raises significant concerns—particularly regarding youth exposure and the safety of its participants. As pornographic websites consistently rank among the top 50 most visited globally, governments have attempted to mitigate these concerns through age verification laws–starting with places like Louisiana, Arkansas, France, and Germany.2 Yet, these restrictions fail to address the deeper, systemic harms of pornography, including the prevalence of sexual violence, its role in shaping perceptions of sex and consent, and its inherent privacy risks for consumers. Rather than using age restrictions as a tool to excuse porn’s harmful impacts, society must critically examine and address the industry to promote healthy sexual development.

The need for pornography regulation becomes strikingly evident when considering statistical trends that link its consumption to increased

1 Fight the New Drug. “How Does the Porn Industry Make Its Money Today?” Fight the New Drug, 10 Nov. 2024, fightthenewdrug.org/how-does-the-porn-industry-actually-make-money-today/.

2 Collings, Paige. “The Impact of Age Verification Measures Goes beyond Porn Sites.” Electronic Frontier Foundation, 30 Jan. 2025, www.eff.org/ deeplinks/2025/01/impact-age-verification-measures-goes-beyond-porn-sites.

aggression, desensitization to violence, and distorted perceptions of sex. This should come as no surprise given that 88.2% of popular porn scenes depict physical violence or aggression.3 Exposure to such content is particularly concerning for young viewers, wherein one-fourth of children as young as 15 years old report repeated exposure to violent, non-consensual depictions of sex, reinforcing the dangerous notion that sexual violence is an inherent part of pleasure.4 While not every porn consumer becomes a perpetrator, young audiences are especially vulnerable to mirroring pornographic dynamics and trends. Research shows that 10th-grade boys exposed to violent porn are two to three times more likely to engage in or experience teen dating violence.5 The dangers extend beyond influence— pornography actively fuels and perpetuates violence against women by dehumanizing them, making it easier for individuals to justify or commit harm. Empirical studies support this

3 Brem, Meagan J et al. “Problematic Pornography Use and Physical and Sexual Intimate Partner Violence Perpetration Among Men in Batterer Intervention Programs.” Journal of interpersonal violence vol. 36,11-12 (2021): NP6085-NP6105. doi:10.1177/0886260518812806 (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/ PMC6942232/ )

4 Davis, A. C., Carrotte, E. R., Hellard, M. E., & Lim, M. (2018). What Behaviors Do Young Heterosexual Australians See in Pornography? A Cross-Sectional Study. Journal of sex research, 55(3), 310–319. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.201 7.1417350

5 Rostad, W.L., Gittins-Stone, D., Huntington, C. et al. The Association Between Exposure to Violent Pornography and Teen Dating Violence in Grade 10 High School Students. Arch Sex Behav 48, 2137–2147 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508019-1435-4

claim, demonstrating that frequent porn consumers are more likely to objectify and dehumanize others, as well as develop attitudes conducive to sexual aggression.6 Furthermore, research links pornography consumption to an increased likelihood of committing sexual violence, sending unsolicited sexual images, and distributing intimate content without consent.7 These trends become even more concerning in male-dominated environments like fraternities, where recurrent exposure to violent porn reinforces rape culture and bystander complicity. Ultimately, pornography does not merely reflect sexual aggression—it normalizes and encourages it, contributing to a broader societal crisis surrounding consent, gender dynamics, and sexual violence. Age verification laws are often proposed as a solution to limit exposure to porn, but when applied, they are met with pushback and risks. Most importantly is the risk to personal privacy. Mandating official IDs, facial scans, or banking details for access holds complications for digital anonymity, and exposes users to hacking, extortions, and data breaches. These sorts of verification methods hold a disproportionate harm for marginalized groups, particularly LGBTQ+ individuals, who may fear outing or discrimination if their private browsing data is linked to their identity. For example, in September 2024, a data leak from a porn website revealed lewd comments made by North Carolina governor candidate Mark Robinson, tying him to transgender pornography, and thereafter tarnishing his reputation.8 While in

6 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/1

CONTINUED ON PAGE 43

0.1101/2024.10.12.24315374v1.full

7 Id 5

8 Steck, Em, and Andrew Kaczynski.

CHEAP JUSTICE: THE CHRONIC OVERWORKING AND UNDERFUNDING OF AMERICAN PUBLIC DEFENSE

by LEENA SFAR STAFF WRITER

Anastonishing 80% of criminal defendants in the United States cannot afford a private attorney.1 In Chicago, these numbers are even higher, with 85% of adult and 95% of adolescent defendants suffering the same fate.2 Consequently, under the Sixth Amendment, tens of thousands of these defendants are entitled to the help of a public attorney each year. However, despite the urgent need for their services, the chronic overworking and underpaying of these professionals has precipitated a crisis, undermining the very principles of justice they seek to uphold.

The average fifth-year salary for private attorneys is $172,000 while a typical public defender earns $64,000 by their fifth year (and only $47,500 out of law school).3 Moreover, to be eligible to receive public defense, the defendant must earn 200% or less of the current Federal poverty line. Therefore, a public defender in Florida earning the average salary may very well be eligible themselves to qualify for the represen-

1 “Indigent Defense in America: An Affront to Justice.” Criminal Legal News, 2024. https://www.criminallegalnews. org/news/2018/mar/16/indigent-defense-america-affront-justice/

2 “You Have the Right to Chronically-Underfunded and Overworked Counsel: The need for improved support of public defense in Cook County and beyond.” Chicago Appleseed Center for Fair Courts, August 11, 2021. https://www. chicagoappleseed.org/2021/08/11/ your-right-to-chronically-underfunded-overworked-cook-county-public-defender/

3 Schoneman Theodore. “Overworked and Underpaid: America’s Public Defender Crisis.” Fordham Political Review, November 20, 2018. https://fordhampoliticalreview.org/overworked-and-underpaid-americas-public-defender-crisis/

tation of a public defender in court.4 These circumstances have led to a dire underrepresentation of public defenders in courts. On average, law students are burdened by $100,000 in student loan debt—it is not surprising that new graduates are not enticed to pursue the public good at the expense of a living wage.

Additionally, public defenders are woefully overworked. Floridian public defenders, for example, assume an annual felony caseload of ~500 felonies.5 The American Bar Association recommends that defenders exert 47 hours of preparation per felony case. And yet, due to overwhelming caseloads, many have reported spending under an hour or, in the case of some public defenders, as little as seven minutes per case.6

The ramifications of this systematic neglect are manifold: prolonged pretrial detentions, coerced plea bargains, and ultimately, wrongful convictions. The disparity between the resources allocated to public defenders and those available to private attorneys creates an uneven playing field, where

4 Van Brunt, Alexa. “Public defenders are overworked and underfunded. That means more people go to jail.” The Guardian, June 19, 2015. https://www. theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/ jun/17/poor-rely-public-defenders-too-overworked

5 Dahr Fred. “The Sad State of the Public Defender in America.” Office of Fred Dahr, Texas Defense Attorney, 2018. https://www.texasdefenselaw.com/ library/sad-state-public-defender-america/

6 Weiss, Debra Cassens. “Stressed and depressed, only 34% of young lawyers with highest student debt say JD was worth cost, new ABA survey says.” ABA Journal, September 9, 2024. https:// www.abajournal.com/web/article/ stressed-and-depressed-only-34-ofyoung-lawyers-with-highest-studentdebt-say-jd-was-worth-the-cost

the quality of one’s defense is deeply and disproportionately influenced by one’s economic status. This inequity has drawn too little scrutiny as it strikes at the heart of the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of effective assistance of counsel.

The devastating impact of an overburdened public defense system is epitomized by the experiences of individuals such as Joe A., a 22-year-old arrested in New Orleans for the possession of two grams of marijuana. Unable to afford bail, he spent five months languishing in jail, waiting for his case to progress. During that time, he lost his place in junior college, as his education was derailed by an offense that, in a well-functioning system, might never have led to incarceration. Over those months, he met with his public defender only three times, each interaction constrained by the crushing caseloads that define indigent defense in the city. With no real legal strategy or path forward, Joe did what so many in his position are forced to do—he pleaded guilty, not because he was guilty, but because it was the only way to escape indefinite detention. His story is not unique but emblematic of a broader crisis: a system where the presumption of innocence is functionally meaningless for the poor, and where overworked defenders, despite their best efforts, are too overwhelmed to mount a meaningful defense.7

Though the current affairs of American public defense present a grim reality, evidence demonstrates that increased investment in public defenders

7 Samaha Albert. “Indefensible: The Story Of New Orleans’ Public Defenders.” BuzzFeed News, August 13, 2015. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/albertsamaha/indefensible-new-orleans-public-defenders-office#.yf5Xo13dW

“A system where the presumption of innocence is functionally meaningless for the poor, and where overworked defenders, despite their best efforts, are too overwhelmed to mount a meaningful defense.”

can yield quite substantial improvements. In jurisdictions where public defenders receive competitive compensation and maintain manageable caseloads, the quality of legal representation has demonstrably improved. For instance, Massachusetts has significantly expanded funding for public defense, leading to a reduction in case backlogs and an increase in favorable case out-

comes.8 These findings underscore the critical role that adequate resources play in enhancing the efficacy of public defense. By equipping public defenders with the necessary institutional sup-

8 Pace, Nicholas M., Malia N. Brink, Cynthia G. Lee, and Stephen F. Hanlon. National Public Defense Workload Study. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2023. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA2559-1.html.

port, the legal system can move toward rectifying systemic imbalances and upholding the fundamental right to a fair trial. Addressing these disparities is not merely a matter of professional support for public defenders; rather, it is essential to preserving the foundational principles of justice that sustain the rule of law.

CENSORING ACCESS, IGNORING ABUSE: WHY AGE VERIFICATION IS NOT. . .

CONTINUED FROM PAGE 41

this example he made public comments under accounts tied to his real name, the case remains a point of vulnerability under porn website’s data. Ultimately, connecting content usage to personal identity–as with current age verification laws–always leaves a vulnerability for data breaches and public exposure, disproportionately threatening the privacy of minority populations.

Still, restricting early access to pornographic content is generally necessary to prevent a corrupted understanding of both sexuality and gender relations. But in reality there is no evidence that these systems, as they exist in the U.S., are actually successful in restricting underage access at all. Age verification measures may just scare users away from regulated platforms

“Mark Robinson, NC GOP Nominee for Governor, Called Himself a ‘black Nazi!,’ Supported Slavery in Past Comments Made on Porn Forum: CNN Politics.” CNN, 19 Sept. 2024, web.archive.org/ web/20240919192834/www.cnn. com/2024/09/19/politics/kfile-markrobinson-black-nazi-pro-slavery-porn-forum/index.html.

altogether (even under a more secure system, like France’s use of an intermediary firewall preventing a third party verifier from detecting the site’s data), harming teen and adult users alike.9 These systems run the risk of driving users to unsafe platforms instead, where content is truly unregulated and real non-consensual films appear. Additionally, large porn sites like Pornhub have made it obvious they are unwilling to accept age regulations, pulling its content from most southern states after age verification legislation was passed.10 Meaning the noncompliance of major sites will redirect viewers to unregulated sites even before age veri-

9 McConvey, Joel R. “French Regulator Releases Technical Reference on Age Verification for Porn: Biometric Update.” Biometric Update | Biometrics News, Companies and Explainers, BiometricUpdate. com, 18 Oct. 2024, www.biometricupdate.com/202410/french-regulator-releases-technical-reference-on-age-verification-for-porn.

10 https://www.them.us/story/pornhub-blocked-states-south-age-verification

fication systems can be implemented–proving their ineffectiveness. It is evident that these restrictive measures are not truly effective in eliminating young exposure, especially as other sites not classified as “adult sites” like X and Reddit vastly expand their pornographic content. Beyond age verification, a more holistic approach is necessary to address porn’s societal impact. By teaching adolescents about consent, healthy relationships, and the realities of pornography’s influence on sexual expectations, its misleading and harmful effects can be truly counteracted. As a community, equipping parents with tools to openly discuss pornography and set appropriate boundaries, and holding platforms hosting this content accountable for their effects is a great step forward. And as a state, implementing clearer regulatory policies to limit pornographic sexual violence along with enforcing a comprehensive sex education in schools would ensure these changes are enacted.

THE FIGHT FOR CLEAN SLATE LAWS NATIONWIDE

by MAYA SUNDARARAJAN STAFF WRITER

The Clean Slate Initiative (CSI) is a bipartisan organization that supports legislative campaigns to change criminal record maintenance processes in different states, sealing or expunging records after a waiting period to ease reentry into society. The initiative’s criteria for clean state legislation includes automating the criminal record clearance process, the inclusion of arrest and misdemeanor records, and a push to include at least one felony as eligible for clearance.1 Legislation aligned with the initiative has currently been passed in twelve states. However, it should be expanded across all fifty states and implemented at the federal level, affording equal opportunity to those with records nationwide and freeing them from the shackles of a criminal sentence after it has been served.

The states that have passed clean slate legislation, which range from New York2 and California3 to Oklahoma4 and Utah,5 have typically made those convicted of crimes eligi-

1 “Clean Slate in States.” The Clean Slate initiative. https://www.cleanslateinitiative.org/states.

2 NY Senate, 7551--A, 2023-2024 Regular Sessions, 2023. https://legislation. nysenate.gov/pdf/bills/2023/S7551A

3 California Senate, 731, Chapter 814, 2022. https://leginfo.legislature. ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_ id=202120220SB731

4 “Oklahoma Restoration of Rights & Record Relief III. Expungement, Sealing and Other Record Relief.” Collateral Consequences Resource Center, 2020. https://ccresourcecenter.org/ state-restoration-profiles/oklahoma-restoration-of-rights-pardon-expungement-sealing/.

5 “Utah’s Courts Expungement Process.” Rasa Legal, September 17, 2024. https://www.rasa-legal.com/utah/ utahs-courts-expungement-process/.

ble for automatic record sealing, and those whose charges were dismissed or who were acquitted eligible for complete expungement of their records. In some states like Delaware, convictions are also eligible for automatic expungement.6

This sealing or expunging of prior records enables access to employment, housing, education, and public assistance opportunities, ultimately giving those involved with the criminal justice system a second chance after an arrest or conviction. Because of challenges finding housing, one in five people who leave prison become homeless.7 Without access to such programs, reentry into society becomes extremely difficult, sometimes to the point where feelings of helplessness and desperation for income lead to recidivism. The data backs this up—a report from The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights finds that 50% of offenders released from federal prison between 2002 and 2006 who could not attain employment during supervised release committed a new crime or violated the terms of their release, while 93% of the offenders who were successfully employed did not return to prison.

“Charlotte, North Carolina was one of the worst places that you could be black, have a criminal background, and have any hopes of upward mobility,” says Kenneth Robinson, a CSI storyteller who, upon release, was

6 Delaware Senate, 111, 151st General Assembly, 2021. https://legis.delaware. gov/BillDetail/58578#:~:text=Bill%20 Details&text=This%20Act%20creates%20an%20automatic,ever%20obtain%20this%20important%20relief.

7 Fact Sheet – Barriers to Successful Re-Entry of Formerly Incarcerated People, March 27, 2017. https://civilrightsdocs. info/pdf/criminal-justice/Re-Entry-FactSheet.pdf.

denied Medicaid and denied rental housing despite offering to pay upfront for a whole year. Rejected from forty jobs he interviewed for, he finally landed a job at a goodwill to support his five children. As someone who was convicted but feels he can access his untapped potential with a second chance, Robinson wants to be looked at as “a black man who can be a productive part of society” not “a black man who has a record.”8 He started an organization in Charlotte, North Carolina that helps others like him by providing housing for justice-involved individuals because, as he explains, “... the average citizen just is unaware.” People feel that there must be a program for those exiting prison, he describes. Another CSI storyteller, Bill Wallace, said that felony records are “life sentences.” He was convicted at age fifteen, and when released, experienced how the criminal justice system is anything but restorative. Human dignity means not being punished for a choice made when he was a teenager, he explains.9

A concern about clean slate laws is that they excessively favor the rights of the individual over the collective. For example, there could be fears that workplaces or housing units may become less safe because employees or residents with hidden prior records might pose a danger to others. However, these laws often have safeguards built in. They include exceptions for

8 “From Record to Redemption: Kenneth Robinson’s Story.” Clean Slate Storytellers: Kenneth, November 12, 2024. https://www.cleanslateinitiative. org/video-library/v/clean-slate-storytellers-kenneth.

9 “From Record to Redemption: Bill Wallace’s Story.” Clean Slate Storytellers: Bill, November 17, 2024. https://www. cleanslateinitiative.org/video-library/v/ clean-slate-storytellers-bill.

“There are many life circumstances that shape people’s contact with the criminal justice system, and everyone deserves an opportunity to transcend their past missteps, turning the page and living their lives after their sentence has ended.”

violent crimes like murder, sexual offenses, child abuse and domestic abuse,10 and sometimes for crimes like assault, burglary and driving while impaired.11 They also have waiting periods that range from two to seven years for misdemeanors and from five to ten years for felonies.12

Research suggests that these waiting periods before record sealing or expunging mitigate many of the perceived ethical tradeoffs between the individual and the collective. The National Institute of Justice’s Redemption Study introduced the concept of a period after which individuals with and without a record pose similar hiring risks, calling this window the “time to redemption.” The authors Alfred Blumstein and Kimi-

10 Delaware Senate, 111, 151st General Assembly, 2021. https://legis.delaware. gov/BillDetail/58578#:~:text=Bill%20 Details&text=This%20Act%20creates%20an%20automatic,ever%20obtain%20this%20important%20relief. 11 Minnesota House, HF2023/SF2055, 2023. https://www.house.mn.gov/ comm/docs/SE1OQgmcKECtujeCi2gRcw. pdf

12 “Clean Slate A Fresh Start for Justice.” CT.gov State of Connecticut. https:// portal.ct.gov/cleanslate/clean-slate-eligibility?language=en_US.

nori Nakamura studied records from every adult arrested in 1980 in New York, noting who was and wasn’t rearrested, and for how long these people remained crime-free. They sought a duration after which the likelihood of a person with a prior arrest committing a crime was statistically indistinguishable from that of someone in the general population. Their finding: the time to redemption is about eight years for those arrested at younger ages or for more serious crimes, and a mere three to four years for less serious crimes.13 Legislators must not dismiss clean slate policies as posing a risk that data does not support, but instead consider making waiting periods as low as possible, while still aligning with the found times to redemption. More than three out of four U.S. states do not have clean-slate legislation. There’s an opportunity to expand their benefits nationwide. Furthermore, current policies around

13 Kelly, Morgan. “Policy Short: Reforming Waiting Periods - Fostering Equity and Unleashing Employment Opportunities.” The Clean Slate Initiative, October 24, 2024. https://www.cleanslateinitiative. org/research-data-publications/waiting-periods-policy-short.

federal record expungement are highly limited.14 A federal clean slate act would extend these benefits of employment, housing, and healthcare already seen under state-level legislation to those with federal records.

There are many life circumstances that shape people’s contact with the criminal justice system, and everyone deserves an opportunity to transcend their past missteps, turning the page and living their lives after their sentence has ended. Criminal or not, it is only human to covet the opportunity to rectify mistakes and forge a new path. We should make sure these second chances are available to everyone.

14 “Federal Felony Expungement: Is It Possible?” Hirsch Law Group, July 26, 2024. https://hirschlawgroup.com/federal-felony-expungement/#:~:text=Generally%2C%20federal%20offenses%20 and%20convictions,of%20the%20Controlled%20Substances%20Act.

CRASH AND BURN: THE DOWNWARD SPIRAL OF THE JETBLUE-SPIRIT MERGER BLOCK

by APARNA VISWANATHAN STAFF WRITER

Oncea powerhouse in the low-cost air travel sector, Spirit Airlines surprised many when they declared bankruptcy in November 2024.1 This rapid decline was accelerated by the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ) victory in a lawsuit blocking JetBlue Airways’ acquisition of Spirit earlier that year.2 While antitrust advocates celebrated the ruling as a win for consumer rights and market competition,3 the turbulent aftermath suggests a far murkier outcome. Though the decision aimed to protect budget travel, it may instead result in higher prices and less competition by strengthening the position of large airlines. Spirit’s decline highlights a troubling paradox: antitrust law is intended to foster competition and curb monopolies, but in industries with high barriers to entry and concentrated markets, such regulatory actions can inadvertently harm consumers. These unintended consequences underscore the dangers of antitrust enforcement focused solely on market power, emphasizing the need for a more careful assessment of regulatory actions based on their potential to drive long-term welfare and competition.

Negotiations regarding JetBlue’s acquisition of Spirit began in April 2022 after both airlines faced stunted recoveries from the

1 Koenig, David. “Spirit Airlines Files for Bankruptcy as Financial Losses Pile up and Debt Payments Loom,” AP News, November 18, 2024.

2 Jenkins Jr., Holman W.. “Spirit Airlines’ Bankruptcy: Antitrust Misfire,” The Wall Street Journal, November 2, 2024.

3 American Economic Liberties Project, “Fact Sheet: How a JetBlue-Spirit Merger Will Hurt Travelers, Working People, and Local Communities,” October 16, 2023.

COVID-19 pandemic. As larger competitors began siphoning their respective consumer bases, a merger became necessary for both firms to survive. Though the two airlines argued that they would be able to improve operating efficiency to compete against larger airlines, Judge William G. Young of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts decided to block the merger to prevent reduced competition and potential consumer harm.4 According to the pretrial brief filed by the DOJ, the argument against the merger centered on the expectation that it would reduce options for travelers nationwide.5 Given that the airline industry is already highly concentrated, with the top four airlines controlling 80% of the market, the DOJ worried that reduced competition would significantly impact the low-cost airline sector and harm consumers. Though Judge Young sympathized with Spirit’s financial struggles, he ultimately concluded that there was insufficient evidence that the airline would not eventually return to profitability.6

The problem with this analysis is that by preventing these two smaller airlines from combining, the District Court has inadvertently

4 Fordham University School of Law, “Failure to Launch: Antitrust Litigation in the Wake of the Blocked JetBlue-Spirit Deal,” Journal of Corporate and Financial Law, April 18, 2024.

5 U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, United States v. JetBlue Airways Corp. et al., No. 1:23-cv-11825WGY, Memorandum and Order, September 13, 2023.

6 Wayland, Michael. “Spirit Airlines Warns of Revenue Hit as Engine Problem Grounds More Jets,” CNBC, August 3, 2023.

strengthened the position of the largest competitors. In the highly concentrated airline market, the sheer scale of the four largest carriers gives them tactical advantages in sales and operations that are difficult for smaller airlines to match. Large airlines with a national footprint benefit from scale economies, receiving preference by negotiating lucrative corporate travel deals, and spreading the burden of expensive technology and analytics across a larger base.7 Similarly, their larger aircraft fleet gives them the flexibility to resolve disruptions, such as the engine problems that caused Spirit to ground as much as 5% of its capacity in 2023. The travel and hospitality industry inherently faces enormous logistical challenges with high stakes involved in maintaining schedules, safety, and service reliability. This complexity, coupled with the immense capital requirements and regulatory hurdles, makes it extremely difficult for new entrants to compete.

Structural barriers prevent smaller airlines from achieving these same advantages, a key factor in airline competition that the district court overlooked. The limited supply of available aircraft, shortages of commercial pilots, and constraints on important airport gates and departure times make expansion difficult.8 Relying on organic growth alone, JetBlue and Spirit would take years to obtain the same reach as the largest US airlines. By merging, however, they could have leveraged resources to challenge large carriers more effectively, potentially driving down prices and expand-

7 Baldanza, Ben. “Five Reasons Why Delta Airlines Outperforms Its Three Largest Competitors,” Forbes, April 1, 2021. 8 Horsley, Scott.“What Financial Troubles at Budget Airlines Could Mean for Travelers,” NPR, November 27, 2024,

“While the Justice Department’s complaint laments the trend towards consolidation in the airline industry, its victory in this case actually exacerbated the problem.”

ing service options for consumers. Economics scholars recognize a phenomenon known as “JetBlue effect,” wherein the price of airfare nosedives by an average of 21% when JetBlue enters a market, due to their lower prices undercutting competitors.9 While the Justice Department’s complaint laments the trend towards consolidation in the airline industry, its victory in this case actually exacerbated the problem. In past mergers like the Delta-Northwest acquisition, consumers have benefitted from better fare, more seating options, and increased access to major travel hubs.10 The DOJ’s intervention, though well-intentioned, has inadvertently deprived the market of a stronger competitive force that could have provided significant consumer benefits.

The Spirit-JetBlue merger block is not the first time that overzealous antitrust litigation has backfired. In the early 2000s, a similar issue occurred when the DOJ sought to address Microsoft’s allegedly monopolistic behavior in the personal com-

9 Robins, David A.. “The JetBlue Airways Corporation Case Study,” University of Richmond.

10 Kerr, William A. and McDonald, Robert A. M.. “The Economics of Airline Mergers,” MIT Sloan School of Management, 2014.

puter (PC) market by regulating its operating system bundling practices.11 While the settlement was intended to foster innovation and increase competition, the courts found that, similar to the JetBlue case, many of the DOJ’s concerns did not reflect the reality of the market. While regulating Microsoft did help increase patent activity, firms struggled to turn technical inventions into new products that the market would value.12 The innovation benefits regulators anticipated did not prove fruitful, highlighting the failure to translate intervention into real consumer benefits.

In industries where high barriers to entry and volatile consumption patterns abound, conventional antitrust litigation has proved stifling to business’ survival and growth. Instead of reflexively blocking attempts at market expansion, regulatory agencies should allow smaller businesses to grow and challenge the established players, ultimately fostering competition and benefiting consumers. Antitrust litigation must move beyond

11 U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. v. Microsoft Corporation: Information and Settlement, U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division.

12 Hovenkamp, Herbert. “Antitrust Regulation Can Backfire,” Stanford News, September 2023.

static metrics of market share and adopt a more nuanced analysis of the overall impact on consumer welfare. In industries that are constantly evolving, regulators must also factor in the potential for new entrants, future competition, and the role of economies of scale. Antitrust cases should be assessed based on how firms might facilitate innovation, lower costs, and ultimately benefit consumers through more accessible and affordable services.The Spirit-JetBlue case highlights the need to rethink antitrust enforcement, particularly in dynamic, high-barrier industries. Strategic mergers, when thoughtfully assessed, can foster competition and deliver long-term consumer benefits. To remain effective, antitrust policy must balance the crucial job of oversight with an understanding of market realities.

WILD, WILD WEST OF THE WORLD WIDE WEB

by MEGAN WEI STAFF WRITER

Social media has the potential to transform political engagement, serving as a democratizing force that amplifies grassroots movements and elevates marginalized voices. Its impact was evident during the Arab Spring (2010–2012), where digital platforms facilitated rapid mobilization by merging online networks with real-world protests.1 Similarly, in the 2020 Black Lives Matter movement, platforms like Instagram played a crucial role in shaping the movement’s visual narrative, using emotive storytelling to capture public attention.2 However, despite these benefits, social media’s ability to disseminate misinformation has fueled political apathy and deepened challenges within democratic systems. With tech companies operating largely unchecked, the rapid spread of misleading content and sensationalized news threatens to undermine the very engagement these platforms claim to foster.

While social media was initially seen as a tool for fostering unity, it has increasingly become a breeding ground for misinformation, influencing not only the 2016 election but also the 2020 and 2024 cycles. The 2016 “fake news crisis” exemplified this issue, with fabricated news on Facebook generating approximately 30 million shares for pro-Trump

1 Al Sayyad, Nezae and Guvenc, Muna. “Virtual Uprisings: On the Interaction of New Social Media, Traditional Media Coverage and Urban Space during the ‘Arab Spring,’” Urban Studies 52, no. 11 (2015): 2027, https://www.jstor.org/stable/26146115.

2 Chang, Ho-Chun Herbert et al., “#JusticeforGeorgeFloyd: How Instagram Facilitated the 2020 Black Lives Matter Protests,” PLOS One 17, no. 12 (December 7, 2022): e0277864, https://doi. org/10.1371/journal.pone.0277864.

stories and 7.6 million for pro-Clinton stories.3 The unchecked spread of false information raised significant concerns about its ability to distort voter perceptions and influence election outcomes. Although the extent of social media’s impact on the 2016 election remains debated, its role in shaping political discourse and transforming how people access news has become undeniable. In 2016, 62% of adults reported using social media for daily news, with 18% doing so frequently.4 By 2024, those figures had surged, with 86% of adults accessing news through digital devices and 57% doing so regularly.5 Despite this rapid shift in news consumption, regulations ensuring the accuracy and accountability of digital content have not kept pace. The U.S. still lacks comprehensive laws explicitly enforcing accuracy on social media. Existing regulations, such as the Communications Decency Act (CDA) and the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), primarily focus on restricting obscene content and protecting minors rather than addressing misinformation. Ironically, Section 230 of the CDA shields online platforms from liability for user-generated content, stating that interactive service providers cannot be treated as publishers.6 As a result, rather than being held

3 Allcott, Hunt and Gentzkow, Matthew. “Social Media and Fake News in the 2016 Election,” The Journal of Economic Perspectives 31, no. 2 (2017): 212, http:// www.jstor.org/stable/44235006.

4 Gottfried, Jeffrey. “News Use across Social Media Platforms 2016,” Pew Research Center, May 26, 2016, https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2016/05/26/news-use-across-social-media-platforms-2016/.

5 “News Platform Fact Sheet,” Pew Research Center, September 17, 2024, https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/fact-sheet/news-platform-factsheet/.

6 “Department of Justice’s Review of Section 230 of the Communications De-

accountable for the accuracy of information reaching millions, social media companies continue to evade responsibility, allowing misinformation to flourish unchecked.

This trend persisted through the 2020 and 2024 elections, as viral partisan content frequently overshadowed substantive policy discussions. Misinformation on these platforms distorts voters’ perceptions of political opponents and discourages them from vot-

candidates themselves had actively embraced these tactics. Platforms like TikTok became major arenas for political discourse, with figures such as Kamala Harris and Donald Trump strategically using trending sounds and memes to engage voters—often prioritizing personal attacks and dramatic messaging over detailed policy debates.7 This evocency Act of 1996,” Office of the Attorney General | DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE’S REVIEW OF SECTION 230 OF THE COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT OF 1996 | United States Department of Justice, May 8, 2023, https://www.justice.gov/ archives/ag/department-justice-s-review-section-230-communications-decency-act-1996.

7 Gorman, Lindsay and Goldenberg, Caitlin. “TikTok and the 2024 U.S. Presidential Race: Trending Campaign Strategy or Passing Trend?” Global Media Foundation, September 19, 2024, https://www. gmfus.org/news/tiktok-2024-us-presidential-race-trending-campaign-strategy-

| illustration by haley thomas

lution demonstrates how candidates now directly contribute to the spread of emotionally charged, viral content designed for instant engagement while drowning out meaningful political discussions. Despite the existence of election-related policies on major platforms like Meta, enforcement remains inconsistent, particularly for high-profile politicians. While Meta prohibits misinformation about voting procedures, election dates, and interference efforts, they have phased out third-party fact-checking on social media sites, mak-

beds of misinformation more susceptible to dishonest actors.

Platforms like TikTok and X (formerly Twitter) have further exacerbated the issue by engineering their algorithms to prioritize sensationalism and emotional manipulation, amplifying reaction-driven content that overshadows substantive policy discussions. Unlike traditional media, which requires active information-seeking, social media delivers a constant stream of short, emotionally charged posts optimized for instant attention. These profit-driven algorithms inherently favor extreme and polarizing content, as outrage fuels higher engagement.8 By structuring or-passing-trend.

8 Anderson, Janna and Rainie, Lee. “The Future of Digital Spaces and Their Role in Democracy: Many Experts Say Public Online Spaces Will Significantly Improve by 2035 If Reformers, Big

political discourse around algorithmic amplification rather than journalistic integrity, these platforms have reshaped public debate, prioritizing virality over depth and reaction over reflection. The unchecked influence of these platforms raises pressing questions about regulatory oversight. Historically, entertainment and news media—such as television, radio, and print—have been subject to government regulation due to their significant social and political impact. Policies like the Fairness Doctrine once required broadcasters to present balanced coverage of controversial issues.9 Similarly, the Children’s Television Act of 1990, recognizing the media’s role in shaping childrens’ brain development, limited advertising time and mandated educational programming.10 Yet, despite their unparalleled reach and influence, social media platforms have remained largely exempt from similar standards. Their algorithms have supplanted traditional journalism as the dominant source of information, yet they operate with far less accountability, amplifying untrue narratives while evading the scrutiny applied to other influential media.11 This regulatory gap highlights a fundamental inconsistency—while certain entertainment and news sources are held to public interest standards,

Technology Firms, Governments and Activists Tackle the Problems Created by Misinformation, Disinformation, and Toxic Discourse. Others Expect Continuing Troubles as Digital Tools and Forums Are Used to Exploit People’s Frailties, Stoke Their Rage, and Drive Them Apart,” Pew Research Center, 2021, 8, http://www. jstor.org/stable/resrep57316.

9 “Fairness Doctrine,” Ronald Reagan Presidential Library & Museum, January 21, 2025, https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/ archives/topic-guide/fairness-doctrine.

10 “H.R.1677 - 101st Congress (19891990): Children’s Television Act of 1990 | Congress.Gov | Library of Congress,” CONGRESS.GOV, accessed February 22, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/ bill/101st-congress/house-bill/1677. 11 Id.

social media companies wield immense influence with minimal oversight, prioritizing profit over informed discourse. To address the growing dangers posed by harmful content and political misinformation, policymakers must reassess the scope and application of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Originally designed to foster innovation and free expression, this provision now grants social media platforms broad immunity, allowing them to evade responsibility for the spread of misinformation and coordinated disinformation campaigns that threaten democratic processes. Reforming Section 230 doesn’t require dismantling the entire law but rather implementing targeted adjustments that impose greater accountability on platforms. For instance, Congress could introduce legislation requiring platforms to implement more rigorous content moderation systems and conduct regular transparency audits. However, such reforms raise concerns about potential violations of First Amendment rights. Critics argue that government-mandated content moderation could lead to censorship, restricting free expression and allowing regulators or platforms to arbitrarily define misinformation.12 While these concerns are valid, they can be mitigated by shifting the focus from content control to platform accountability. Rather than dictating specific viewpoints, legislation could mandate transparency, requiring companies to disclose their moderation policies and the mechanisms behind their algorithmic amplification. Additionally, just as regulations exist to prevent false advertising and consumer

CONTINUED ON PAGE 51

12 Samples, John. “Why the Government Should Not Regulate Content Moderation of Social Media,” Cato.org, accessed February 21, 2025, https://www. cato.org/policy-analysis/why-government-should-not-regulate-content-moderation-social-media.

CLICKING WITH CONFIDENCE: WHY CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS FOR ONLINE SHOPPERS NEED TO CHANGE

by YOO-BIN KIM STAFF WRITER

Formany people, online shopping isn’t just a convenience; it’s a necessity. Given how rapidly e-commerce has become a staple in people’s lives, it is no surprise that the use of online shopping continues to rise, with a predicted compound annual growth rate of 14.5% through 2026.1 However, this increased usage has come with severe drawbacks that slip through the cracks of current consumer protection laws. This article looks to outline the main issues in online shopping today, which include elaborate scams and predatory marketing techniques, and argues for stronger federal regulations than those that currently exist.

A fundamental weakness of online shopping, as opposed to shopping in person, is the inability to inspect products before purchase. As such, there is no guarantee that anything bought online will match the buyer’s expectations. Coupled with unclear return policies and customer service centers neglecting their role of answering their clients’ questions, unaware shoppers can easily be led to waste their time and money. Larger retailers have attempted to combat this issue by allowing customers to leave reviews on products, which act as quality assurance for future buyers, but these measures have often been countered with fake reviews and comments left by scam companies. Such fake reviews have caused significant problems, so much so that the Federal Trade Commission took it upon

1 E-commerce worldwide - statistics & facts | statista. Accessed February 24, 2025. https://www.statista.com/topics/871/online-shopping/.

themselves to create a final rule explicitly banning their use.2

The more concerning part of this issue is that for victims of such online scams, paths to legal recourse can be quite opaque. To begin, consumer protection laws vary significantly between regions, countries, and states, which makes it hard for individuals to identify potential risks in their online purchases and take legal action.3 In particular, international transactions create many avenues for personal data leaks that have minimal legal recourse.4 The Federal Trade Commission Act and the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act (ROSCA) provide some federal basis for consumer protection, but due to court rulings heavily restricting the FTC’s ability to recover money for harmed constituents, the acts are constrained in their ability to help individual consumers.5

2 Nguyen, Stephanie T. “Federal Trade Commission Announces Final Rule Banning Fake Reviews and Testimonials.” Federal Trade Commission, August 20, 2024. https://www.ftc.gov/newsevents/news/press-releases/2024/08/ federal-trade-commission-announces-final-rule-banning-fake-reviews-testimonials.

3 The global governance of online consumer protection and E ... Accessed February 24, 2025. https://www3. weforum.org/docs/WEF_consumer_protection.pdf.

4 “How Can We Secure Stronger Consumer Protection in Cross-Border Data Misuse?” Consumers International. Accessed February 23, 2025. https://www. consumersinternational.org/news-resources/news/releases/new-reporthow-can-we-secure-stronger-consumerprotection-in-cross-border-data-misuse/.

5 Nguyen, Stephanie T. “Federal Trade Commission Act.” Federal Trade Commission, April 3, 2024.

Nguyen, Stephanie T. “Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act.” Federal Trade Commission, April 3, 2024. https://www. ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/statutes/restore-online-shoppers-confidence-act.

Even if one could properly identify which regulations to reference when filing a complaint, there is a good chance that the laws themselves are underdeveloped or nonexistent. For example, while Virginia law includes a consumer protection act that dictates the terms of return policies within the state, no equivalent can be found for states like Illinois or Wisconsin.6 The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has historically aided in matters of e-commerce and digital payment records to cover for these discrepancies, but the underlying issue of differing consumer rights between states persists.7

American consumer protection laws are also too lenient to noncompliant businesses, evidenced by Meta avoiding any penalty in the U.S. for its illegal sales of Facebook user data, despite the same incident leading to a fine in the E.U. via the General Data Protection Regulation.8 The fine itself was criticized for being too weak Nguyen, Stephanie T. “FTC Asks Congress to Pass Legislation Reviving the Agency’s Authority to Return Money to Consumers Harmed by Law Violations and Keep Illegal Conduct from Reoccurring.” Federal Trade Commission, August 20, 2024. https://www.ftc.gov/newsevents/news/press-releases/2021/04/ ftc-asks-congress-pass-legislation-reviving-agencys-authority-return-money-consumers-harmed-law.

6 “Virginia Law.” Virginia Consumer Protection Act. Accessed February 23, 2025. https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacodepopularnames/virginia-consumer-protection-act/.

7 “The CFPB.” Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Accessed February 23, 2025. https://www.consumerfinance. gov/about-us/the-bureau/.

8 Satariano, Adam. “Meta Fined $1.3 Billion for Violating E.U. Data Privacy Rules.” The New York Times, May 22, 2023. https://www.nytimes. com/2023/05/22/business/meta-facebook-eu-privacy-fine.html.

“Even if one could properly identify which regulations to reference when filing a complaint, there is a good chance that the laws themselves are underdeveloped or nonexistent.”

in the E.U. given the small percentage of Meta’s yearly revenue that the fine made up, so to have no fine clearly indicates a deficiency in current U.S. legislation.9

It is clear that the U.S. needs to adopt stricter consumer protection laws and adapt state laws to more closely match federal regulations for this purpose. In unifying state regulations into federal regulations, con-

9 “Meta Reports Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2024 Results.” Meta. Accessed February 23, 2025. https://investor.atmeta. com/investor-news/press-release-details/2025/Meta-Reports-Fourth-Quarter-and-Full-Year-2024-Results/default. aspx.

WILD,

sumers would be able to more easily file disputes for online purchases, and cases involving domestic transactions would be resolved more efficiently. Additionally, it would reduce the reliance on state governments to amend individual laws in response to developments in the ever-changing virtual landscape.10 Finally, stricter penalties for non-complying businesses would incentivize them to prioritize consumer protection, lest they lose a sig-

10 Patchwork of state privacy laws remains after latest ... Accessed February 24, 2025. https://www.wsj.com/articles/ patchwork-of-state-privacy-laws-remains-after-latest-failed-bid-for-federallaw-2a1a020d.

WEST OF THE WORLD WIDE WEB

CONTINUED FROM PAGE 49

fraud, similar standards can be applied to online platforms to curb demonstrably false or harmful content that manipulates public discourse.

Internationally, the European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA) provides a model for such reforms, as it requires large platforms to assess and mitigate systemic risks related to misinformation and political manipulation. The DSA’s emphasis on transparency, user protection, and accountability offers a framework that could guide U.S. lawmakers in crafting more effective

regulation.13 By mandating that tech companies conduct risk assessments and provide greater oversight of content moderation policies, the DSA takes a proactive approach to curbing harmful digital content while preserving free expression. The EU’s push for accountability demonstrates that large-scale regulatory action is feasible and necessary.

13 European Commission. Digital Services Act. European Commission. https:// commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-fit-digital-age/digital-services-act_en.

nificant amount of their profits. By implementing these changes, it is all but guaranteed that consumers will be happier, safer, and more secure with each click of a purchase in their online shopping.

As a global leader in technology policy, the U.S. has the opportunity to learn from this approach and implement similar standards that uphold democratic integrity while fostering innovation and responsible digital governance.

WILD

AFFLUENZA DEFENSE: WHY MONEY TALKS IN THE COURTROOM

by ANDREA PITA MENDEZ STAFF WRITER

In2013, Ethan Couch, who was sixteen years old at the time, was sentenced to 10 years of probation for the manslaughter of four individuals. Couch had been driving under the influence with an alcohol level four times the legal limit, along with positive drug tests. He struck and killed four pedestrians, leaving a fifth person severely injured. This raises the question: how did he only receive 10 years of probation despite his intoxication and fatal accident? The answer– the Affluenza Defense. Couch’s defense team called in psychological expert G. Dick Miller, who testified on the stand about “affluenza,” dubbing it the reason why the teenager should not be sentenced to any jail time. Affluenza is a portmanteau of influenza and affluence, which describes the unhealthy and unwelcome side effects of affluence,1 which in this case is the bubble Ethan Couch’s parents created for him. The argument rested on Couch having lived a privileged life with so few limits placed on him that he did not reasonably understand the consequences his actions could entail. The defense team’s expert was convincing enough, as Couch was able to be sent to a rehabilitation facility in California and face no prison time. This informs a greater question on the role that affluence and wealth plays in our legal justice system, seeing as privilege is a mitigating factor in Couch’s case and the affluenza defense was successful. This article will explore the affluenza defense, why it is effective, and how it disrupts the burden of proof.2

1 “Affluenza.” Merriam-Webster Dictionary. https://www.merriam-webster. com/dictionary/affluenza

2 Ford, Dana. “Texas teen Ethan Couch

While affluenza gained popularity with the Ethan Couch case, it was not the first time the defense theory was used. In 1924, Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb were charged with the murder of a 14-year-old boy they had lured into their car and killed.3 The attorney they hired was Clarence Darrow, and while he did not argue that they had not committed the crime, he argued that “factors beyond their control” had influenced the decision they made. Both teenagers had been raised in the wealthy suburbs of Chicago, attended prestigious universities, and were surrounded by people of similar socioeconomic backgrounds– leaving them unaware of the consequences they would face for their crime according to Darrow. While Leopold and Loeb were sentenced to prison time, they were not sentenced to the death penalty which is what the prosecution sought. The precedent set by Darrow’s arguments established a stage for the theory of affluenza to successfully emerge almost a century later. Going even further back, the U.S. Constitution enshrines private property rights, inherently shielding wealthy individuals from losing their land and goods. Wealth has been prevalent in our justice system since our democracy was formed. But history informs us on how that has played out.

Ethan Couch’s wealth is precisely what allowed him to retain a psychological expert who could testify to the nature of affluenza and similarly to Leopold and Loeb, retain the best

gets 10 years’ probation for driving drunk, killing 4.” CNN, December 12, 2013. https://www.cnn.com/2013/12/11/us/ texas-teen-dwi-wreck/index.html

3 “The Leopold and Loeb Trial” PBS American Experience Features. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/monkeytrial-leopold-and-loeb-trial/

defense attorney money could buy. According to the Institute of Research on Poverty, prison populations disproportionately favor African American and Hispanic men, who are disproportionately poor4. These individuals most likely did not have the same access to hire exclusive attorneys who could make these arguments, and instead often went to trial with court-appointed attorneys. This is further linked by the fees and fines5 that are also disproportionately issued to lower socioeconomic backgrounds and in turn, harsher punishments when they are unable to afford these fines6. Juries were swayed by arguments of not only how this privilege impacted their judgement, but they were unable to separate facts from feelings. The defendants in both of these cases were depicted as victims of their backgrounds and not as perpetrators of a crime.

This argument alone some may think is not enough. And they are right–it is not. But when you factor in the science it becomes clear why the affluenza defense works. Affluenza is a term that was not coined by lawyers, but rather by psychologists. The Amer-

4 Johnson, Deborah. “Connections Among Poverty, Incarceration, and Inequality, Fast Focus Research/Policy Brief No. 48-2020.” University of Wisconsin-Madison Institute for Research on Poverty, May 2020. https://www.irp.wisc.edu/resource/ connections-among-poverty-incarceration-and-inequality/

5 Galbraith, Jean and Rheem Brooks. “The over-penalisation of poverty through fines and fees.” Penal Reform International, October 16, 2023. https://www. penalreform.org/blog/the-over-penalisation-of-poverty-through-fines-and/

6 Bing, L., Pettit, B., & Slavinski, I.. Incomparable Punishments: How Economic Inequality Contributes to the Disparate Impact of Legal Fines and Fees. The Russell Sage Foundation journal of the social sciences, 2022: RSF, 8(2), 118–136. https://doi.org/10.7758/rsf.2022.8.2.06

ican Psychological Association has no medical basis for it nor does the term have similarities to other diagnosable disorders7. However, despite the debate within the psychology field, there is little recognition of its impact in legal proceedings; if there is a psychology expert willing to testify about affluenza and its effects, that is enough for a jury. Juries are instructed to not utilize their phones to look up information about the defendant or even about the term “affluenza.” They must take the word of the psychologist on the stand who is testifying under oath to their findings, and as such, the opinion of an expert carries weight. And it is for this reason, that while the affluenza defense was successful in these cases, it should be eliminated. Psychologists as a whole already argue that the term should not have been utilized, and the expert called to the stand in the Couch case went on public television admitting to regretting his testimony (Ford, 2013). If psychologists themselves struggle to understand the concept, how could they testify to it in court as a justifiable reason to not sentence someone for their crimes?

Further, wealth is not a factor that should be taken into consideration when making a decision regarding sentencing–those factors are clearly laid out by The United States Sentencing Guidelines.8 As it is, Black and Hispanic men receive 13.6% and 11.2% longer sentences on average, respectively, compared to their White counterparts.9

7 Dooley, Sean and Alexa Valiente. “What Is Ethan Couch’s ‘Affluenza’: An Explainer.” ABC News, December 30, 2015. https://abcnews.go.com/Health/ ethan-couchs-affluenza-explainer/story?id=36011293

8 Eckenroth, D., Wealthy “Justice”: The Role Wealth Plays in Sentencing and in the Affluenza Defense. New England Journal on Criminal & Civil Confinement, 2015, 41(2).

9 https://www.ussc.gov/research/ research-reports/2023-demographic-differences-federal-sentencing

Harsher punishments are already given to groups that come from disadvantaged backgrounds, and having to serve longer sentences on average suggests that they are affected much more by these rulings. Allowing wealthy individuals to leverage their wealth as a mitigating factor in a sentencing decision pushes the narrative that they are, in fact, above the law when no one is. In recent years, the rule of law has come under attack and scrutiny, especially given the contentious political nature of the current presidency. However, it is the oldest precedent of our legal justice system and must continue to be upheld and respected, and the affluenza defense pushes against it. Moreover, affluenza does not fit legal defense theories, not like the theories of intoxication and insanity do. Allowing the affluenza defense to persist threatens the validity of these other theories that are not

only backed by psychological science but that also suggest a more reformative criminal justice system than the one we currently have. As a whole, the affluenza defense violates the constitutionally protected right to a fair trial– upholding fairness in a trial would mean not allowing wealth to be a deciding factor in sentencing.

While the affluenza theory has managed to be successful in the past due to its pseudo-scientific argument and precedent, it certainly does not mean that it should continue to be utilized in the future. The theory as a whole puts the rule of law at risk given it has no genuine scientific backing and purports the justice system to be unfairly skewed in favor of wealthy individuals. At its core, our judicial system should be driven by the impartiality and objective nature of examining the facts, and only the facts, of a case and wielding those facts to come to a conclusion–something the Affluenza Defense

A BURNING INJUSTICE: WHY FORCING INCARCERATED PEOPLE TO FIGHT WILDFIRES IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

by ZOË PARKIN STAFF WRITER

Oneof the essential underpinnings of our constitution is the right to dignity, which refers to an unearned and equal value all humans possess. The Supreme Court has continually affirmed this right under the Eighth Amendment, protecting against cruel and usual punishment on the premise of dignity.1 This Amendment has been used as a basis for protecting the rights of prisoners in the past.2 Yet recently, coverage of the California fires has laid bare a form of punishment that seems cruel: the practice of using incarcerated firefighters, despite this labor being risky, dehumanizing, and in violation of international human rights standards, including the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

The use of incarcerated firefighters violates the Eighth Amendment as it subjects prisoners to cruel and unusual punishment in the form of dangerous conditions. One standard by which the Court determines the constitutionality of prison conditions is through the “deliberate indifference” test devised in Wilson v. Seiter, which states the prisoner must prove prison staff acted with deliberate indifference to the risk of harm.3 In Helling v. McKinney, the Court ruled that the incarcerated William McKinney was entitled to conditions free of second-hand smoke for this very reason.4 In the case of the California wildfires, firefighters are

1 Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86 (1958)

2 Neomi Rao, “ Three Concepts of Dignity in Constitutional Law,” Notre Dame Law Review 86, no. 1 (2013), https://doi. org/https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr/ vol86/iss1/4.

3 Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294 (1991)

4 Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25 (1993)

continuously exposed to smoke, which could similarly lead to long-term health conditions. It can therefore be said that it is a violation of the Eighth Amendment to force incarcerated firefighters to be in conditions where they will be subject to serious risks, including death.

A 2018 Time Magazine study found that incarcerated firefighters were more likely than professionals to be subjected to cuts, bruises, and smoke inhalation.5 Deliberate indifference to these risks is present in the decision to continue having incarcerated firefighters at the scenes of the California wildfires– a clear violation of their Eighth Amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment. A broader look at the practice also reveals a systematic devaluing of prisoners through a denial of their basic human dignity through forced labor. Although this job is voluntary, some prisoners have claimed it is a decision made under duress.6 Three-quarters of prisoners surveyed in a 2022 ACLU report described facing punishments like solitary confinement, denial of sentence reductions, or limitations on family visitation if they declined to work.7 Additionally, it is unclear how explicit the risks of this work are made to the prisoners, although 64% of prisoners in the

5 Abby Vesoulis, “Inmates Fighting California Wildfires More Likely to Be Hurt,” Time, November 17, 2018, https://time. com/5457637/inmate-firefighters-injuries-death/.

6 Jamiles Lartey, Shannon Heffernan, and Keri Blakinger, “The Dangerous yet Desirable Work of Being an Incarcerated Firefighter in California,” The Marshall Project, January 11, 2025, https://www. themarshallproject.org/2025/01/11/ los-angeles-palisades-prisoners-firefighters.

7 Captive labor: Exploitation of incarcerated workers | ACLU, June 15, 2022. https://www.aclu.org/publications/ captive-labor-exploitation-incarcerated-workers

same study reported worrying about safety during work. A motivating factor is higher wages; many cite it as a desirable job when compared to others offering lower pay.8 The average hourly wage for incarcerated people in the United States is 13 to 52 cents (with prisoners in seven southern states receiving no compensation at all), compared to the dollaran-hour wage for firefighters.9 Prisoners are not granted the right to protection against discrimination, overtime pay, or to bargain for higher wages– rights that presume inherent worth regardless of incarcerated status. They are also unable to contribute toward future social safety nets, including disability insurance, Medicaid, and Social Security, nor can they receive tax benefits such as the Child Tax Credit or Earned Income Tax Credit.10 This means that the incarcerated firefighters are being subjected to dangerous conditions without the economic or human rights of other workers, something that is incompatible with the constitutionally protected right to dignity by the Eighth Amendment. This particular devaluing of prisoners is considered slavery by our own constitution, and is therefore a gross violation of international human rights standards. Prison labor is constitutional under the Thirteenth Amendment, which allows for slavery as punishment for a crime. Although it

CONTINUED ON PAGE 56

8 Lartey et al., “The Dangerous yet Desirable Work of Being an Incarcerated Firefighter in California.”

9 Nina Mast, “Forced Prison Labor in the ‘Land of the Free’: Rooted in Racism and Economic Exploitation,” Economic Policy Institute, January 16, 2025, https://www.epi.org/publication/ rooted-racism-prison-labor/#:~:text=Incarcerated%20workers%20are%20underpaid%2C%20unprotected,GHRC%20 2022;%20Eisen%202023.

10 Id.

TECH AND FARMHANDS: THE DOUBLE STANDARDS IN THE U.S. CITIZENSHIP APPLICATION PROCESS

by SCARLETT LOPEZ STAFF WRITER

There are approximately 283,000 undocumented immigrants who work in the United States as agricultural workers.1 Such a severe demand begs the question: why are they waiting months or even years to obtain a work permit in this country? In countries like Canada, although it can take a minimum of 4 months to obtain a work permit, there are expanded opportunities for immigrants through an open work permit. The primary benefit of this is the flexibility it provides, enabling immigrants to explore a wide range of job opportunities.2 These applicants are also exempted from certain requirements. For instance, there is no need to apply for an open work permit if a job offer qualifies under the Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA). On the other hand, the work permit system for immigrants in the United States has failed by favoring immigrants who have attended a higher institution, imposing expensive procedural burdens, and slowing the review of work permit applications, demonstrating why the United States should look to emulate immigration policies from other countries.

The U.S. work-permit system has favored immigrants who attended a higher institution, prohibiting those

1 Rosenbloom, Raquel. “A Profile of Undocumented Agricultural Workers in the United States.” Center for Migration Studies, August 30, 2022. https:// cmsny.org/agricultural-workers-rosenbloom-083022/ 2 “Canada’s Open Work Permit: Eligibility, Advantages, and how you can apply.” The Economic Times Online, June 11, 2024. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/nri/work/ canadas-open-work-permit-eligibilty-advantages-and-how-you-can-apply/articleshow/110897994.cms?from=mdr

who didn’t from working a stable job. In order to receive an employment-based visa in the U.S., immigrants must have a specific combination of education, expertise, or skills, like the H-1B visa’s requirement of proof of a bachelor’s degree.3 Immigrants from Mexico have a difficult time meeting this requirement because of the barriers in the Mexican education system. Just 20% of Mexican-Americans ages 25 and older have obtained at least a bachelor’s degree.4 On the other hand, 64% of all U.S. students completed their Bachelor’s Degree at the same institution where they started in 2014, despite the interruption of the COVID-19 pandemic.5 The reason behind the low percentage of Mexicans who have graduated from a higher institution can range from it being too costly, family obligations requiring them to work day jobs, or a lack of guidance from parents who didn’t attend a higher institution. This limits their opportunities to enter the workplace environment because their educational barriers have delayed the process of meeting the qualifications to obtain a work permit in the U.S.

3 Moodie, Alison, Rev. by Modine, Hasalyn. “The Different Types of U.S. Work Visas: A list of the most common types of employment visas that allow foreigners to work in the United States.” Boundless, February 2, 2025 https://www.boundless.com/immigration-resources/types-of-us-work-visas/ 4 Moslimani, Mohamad, & Noe-Bustamante, Luis. “Facts on Hispanics of Mexican Origin in the United States.” Pew Research Center, August 16, 2023/ https://www.pewresearch.org/ race-and-ethnicity/fact-sheet/us-hispanics-facts-on-mexican-origin-latinos/ 5 “Undergraduate Retention and Graduation Rates. Condition of Education.” U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, 2022. https://nces. ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=40

On top of the U.S. favoring immigrants who have attended a high institution, the work permit application can be an extremely costly procedure for immigrants, affecting low-income individuals. For example, according to IBP Immigration Law, the USCIS fee for an I-485 application- to register for permanent residency in the U.S. is $1,440, not including legal fees.6 Not only is this an extremely high price for many to pay, the USCIS has added two additional fees for those applications- one for filing for interim work authorization and another for filing for an interim work permit.7 This costly procedure burdens low-income immigrants who may already feel anxious about finding a stable job in a new country. This creates barriers for immigrants who come from low-income backgrounds that may not have enough money to cover the cost just to find a stable job in the U.S. – creating an extreme level of inequality for these individuals and their families.

In addition to the high price tag on the immigration process, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services has delayed the process of reviewing work-permit applications, affecting the demand for farm workers. For example, in 2023, there were 782,400 agricultural jobs8 but in recent years they have declined because a large percentage of

CONTINUED ON PAGE 56

6 Borges Perez, Ingrid. “What challenges do immigrants face today?” IBP Immigration Law, October 7, 2024.. https:// ibplaw.com/what-challenges-do-immigrants-face-today/

7 Chávez, Stella M., “Costs for Work Visas and Green Cards in US are going up a lot.” Kera News, April 1, 2024. https://www.keranews.org/news/202404-01/costs-for-work-visas-and-greencards-in-u-s-are-going-up-a-lot

8 “Quick Facts: Agricultural Workers.” US Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, August 29,

A BURNING INJUSTICE: WHY FORCING INCARCERATED PEOPLE TO FIGHT. . .

CONTINUED FROM PAGE 54

uses the words “involuntary servitude,” courts have not established a distinction between this and “slavery”–a 1871 Virginia Supreme Court decision even referred to a convict as “a slave of the state.”11 Its constitutionality contradicts the notion of human dignity as a right. Slavery inherently subjects someone to the stripping of human identity, liberty, and dignity. Accordingly, it violates the UN Declaration of Human Rights, the most widely accepted and comprehensive set of human rights. Article 4 reads: “No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.”12

11 Ruffin v. Commonwealth, 62 VA. 790, 796 (1871).

12 “Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” United Nations, accessed Febru-

The United States conscripts prisoners to work for little to no pay, often under threats of retaliation, and exercises rights of ownership over them by denying them rights afforded to other workers. From an international human rights perspective, the constitutionality of slave labor violates the basic tenets of justice. The United States claims to adhere to international law and even serves as an enforcer. Therefore, our conduct and constitution should reflect this commitment.

The recent California wildfire containment measures have highlighted not just the cruel and unusual punishment faced by incarcerated firefighters, but all ary 18, 2025, https://www.un.org/en/ about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights.

incarcerated laborers. Despite human dignity being mentioned as a key justification for many Supreme Court rulings regarding the Eighth Amendment, prison labor systemically devalues prisoners in a manner that strips them of dignity. While the Thirteenth Amendment allows for slavery as a punishment for crime, this practice will continue, revealing an apparent contradiction in the values of our constitution. Additionally, prison labor contradicts the values the United States purports to have on the global stage, as it violates accepted human rights standards. It is therefore vital to reexamine the practice of relying on incarcerated labor, at the very least in cases where it clearly violates existing SCOTUS precedent, like in the case of the California wildfires.

TECH AND FARMHANDS: THE DOUBLE STANDARDS IN THE U.S. CITIZENSHIP. . .

CONTINUED FROM PAGE 55

undocumented immigrants who work in agricultural fields have not been able to work due to immigration policies and the inability to obtain a work permit in the U.S. According to Vox, it should only take 12 minutes for an official to review an application for a work permit,9 but according to data from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, there are more than 1.48 million pending applications as of September 2021.10 2024.

https://www.bls.gov/ooh/farming-fishing-and-forestry/agricultural-workers. htm#:~:text=%2D2%25-,Overall%20 employment%20of%20agricultural%20 workers%20is%20projected%20to%20 decline%202,on%20average%2C%20 over%20the%20decade.

9 Narea, Nicole. “Immigrants could help the US labor shortage - if the government would let them.” Vox, February 16, 2022 https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/22933223/work-permit-uscis-backlog-immigration-labor-shortage 10 “Number of Service-wide Forms;

The lack of input from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to fairly review applications at a reasonable time shows the U.S.’s lack of input in helping immigrants work in the country. While the U.S. work permit system has clearly failed to help immigrants find stable jobs, there are many ways in which it can improve its work permit system. For example, the U.S. can subsidize application fees for agricultural labor or other workplaces with a high demand for workers, helping businesses flourish. This will also help immigrants find stable jobs. It’s also important for the U.S. to hire more workers to sup-

By Quarter, Form Status, and Processing Time; Fiscal Year 2021, Quarter 4.” US Citizenship and Immigration Services, 2021. https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/ files/document/data/Quarterly_All_ Forms_FY2021Q4.pdf

port the Citizenship and Immigration Service. This can be done by extending opportunities to college students interested in immigration who can volunteer or work in these facilities by reviewing work-permit applications, thereby helping speed up the process. Lastly, the U.S. must offer resources to help immigrants from all backgrounds obtain a work permit. This can be done by offering training programs that allow immigrants to meet qualifications for skilled-careers, regardless of their educational background. It should never be a burden for individuals who migrate from their home country to apply for a simple permit that allows them to legally work in the U.S. After all, this is a country where the majority of its agricultural workers are immigrants who put fruits and vegetables on our kitchen tables.

CHRISTMAS CARDS FOR GREEN CARDS: THE MANDATE FOR ‘AMERICANIZED’ MARRIAGE

by ISABELLA KELLY STAFF WRITER

Often characterized by a diamond ring, spoken vows, and an airborne bouquet, marriage represents an intimate, loving commitment between two people. Yet, in the eyes of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), marriage takes on a second dimension: a gateway to permanent status and citizenship. The perceived duality of marriage, both intimate and institutional, shapes the foundation of marriage-based green card applications in the United States. Newlyweds applying for this green card must commit to a two-year conditional period, during which they are expected to demonstrate the genuineness of their marriage. While this requirement emerged out of suspicion of fraudulent marriages, it reveals how U.S. immigration law is shaped by a specific vision of marriage: one that has political and socio-cultural implications for each couple.

The politics surrounding marriage-based green card applications are deeply rooted in American legal history. The U.S. government has historically used the concept of immigration marriage as a means of regulating who qualifies for citizenship. Before the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, same-sex couples were excluded from applying for marriage-based immigration benefits due to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defined marriage federally as a union between one man and one woman.1 The Court’s ruling in United States v. Windsor first struck down a key provision of DOMA, allowing same-sex couples

1 Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015)

to access federal benefits, including immigration benefits. Specifically, United States v. Windsor found that the federal government cannot define the terms “marriage” in a way that excludes married same-sex couples from the benefits and protections that married opposite-sex couples receive.2

United States v. Windsor then raises the question: why can the federal government define the terms of “marriage” in a way that excludes married couples from different backgrounds? The answer is at the heart of marriage-based immigration law: the burden to prove a bona fide marriage. USCIS asks couples to present pictures, letters, financial statements, texts, receipts from dates, travel itineraries, and even letters from friends who can testify to the authenticityof a relationship. Some applicants are asked to provide proof of shared phone plans, or even matching house keys.

The guidelines that USCIS provides rest on the assumption that a real marriage will fit into a particular model: a courtship process, living together, and public celebrations of love. This model of marriage might seem ordinary, maybe even expected, to many Americans, but it fails to account for cultural nuances, varied communication styles, differing levels of public displays of affection, or even the reality that some legitimately married couples choose to keep separate finances or residences.

Moreover, the rigid standards that couples must meet amplify the potential stress on couples who are

2 United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744 (2013)

already struggling through the immigration process. By conflating marriage with a narrowly defined set of interpersonal practices, the immigration system can deteriorate the experiences of couples whose relationships might not fit the “American view” of marriage. The end result is that couples who do not fit the American “model of marriage” face a higher burden of proof to live their life. This disconnect between USCIS standards and actual relationships brings about a broader question: who decides what a marriage should look like?

Moving forward, USCIS should adopt more inclusive approaches that account for the wide range of ways people form and sustain loving relationships. Rather than demanding arbitrary evidence like matching phone plans or house keys, USCIS could evaluate relationships with a broader understanding of cultural variation, personal choice, and evolving definitions of family. For example, considering how an Arab-Syrian couple might behave in public compared to a Venezuelan couple may provide a sufficient foundation for evaluating the difference between a real and fraudulent marriage. By doing so, the U.S. would not only acknowledge the reality of diverse relationships but also grant individuals from diverse cultures a greater chance of spending their lives together.

PRESS X TO SUE: PARENTS TAKE ON GAME DEVELOPERS OVER ADDICTION CLAIMS

by CYRAH GAYLE STAFF WRITER

Video games have been the bane of parents’ existence since their creation in the 60’s. This would become even more apparent with the release of arcade games and portable game consoles in the 1970s. The transformation of the gaming industry would prove to mark the beginning of the relationship between video games and the court of law. In 1999, In James v. Meow Media, Inc three families sued media corporations, after their children were killed in a school shooting. Their attorney, Jack Thompson, argued that these media corporations, and specifically the video game developers, were at fault for the shooting after finding “violent” video games in the possession of the student shooter, Michael Carneal. Thompson would argue that the plaintiffs’ actions fell under violations of “negligence, strict liability, and RICO violations” due to their “actions or lack thereof in creating and distributing a movie, numerous video games, and various internet materials that may have caused their daughters’ deaths and subsequent loss of earning capacity.” Ultimately, the court ruled that the plaintiffs did not make a sufficient argument for the three legal issues, and thus the case was dismissed in the district as well as the subsequent appellate court.1

Jack Thompson’s case sparked a wave of similar litigation against major video game developers and distributors. Yet, the Court remained consistent in its view, that corporations do not owe a duty of care, and that laws censoring video games violate the First

Amendment.2 Recently, this issue has been further complicated by allegations that video games are intentionally addictive. Concerned parents are suing video game developers such as Epic Games, Electronic Arts, and Minecraft and arguing that they are “intentionally designing games to be as addictive as possible.”3 The Plaintiffs have brought product liability claims against developers, who “can be held liable if their products are deemed unreasonably dangerous or defective.”4 In these cases, the plaintiffs are arguing that video games are unreasonably dangerous due to the intentional use of psychological tactics that presuppose children to an addictive condition. The condition referenced is what the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders call “Internet gaming disorder” (IGD).” 5

The plaintiffs argue that there is a level of duty of care that video game developers have to their minor consumers to ensure that they do not fall prey to addictive conditions. But is there legal history to support this line of reasoning? There are a myriad of cases concerning addictive conditions and product liability, where plaintiffs sue the defendant because their products were intentionally released with the knowledge that the product was dangerous through its addictive quality. This is exemplified by the 2002 California case, Bullock v. Phil-

2 Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, 564 US _ (2011).

3 GMA Team. 2023. “Mom claims video game companies are intentionally addicting kids.” ABC News.

4 Steve Kherkher, “Addictive Food Lawsuits: The Dangers of Ultraprocessed Foods,” Kherkher Garcia, January 10, 2025.

ip Morris, where the plaintiff, a 64-yearold woman with inoperable lung cancer, sued the tobacco company, Phillip Morris, for intentionally releasing a product that was known to be highly addictive and cause lung cancer. The plaintiffs would also prove that Phillip Morris “actively marketed their products to children.”6 Video games and cigarettes may not be the same products, but they share the common quality that are considered to have addictive qualities. In Bullock v. Philip Morris, the jury ruled in favor of the plaintiff, demonstrating that if a product is found to be addictive, the manufacturing company can be held liable for its implications. While this case may not set a precedent for the multiple video game addiction lawsuits, it is still a useful resource in understanding the legal relationship between an addictive condition and product liability as applicable to minor consumers. Given that video developers may be aware of the addictive nature of their products and continue to produce them, there is a strong legal basis in terms of product liability for video game developers.

6 Bullock v. Philip Morris, 138 Cal. App.4th 1029, 42 Cal. Rptr. 3d 140 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006)

1 James v. Meow Media, Inc., 90 F. Supp. 2d 798 (W.D. Ky. 2000)

5 GMA Team. 2023. “Mom claims video game companies are intentionally addicting kids.” ABC News.

THE CASE AGAINST MANDATORY PARENTAL NOTIFICATION OF STUDENTS’ TRANSGENDER IDENTITY IN SCHOOLS

by NICK OCHOA STAFF WRITER

Thevisibility of transgender students in educational settings has grown in recent years, reflecting broader societal recognition of gender diversity. In response, legislative measures have emerged to protect these students, including California’s law prohibiting schools from disclosing a student’s transgender identity without their consent. However, some states and school districts have pushed for policies requiring parental notification when a student identifies with a different name or pronoun. While some argue that parental rights under the Fourteenth Amendment necessitate full disclosure of a child’s gender identity, it is crucial to balance those rights with the student’s right to safety, autonomy, and privacy.

A number of states and school districts have recently promoted policies that would require schools to notify parents if their child identifies as transgender. However, these policies often fail to consider the potential harm that forced disclosure can cause. In response, legal challenges have arisen, asserting that such policies violate student privacy and create unsafe conditions for transgender youth. A notable case, The People of the State of California v. Chino Valley Unified School District1, underscores this debate. The lawsuit, initiated by California’s Attorney General Rob Bonta, challenges the district’s policy requiring schools to notify parents when a student identifies as transgender. The state argues that the policy endangers students by potentially exposing them to hostile home environments and vio-

1 People of the State of California v. Chino Valley Unified School District, Case No. CIVSBZ3 I 7301 (2023)

lates constitutional protections regarding privacy and equal rights. One of the primary reasons for safeguarding student privacy in matters of gender identity is to protect their well-being. Studies have shown that transgender youth face disproportionately high rates of mental health struggles, including anxiety, depression, and suicidal ideation, particularly when they are subjected to unsupportive environments (Human Rights Campaign, 2022).2 When schools force disclosure of a student’s gender identity, they risk exposing them to rejection, psychological harm, and even homelessness. Studies show that LGBTQ+ youth who face rejection from their families are at a heightened risk of experiencing emotional abuse, homelessness, and mental health crises. Research done by the National Institute of Health3 shows that, “suicide risk was three to six times greater for lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults than for heterosexual adults across every age group and race/ethnicity category”. Outing a transgender student to unsupportive parents without their consent can lead to severe consequences, including depression, self-harm, or even suicide. According to a study by The Trevor Project (2021)4, more than one in four transgender youth have experienced homelessness or housing instability due to family re-

2 Goldberg S. K., Lewis T., Kahn E., Watson R. J. (2023). 2023 LGBTQ+ Youth Report. Human Rights Campaign Foundation

3 Rajeev Ramchand, Megan S. Schuler, Michael Schoenbaum, Lisa Colpe, Lynsay Ayer, Suicidality Among Sexual Minority Adults: Gender, Age, and Race/Ethnicity Differences, American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Volume 62, Issue 2 (2022)

4 DeChants, J.P., Green, A.E., Price, M.N, & Davis, C.K. 2021 . Homelessness and Housing Instability Among LGBTQ Youth. West Hollywood, CAThe Trevor Project. (2021)

jection. Schools have an ethical responsibility to provide a safe learning environment for all students. Forced disclosure undermines this duty by potentially placing students in harm’s way. The right to privacy is well-established in U.S. law, particularly in Supreme Court rulings that affirm individuals’ autonomy over personal matters. In cases such as Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969)5, the Supreme Court ruled that students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” This principle has been extended to include student privacy, particularly concerning personal identity and medical matters. Additionally, courts have recognized a right to privacy in matters of personal autonomy, as seen in Lawrence v. Texas (2003).6 Although these cases do not explicitly address gender identity in schools, they set a legal precedent that protects individuals from government-imposed disclosure of deeply personal information. In a landmark case, Jane Doe v. Manchester School District,7 the New Hampshire Supreme Court ruled that schools cannot disclose a student’s transgender identity without their consent, recognizing the significant harm such actions could cause. Schools handle sensitive information with discretion in many other contexts, such as medical conditions or mental health issues, ensuring that students can trust educators with personal matters. Students who visit school counselors for issues such as anxiety,

CONTINUED ON PAGE 60

5 Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969)

6 Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)

7 Jane Doe v. Manchester School District, 2022-0537 (2024)

THE CASE AGAINST MANDATORY PARENTAL NOTIFICATION OF STUDENTS’.

depression, or trauma are often provided confidentiality to create a safe space for personal disclosure and emotional support. Extending this same confidentiality to gender identity ensures that transgender students can explore and express their identities without the fear of forced disclosure, which could lead to rejection, abuse, or emotional distress. The same principle should apply to gender identity, as forcing transgender students into disclosure they are not ready for disregards their autonomy and can have damaging psychological effects, including increased stress, fear, and reluctance to seek support. When students fear forced disclosure, they may avoid school altogether, leading to decreased attendance, lower academic performance, and heightened anxiety. A 2021 report from GLSEN8 found that transgender students who feel unsupported are more likely to disengage from education, further exacerbating their struggles. By maintaining confidentiality, schools create an environment where students can focus on their education without fear of exposure or retaliation at home.

Educators play a pivotal role in supporting students’ personal development. Many transgender students turn to teachers, counselors, or school staff for guidance when they lack support at home. If schools are required to notify parents of a student’s transgender identity, this trust is shattered. Students will be less likely to seek help from educators, isolating them further and potentially putting them in harm’s way. Proponents argue that teachers and school staff, as mandated reporters, have a duty to inform parents of significant develop-

ments in their child’s life. While mandated reporting exists to protect children from harm, gender identity should not be equated with endangerment. Reporting is meant to safeguard students from abuse and neglect, not to expose them to potential harm by disclosing their gender identity against their will. Treating gender identity as a reportable issue misuses the intent of mandated reporting laws and can lead to unnecessary trauma for transgender students. Protecting student confidentiality fosters an environment where students feel safe to express themselves and navigate their identities at their own pace. Research indicates that when transgender students control the disclosure of their gender identity, they experience better mental health outcomes and stronger personal relationships. Schools that prioritize student autonomy help create an inclusive atmosphere where all students can thrive.

Proponents of student privacy protections also argue that the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees due process and equal protection under the law, grants parents the right to be involved in all aspects of their child’s upbringing, including their gender identity. This argument is based on cases such as Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925)9 and Troxel v. Granville (2000),10 where the Supreme Court affirmed parental rights in decisions regarding their children. While parental rights are important, they are not absolute, particularly when they conflict with the child’s well-being. Courts have recognized limits to parental authority, especially in cases where harm may result. For example, in Prince

v. Massachusetts (1944)11 The Supreme Court ruled that “the right to practice religion freely does not include liberty to expose the community or the child to communicable disease, ill health, or death.” This precedent illustrates that the government can intervene when parental control endangers a child’s welfare.

Additionally, the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause can also be interpreted to support transgender students’ rights. By singling out gender-nonconforming students for forced disclosure, schools may be engaging in discriminatory practices, violating their equal protection rights. Mandatory parental notification policies regarding students’ transgender identities endanger student safety, violate privacy rights, and undermine trust between students and schools. The right to privacy is a fundamental protection that extends to all students, including those exploring their gender identity. Schools must uphold this right to ensure student safety, foster trust, and comply with established legal precedents. The ongoing legal battle in People of the State of California v. Chino Valley Unified School District highlights the urgent need for policies that protect transgender students rather than exposing them to potential harm. Schools should prioritize the well-being and autonomy of transgender students by allowing them to disclose their gender identity on their own terms. Education should be a place of support, not fear, and policies must reflect the fundamental principle that every student deserves to feel safe and respected in their learning environment.

8 GLSEN (2021). Improving School Climate for Transgender and Nonbinary Youth (Research Brief). New York: GLSEN.

9 Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925)

10 Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) CONTINUED FROM PAGE 59

11 Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944)

SECURITY OR SUPPRESSION? THE U.S.A. FREEDOM ACT’S

QUIET EXPANSION OF GOVERNMENT OVERREACH

by KATHRYN FANG TREASURER

Thepush to renew the USA Freedom Act in 2025 follows a familiar playbook—a nation gripped by fear is told that security can only be achieved through the expansion of government surveillance. While proponents argue that the Act has balanced privacy rights with counterterrorism measures, history and legal precedent suggest otherwise. Surveillance policies introduced under the guise of national security often become tools for government overreach, violating constitutional protections and setting dangerous precedents in the modern age defined by technology. The USA Freedom Act is no exception, and its renewal threatens to deepen the contradictions between surveillance laws and the fundamental liberties enshrined in the Constitution.

The USA Freedom Act, passed in 2015, was initially hailed as a reformative measure aimed at curbing the extensive surveillance powers granted by the Patriot Act. It intended to end the NSA’s bulk collection of Americans’ phone metadata, increase transparency of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), and establish a more robust system for protecting privacy and public interests in the surveillance process. Despite these reforms, the Act still permits significant data collection through private telecom companies and fails to comprehensively address other surveillance mechanisms that may infringe on Fourth Amendment rights guaranteeing individuals the right to be free from “unreasonable searches and seizures” without a warrant based

on probable cause. This ongoing ambiguity in surveillance authorization under the USA Freedom Act poses legal challenges, as it may continue to threaten the fundamental privacy rights of American citizens, raising serious concerns about the balance between national security and individual freedoms.

Significant cases challenging mass surveillance were established by, ACLU v. Clapper (2015), where the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the National Security Agency’s (NSA) bulk collection of phone metadata under Section 215 of the Patriot Act was illegal. The court found that the government’s interpretation of the statute “exceeds the scope of what Congress has authorized,” effectively invalidating the claim that such mass data collection was lawful. However, instead of dismantling this system, the USA Freedom Act was enacted in 2015 as a supposed reform, modifying but not eliminating mass surveillance. Moreover, in Carpenter v. United States (2018), the Supreme Court ruled that law enforcement’s collection of cellphone location data without a warrant violated the Fourth Amendment. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, stated “it is the role of the courts to ensure that the progress of science does not chip away at fundamental rights, so too must we be wary of government overreach in the digital age.” Despite this ruling, the government continues to collect vast amounts of metadata through various legal loopholes, many of which were sustained through the USA Freedom Act. This Act allows for “targeted” monitoring, but in practice, such targeting remains broad and susceptible to abuse. The prece-

dent set in Carpenter should have curtailed warrantless digital surveillance, yet the Act’s continued existence undermines these protections.

Furthermore, the legal history of government surveillance in the United States reveals a disturbing pattern where laws justified for national security often morph into tools for suppressing political activism. Notable instances include the COINTELPRO initiative under J. Edgar Hoover, which, though initially intended to safeguard national security, unconstitutionally targeted civil rights leaders, journalists, and political dissidents. Similarly, the case of Mitchell v. Forsyth (1985) exposed the dangers of such overreach when the Supreme Court ruled that former Attorney General John Mitchell did not have absolute immunity for authorizing warrantless wiretaps against suspected radicals, emphasizing the unconstitutional nature of such surveillance. More recently, United States v. Moalin (2019) reaffirmed this stance when the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals deemed the NSA’s warrantless surveillance program, extended by the USA Freedom Act, unconstitutional for violating the Fourth Amendment and failing to prevent terrorist attacks, undermining its justification. Despite these judicial rebukes, including a 2019 FISC reprimand of the FBI for unauthorized searches of Americans’ communications, Congress continues to reauthorize these laws with only nominal reforms, illustrating a fundamental legal contradiction and the ineffectiveness of supposed safeguards against government overreach. AI-Powered surveillance also presents unprecedented legal and

SEEING BOTH SIDES OF THE NEW SACKLER SETTLEMENT

by RIVKA TAMIR STAFF WRITER

35yearsafter OxyCotin made its debut in the pharmaceutical market and eighteen years after the first wave of lawsuits began hitting the Sackler family and their company Purdue Pharmaceuticals, the newly proposed $7.4 billion Sackler settlement could offer closure to three decades of opioid crisis and subsequent legal battles.

After one of their affiliates pleaded guilty to a federal felony for misbranding OxyCotin as a less addictive, less abusable alternative to other pain medications, the Sackler family initiated a “milking program:” The program withdrew approximately $11 billion, roughly 75% of the firm’s total assets, over the next decade. This initiative significantly weakened Purdue’s financials and in 2019 the company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. During the bankruptcy process, the Sackler family negotiated sweeping civil immunity under bankruptcy protection stipulations, although they had not personally filed for bankruptcy. The Sackler’s reorganization plan was initially approved by a bankruptcy court, that decision was then vacated by the district court, eventually making its way up to the Supreme Court in December of 2023. The Supreme Court ultimately rejected the settlement terms, sending both parties back to the drawing board.

Secured on January 23, 2025 by the Attorney Generals of 15 states, this new settlement offer can potentially bring this chapter of Opioid litigation to a close.

Outlined in this new settlement, the Sackler family will pay $6.5 billion over 15 years, with another $900

million coming from Purdue.1 This figure includes as much as $800 and $850 million set aside to pay individual victims, a feature that Ed Neiger, a lawyer for individual victims, says most opioid settlements don’t include.2

Adapted from the 2024 Supreme Court ruling, Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P., this settlement offer will not grant the Sackler family sweeping civil immunity from states, local governments, or individual victims who wish to refuse the settlement and instead pursue an individual lawsuit.3 Notably, this new settlement figure is a $1.4 billion increase from the previously disregarded settlement, with as much as $800 million set aside to pay for future settlements if new lawsuits arise against the Sackler family. This new deal puts power back into the hands of individual victims. For those who choose to accept the settlement, they will receive individual compensation, as well as new state infrastructure to rehabilitate and recover. For those who wish to pursue individual legal action, they may, and have at their disposal $800 million set aside to

1 Press Release (2025) Attorney general Ken Paxton secures $7.4 billion settlement with Purdue Pharma and Sackler family for role in opioid epidemic, Texas Attorney General. Available at: https://www.texasattorneygeneral. gov/news/releases/attorney-general-ken-paxton-secures-74-billion-settlement-purdue-pharma-and-sackler-family-role#:~:text=Texas%20Attorney%20 General%20Ken%20Paxton,in%20 creating%20the%20opioid%20crisis. (Accessed: 08 February 2025).

2 Knauth, D. (2025) Purdue Pharma, Sacklers reach $7.4 billion national opioid settlement | reuters, Reuters. Available at: https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/purdue-pharma-sacklers-reach-74-bln-national-opioid-settlement-2025-01-23/ (Accessed: 08 February 2025).

3 Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P., 603 U. S. 204 (2024)

pay for future settlements that arise against the Sacklers, as well as access to 30 million documents related to Purdue Pharma’s opioid business that will be made public in the settlement.4 This settlement strikes a balance between ensuring that victims can finally begin seeing monetary reparations, while not letting the Sackler family off the hook entirely. The terms stipulate severance of executive ties between the Sackler family and Purdue Pharma, with a new board being appointed by participating states and other parties in the legal case. This ensures that the Sacklers will not only lose control of Purdue but prohibit them from ever selling opioids in the United States again.

While settlement is unlikely to bankrupt the Sackler family, who have billions of dollars secured in offshore accounts, that money is likely impossible to access through lawsuits.5 It is possible to wish the Sacklers would pay a more damaging price for their role in perpetuating the opioid crisis. At the same time, a perpetual chase of an abstract ultimate sum—one that cannot

4 Press Release (2025a) Ag Campbell helps secure $7.4 billion, up to $108 million for Massachusetts, from Purdue Pharma and the Sackler family for fueling the opioid crisis, Mass.gov. Available at: https://www.mass.gov/news/ag-campbell-helps-secure-74-billion-up-to-108million-for-massachusetts-from-purduepharma-and-the-sackler-family-for-fueling-the-opioid-crisis#:~:text=If%20 approved%2C%20the%20settlement%20would,to%20Purdue’s%20 compliance%20with%20the (Accessed: 08 February 2025).

5 Mulvihill, G. (2025) Purdue Pharma and owners to pay $7.4 billion in settlement of lawsuits over the toll of Oxycontin, AP News. Available at: https://apnews.com/article/purdue-pharma-sackler-settlement-opioid-lawsuits-ea6c89aa9cafc8fdd18fabfad503eeea (Accessed: 08 February 2025).

make up for the lives already lost—will only delay treatment for those at risk of losing their lives without rehabilitation funded by the settlement money.

The states should accept the settlement allowing victims to choose either accepting or pursuing individual lawsuits. This settlement puts individuals who want to pursue their lawsuit against the Sackler family in the best position to do so, without further delaying settlement payments to those who are willing to accept. Regarding the compensation total, whether the sum is too little, is subjective and not as per-

“Article Quote”

tinent, as whether the settlement payments will come too late to help save living, and actively struggling victims and their families. This new settlement aims to accelerate aid to states and victims to fund opioid treatment and recovery.6

The Sackler lawsuit is predicated on their perpetuation of an epidemic that “put profits over human lives”

6 Press Release (2025c) Purdue Pharma and Sackler family settlement in principle, CT.gov. Available at: https://portal. ct.gov/ag/press-releases/2025-press-releases/purdue-pharma-and-sackler-family-settlement-in-principle (Accessed: 08 February 2025).

(Kara Trainor, Victim).7 Ceaselessly chasing a larger and larger sum runs the risk of falling into the same trap of prioritizing money over human lives. No sum will erase the Sackler’s wrongdoing, but this proposed settlement sum, with payments beginning as soon as possible, will get the already delayed ball rolling on infrastructure and rehabilitative efforts that will save countless lives.

7 Mulvihill, G. (2025) Purdue Pharma and owners to pay $7.4 billion in settlement of lawsuits over the toll of Oxycontin, AP News.

SECURITY OR SUPPRESSION? THE U.S.A FREEDOM ACT’S QUIET. . .

FROM PAGE 61

ethical risks. Advocates of the USA Freedom Act argue that artificial intelligence is an indispensable tool for identifying and preventing acts of terror against the American people. However, legal scholars have raised serious concerns about the implications of granting AI-powered surveillance for due process and civil liberties on the people themselves—a new breed of terror in itself. In United States v. Jones (2012), the Supreme Court ruled that prolonged GPS tracking constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a concurring opinion, warned of the dangers posed by technology-enhanced surveillance where “the government’s unrestrained power to assemble data that reveal private aspects of identity is susceptible to abuse.” AI-enhanced monitoring exacerbates this issue. Facial recognition software, which is increasingly used in intelligence-gathering, has been found to misidentify

individuals, particularly people of color, at alarmingly high rates. In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), the Supreme Court affirmed that government regulations restricting constitutional rights must be justified by historical precedent. Yet, AI-driven surveillance has no historical counterpart, struggling to set an unprecedented expansion of government authority that lacks clear constitutional boundaries in the modern world.

Ultimately, concerns about corporate involvement in AI surveillance have grown, particularly with figures like Elon Musk allegedly gaining access to sensitive government data. The justification for such access raises serious questions about the potential privatization of intelligence operations, where AI models trained on vast datasets are vulnerable to exploitation for political or commercial gain. Thus, the renewal of the USA Freedom Act is not just a

policy choice but rather a legal and constitutional regression. The Act’s warrantless surveillance provisions conflict with Supreme Court rulings in like Carpenter, Jones, and Moalin, guaranteeing digital privacy to be protected under the Fourth Amendment. Furthermore, the historical misuse of surveillance laws, from COINTELPRO to contemporary warrantless data collection reveals a dangerous potential for intelligence-gathering to be routinely weaponized against political dissent rather than genuine threats. If history is any indication, the surveillance state does not protect the public—it protects the government from the public. The USA Freedom Act is not a necessary concession for security; it is a continuation of policies that prioritize control over liberty, and in doing so, it contradicts the very constitutional principles it claims to uphold.

INTERVIEWS

UNDOCUMENTED AND UNCERTAIN:

SUSAN GZESH ON IMMIGRATION LAW AND COMMUNITY RESISTANCE

by KIMBERLY CHAVEZ STAFF WRITER

Amidsta new administration committed to waging a war on immigration, millions are having their rights stripped away. This is not a new story, but rather a continuation of the United States’ long history of restrictive immigration policies—despite immigrants’ essential role in the nation’s foundation. Susan Gzesh understands this system both personally and professionally. Since 2001, she has served as an Instructional Professor at the University of Chicago and previously as a Senior Lecturer and the Executive Director of the Pozen Family Center for Human Rights. With over four decades of experience in human rights law, Gzesh has built a formidable career in immigration law and advocacy, both in and out of the classroom. Her family’s immigration story, coupled with the political climate surrounding immigrants and refugees during her legal career, has motivated Gzesh to dedicate her career to human rights advocacy.

When her family immigrated to the United States before World War I, they left behind many relatives in Eastern Europe. The Immigration Act of 1924 imposed restrictive quotas barring Jews from entering the U.S., eliminating the possibility of seeking refuge in the U.S. as Hitler rose to power.1 After the war, her parents and

1 “Milestones in the History of U.S. Foreign Relations - Office of the Historian,” n.d., https://history.state.gov/milestones/1921-1936/immigration-act.

grandparents searched for surviving relatives, only to find out there were none. This family history led Gzesh to question, “What is so wrong with these U.S. immigration laws that the U.S. would not let people in?” That very question has guided her lifelong advocacy for immigrant and refugee rights.

Gzesh attended law school during the Carter Administration in the 1970s, a period marked by the rise of Latin American dictatorships, political exiles fleeing to the U.S., and student activism defending the undocumented. After law school, Gzesh initially worked for Southern Minnesota Regional Legal Services, but returned to Chicago, inspired by the student-led movements at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Gzesh recognized this opportunity to merge legal work with activism. She was able “to work as a lawyer, but also work alongside activists, so that it wasn’t just about what was happening in the courtroom, although that can be very significant. There were also other things going on in the streets.” Working towards the same cause from different angles, Gzesh integrated her advocacy and legal work. These efforts are more relevant than ever as the fight for justice persists.

Since President Trump has taken office for a second term, he and his border czar, Tom Homan, have attempted mass deportations with ICE raids all across the country. Howev-

er, Chicago’s community resistance, educational initiatives, and public awareness campaigns have hindered these efforts. Highlighting the resilience of Chicago’s immigrant and refugee communities, Gzesh notes, “people were too well informed. They knew they could keep their doors shut and they knew they could keep their mouth shut.” Well-informed communities are more important than ever as Gzesh believes “we have less possibility of counting on the courts to stop this.” According to Gzesh, our democracy is living through an “extreme constitutional crisis,” and “Trump’s team seems intent on trampling any procedures in the way.”

Gzesh warns that while legal and community resistance has limited ICE’s success, the fear it instills in immigrant communities is still profound. “People are scared to leave their homes,” she says, referencing threats of mass deportations and large-scale immigration sweeps. While legal protections exist, such as the right to remain silent and refuse entry without a warrant, she acknowledges the harsh reality: “People are in a very difficult situation. If they successfully fend off officers, what happens the next day? I don’t know.” Gzesh emphasizes the negative impact of these raids: disrupting families and forcing parents to leave their U.S.-born children behind and return to countries they barely know. They are “proceeding with a blindly racist agenda that doesn’t pay attention to humanity. They don’t care.”

“[The Trump administration is] proceeding with a blindly racist agenda that doesn’t pay attention to humanity. They don’t care”

susan gzesh

instructional professor in the college and former executive director of the university of chicago pozen family center for human rights

Gzesh critiques the Trump administration’s rhetoric and policies, particularly its portrayal of immigrants as criminals. She points out that “immigrants commit crimes at lower rates than native-born Americans.” Additionally, Trump’s intention to send immigrants to Guantanamo Bay is “another level of cruelty,” painting immigrants as terrorists and criminals.2 She also highlights the economic contradictions in Trump’s immigration policy, noting that industries such as agriculture and restaurants are

2 The White House, “Expanding Migrant Operations Center at Naval Station Guantanamo Bay to Full Capacity,” January 29, 2025, https://www.whitehouse.gov/ presidential-actions/2025/01/expanding-migrant-operations-center-at-naval-station-guantanamo-bay-to-full-capacity/.

heavily reliant on immigrants, many of whom are undocumented. Despite this, political efforts to remove immigrants continue, which Gzesh attributes to racism, rather than genuine concerns about the economy or security.

While the legal and political climate remains uncertain, Gzesh highlights Illinois’ progressive strides toward protecting immigrant rights, citing recent successes such as eliminating Temporary Visitor Driver’s Licenses (TVDLs), which revealed one’s legal status. Still, she highlights a major concern: “I don’t know what’s going to happen with this defiance of courts. That’s really the scariest thing to me right now.” Unfortunately, it is unclear whether the Trump administration will abide by court rulings

mandating them to respect immigrant rights. In light of these concerns, Gzesh leaves us with this advice for students and young advocates: affiliate and resist. “There’s a lot that young people can do,” she says, urging students and advocates to join existing organizations and support immigrant rights efforts.

Through decades of work in immigration law and advocacy, Susan Gzesh has remained committed to human rights. Her career exemplifies the power of legal expertise combined with activism, reminding us of the strength of community in the ongoing fight for immigrant justice.

SAMUEL JAHANGIR: VISITING

ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF TRIAL ADVOCACY AT THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS COLLEGE OF LAW

by EMBERLYNN ST. HILAIRE STAFF WRITER

Very few changes in the modern era have been as prolific or as transformative as the headway made in the technological sector. Samuel Jahangir, who is no stranger to the world of trial advocacy, has served as the Visiting Associate Director of Trial Advocacy at the University of Illinois College of Law since August 2024. There, he paves the way for the next generation of litigators, guiding them through lectures and workshops on deposition taking, evidence admission in trials, and alternative dispute resolution. His expertise is further reinforced by his seven-year tenure as an Associate at Jenner & Block LLP, where he specialized in complex commercial litigation. He has witnessed the intersection between law and technology firsthand in his career, particularly how the increasing sophistication of technology has created both new opportunities to enhance trial advocacy and litigation, as well as more problems and complexity.

Jahangir describes stepping into a legal field where it was grossly apparent that the advent and blossoming of technology was wholly transforming the nature of litigation. Upon graduating from the University of Chicago Law School in 2016: “Technology had strongly taken its foothold in the Big Law game.” Companies’ shift to digital record-keeping resulted in a vast increase in the amount of documents and data relevant to discovery and review in litigation proceedings, making his work more complex. Moreover, the rise of social media’s prominence aided Jah-

angir when he researched cases. Jahangir noted his habit of checking social media. As individuals increasingly put more of their lives online, he could search for and utilize that information to assess credibility, uncover biases, find evidence, and verify testimony for potential witnesses or deponents. Towards the end of his career in Big Law and the beginning of his career teaching trial advocacy, he started to see how technological advancements were actively redefining the field. Ultimately, this range of experiences during his time at Big Law revealed to him a striking dichotomy between technology’s challenges and its usefulness in the trial advocacy space. He states, “Folks are trying to figure out how we can use technology to streamline the legal process, but also we’re seeing [that] technology is causing things that used to be simple to become a lot more complicated.”

Technology is inevitable. However, for Jahangir, the issue is not this reality but rather what can be done with it. He acknowledges that when utilized effectively, technology possesses the potential to be beneficial. “The tools are the tools. They are not necessarily good. They are not necessarily evil. The issue now is that practitioners do not fully understand the tools they are using, and as a result, mistakes are happening.” Jokingly, at one point, he reminisces about the classic virtual courtroom blunders that went viral during the pandemic—lawyers citing fake cases created by ChatGPT or accidentally appearing as animated cats during Zoom hearings.

His case in point is clear: as technology evolves, so too does the responsibility of attorneys. To fulfill their duty and zealously advocate for and serve their clients, attorneys must operate cautiously when integrating technology into their practice. In the former example, a simple verification step— cross-checking the ChatGPT cases on WestLaw, a widely used legal research service—would have been useful in preventing these costly mistakes. Jahangir contends, “fundamentally, there is an education gap between what the tools provide and what attorneys are looking for. If attorneys are going to use the tools, they need to understand what the tools are, what are the shortcomings, and also understand that at the end of the day, they still have an obligation to double check.”

One area where he foresees significant turmoil is the use of AI-driven resources, particularly deepfakes. From Jahangir’s perspective, deepfakes – convincing fake pictures, videos, or audio that are formulated using AI tools – will forge new problems for courts as it proliferates. He warns, “the age-old adage is that seeing is believing. But, when you’re dealing with deepfake media, we are now saying you cannot believe what you are seeing.” Interestingly, at its core, this type of problem is not novel. The emergence of Photoshop and photoshopped pictures generated similar struggles in the past. However, Jahangir finds the problem of deepfakes to be distinct. He reasons that seeing or hearing videos or audio is naturally more persuasive to people, carrying a much more inherent problem than photoshopped photos. The hurdles the court system must now jump through are how to

“Fundamentally, there is an education gap between what the tools provide and what attorneys are looking for. If attorneys are going to use the tools, they need to understand what the tools are”

samuel jahangir

visiting associate director of trial advocacy at the university of illinois college of law

deal with deepfakes and how to authenticate evidence in legal proceedings. What happens if a witness presents a video recording of an incident they are claiming to have personally captured, but the opposing party disputes its authenticity, claiming it is fabricated and consequently should not be admitted into evidence? When considering this hypothetical, Jahangir draws back to what he believes would have happened in his work in high-stakes litigation: he could retain a forensic expert in deepfakes to testify before the court. But, he discerns that

in small claims cases, many individuals do not have the backing of multi-million dollar companies to afford forensic experts. As such, he says, “we are going to hit a point where we are going to have to deal with this, or a lot of cases will be thrown out by the potentiality of deepfakes.”

In the long run, there is a balancing act concerning how to most effectively and reliably leverage the persistent advancements of the digital age that needs to be mastered by attorneys. This challenge afflicts various industries, but in the trial advoca-

cy sector, it presents particularly high stakes. The integrity of our legal process and the legal profession hinges on our ability to keep up with developing tools without endangering clients. Technology is molding the legal landscape as we speak. In Jahangir’s opinion, it is of utmost importance that attorneys stay informed and attentive, accepting change while ensuring that the pillars of advocacy are reinforced.

PROFESSOR GIOVANNI GIORGINI:

ESSENTIAL READING FOR ASPIRING ATTORNEYS

by HARRIS LENCZ STAFF WRITER

In today’s digital world, fewer students are reading books than ever before. Yet the increasingly complex legal challenges of the day demand strong reasoners, critical thinkers, and upstanding citizens.

Where can students find the wisdom that would edify them? Are books even relevant anymore? What lessons, if any at all, might the ‘classics’ in legal and political thought have to offer aspiring law students and legal professionals?

ULM is grateful to have received answers from Giovanni Giorgini, Professor of the History of Political Thought at the University of Bologna and Visiting Professor here at the University of Chicago. An eminent scholar in his field, Professor Giorgini was kind enough to recommend several books that provide key teachings to students about the practice of law, legal reasoning, rhetorical technique, professional ethics, and much more.

Professor Giorgini’s first recommendation takes us back to ancient Greece, where the practice of legal reasoning itself originated in the West. Even before thinkers like Plato and Aristotle, a philosopher named Gorgias wrote a treatise called the “Encomium of Helen.” This text, Professor Giorgini explains, is essential reading for aspiring defense attorneys in how to strengthen an argument that is unpopular or counterintuitive to defeat an opponent in litigation. For, in the “Encomium,” Gorgias undertakes an uphill task: to offer a defense, and even praise, for Helen of Troy, the woman with the infamous ‘face

that launched a thousand ships’ who was blamed in antiquity for causing the Trojan War. To be persuasive, Gorgias must make exemplary use of the power of speech. Students may judge for themselves whether or not they find his arguments convincing, but they should not fail to appreciate the emphasis that this text yields on the ability of rhetorical technique to prevail in a courtroom environment, even against the odds.

Indeed, Professor Giorgini reminds us that this lesson is not limited to ancient times. We may find echoes of Gorgias in the strategy employed by the great trial lawyer Johnnie Cochran in his defense of O.J. Simpson in the Trial of the Century. Cochran’s famous winning line “If the glove doesn’t fit, you must acquit” is a testament to the ideas of Gorgias: that, as Professor Giorgini puts it, “when the truth of a matter cannot be known [for certain], the only thing that matters is persuasion.” At first glance, especially since many Americans believed Simpson guilty, this principle might sound unjust. However, Professor Giorgini reminds us that Gorgias is not a teacher of manipulation or untruth, but of the importance of rhetoric. “Rhetoric itself is a technique,” Professor Giorgini says. “As such, it is morally neutral. It is up to the morally good person to harness this power toward good ends.”

Professor Giorgini’s second recommendation, A Theory of Justice (1971) by the American philosopher John Rawls, applies more directly to the legal landscape in the United States. In this text, Rawls invites read-

ers to consider a thought experiment that inspires sharp, abstract thinking. Rawls is interested in how we can build the most just society. To derive the principles that would govern such a society, he asks readers to imagine themselves in an “Original Position” under a “veil of ignorance,” a position in which they do not know their specific circumstances––like their age, race, wealth––and are simply pure reasoners, free of the biases, prejudices, and preferences that often follow from our distinguishing characteristics. For Rawls, we all would choose society in this hypothetical scenario to be structured according to principles of liberty and fairness, because we are rational and understand that this enables the greatest possible opportunity for all. Rawls also emphasizes the importance of social justice for a stable society: since we do not know our circumstances, we would want even the lowest members of society to have rights, freedoms, and livable material conditions, in case we turn out to be one of them. Rawls’ ‘theory of justice’ thus deepens our respect for and understanding of liberal values, Professor Giorgini suggests. It also serves as a blueprint for abstract reasoning and unbiased decision-making, skills which are necessary for all types of lawyers, from public defenders and district attorneys to judges evaluating a case.

Finally, Professor Giorgini recommends two books to read after Rawls. The first is Rationalism in Politics and Other Essays (1962) by the lesser-known but brilliant English philosopher Michael Oakeshott. “I am a bit of an Anglophile,” Professor Giorgini admits with a smile, “and

“When the truth of a matter cannot be known [for certain], the only thing that matters is persuasion.”

professor giovanni giorgini professor of the history of political thought at the university of bologna

Oakeshott is an important counterpart to Rawls because he reminds us that our rationality is inevitably limited and may not, in fact, serve as the basis for constructing the most just society.” Oakeshott was a skeptic and a conservative; he is thus a crucial read for students to understand the perspective that we should not be as idealistic and ambitious as Rawls, since we can solve problems in society best by working within traditional jurisprudence.

The second book is Poetic Justice (1995) by Martha Nussbaum, a contemporary American philosopher and the Ernst Freund Distinguished Professor of Law and Ethics at the University of Chicago. For Nussbaum, we need not only the capacity for reason to build a just society but also the power of imagination, which enables us to empathize with others

in public discourse and legal matters. We can improve our ability to imagine by reading literature, which immerses us in the experience of another human being, even if entirely fictional, and thus allows us to see the world through their lens. Professor Giorgini sums up Nussbaum’s sentiment as follows: an attorney must not only know “legal codes and the Constitution” but also be able to connect with clients on a personal level. This is helpful, for instance, in cases about LGBTQ rights: according to Nussbaum’s view, the best attorney would be one who not only knows the relevant statutes for gay marriage but can also empathize with individuals in these circumstances. The best practitioner of law is also a great humanist.

Professor Giorgini reminds us, then, that there is tremendous value to be obtained from classic texts,

even those that might be forgotten or lesser-known. Students interested in law would be well-served to engage with and make use of the ideas offered by the great thinkers mentioned above. The lawyer of the future, even one in a practice area that might not seem to require such a rich intellectual background, will be better equipped to serve clients if they have absorbed wisdom on reasoning, rhetoric, and ethics from some of the greatest legal minds of the past.

A SYMBIOTIC RELATIONSHIP:

HOW ATTORNEYS CAN MAKE A SOCIAL IMPACT THROUGH PRIVATE PRACTICE

by JOACHIM SCIAMMA STAFF WRITER

At the time of this article’s publication, Joachim Sciamma is an employee of Holwell Shuster & Goldberg LLP.

Prospective law school students often hear they should take a job in private practice right after graduation, pay down debt, and then shift into what they are truly passionate about. A study of 4,000 alumni who graduated between 2001 and 2010 found a significant discrepancy between jobs after graduation and current employment, suggesting a shift towards nonprofit and government work.1 Are private practice and personal ideals so incompatible?

I sat down with Daniel Horowitz, a partner at Holwell Shuster & Goldberg (HSG) LLP, to explore his pro bono work from within the private sector, and how it has benefited his professional career:

You’re a partner at Holwell Shuster & Goldberg, a litigation boutique specializing in complex commercial litigation. What exactly is that?

“We litigate high-stakes business disputes. These matters range across different legal subject matters, whether it be antitrust, insurance, breaches of contract, or various business torts, such as violations of trade secrets, or other relevant statutes. As a litigation boutique, we consider ourselves “generalists” in that we can take on cases in any area of the law. Our expertise is in litigation and

1 Cara Bayles, How Some Attys Are Ditching BigLaw For Public Interest Work, Law360, 2020

advising companies on how to approach the disputes they encounter in their businesses.”

HSG was ranked as the number one boutique in the nation for pro bono work by Law360.2

Let’s talk about some of your pro bono work. Can you describe some highlights from your cases?

“Pro bono work is part of the DNA of HSG. Personally, I have handled several cases related to prisoners’ rights, in which incarcerated individuals had been subject to inadequate medical care. One of my clients had constitutionally deficient dental care, so I represented him through discovery, taking depositions on his behalf, and eventually negotiating a settlement. I worked on another case with others at the firm where an incarcerated individual was injured during his time in prison and subsequently received woefully inadequate medical care. We helped him secure a favorable settlement as well. Another great thing about pro bono work, in addition to the most important thing, which is providing representation to folks who would otherwise not have it, is that it provides a great opportunity for young attorneys to get some reps in. For example, the very first deposition I ever attended was in one of my pro bono cases and

2 Gerald Schifman, The 2024 Pro Bono Ranking: How Firms Stack Up, Law360, 2024

I was the lead questioning attorney. There is nothing like being thrown in the pool to learn how to swim—especially with a senior attorney mentor available nearby as a lifeguard.”

Pro bono work can take attorneys in private practice into vastly different legal fields. I asked Horowitz to walk me through one of his more complex pro bono cases to get a sense of what attorneys might be faced with.

Can you take us through the facts of the case where your client was deported to Cuba?

“My client had been badly mistreated by the police in his hometown in Cuba because of his political views; he feared for his life and fled to the United States, presenting himself at the border in 2018. When he arrived, he was detained by ICE and held in detention while his claim for asylum was pending. He did not have a lawyer at first and the immigration judge denied his claim. HSG was then contacted by one of our pro bono partners to see if we would be interested in taking on his appeal, and we did. We successfully argued to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) that the immigration judge did not consider evidence that it should have, but even after remand, the same immigration judge again ruled against my client—notwithstanding our representation! I continued to represent him for his next appeal to the BIA, who this time

“While the firm’s business is [in] commercial disputes, we are very proud to play a part in bridging the gap for unrepresented people with our pro bono work.”

daniell horowitz partner at holwell shuster & goldberg (hsg) llp

ruled against him too. At that point, we were going to seek relief from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, but it could’ve been another couple of years that he was sitting in immigration detention while that next appeal was pending and the government deported him to Cuba. Meanwhile, after about a year and a half, the Fifth Circuit agreed with our arguments regarding his asylum claim, vacated the removal order, and sent the case back to the BIA, who also ruled in his favor and sent the case back to the immigration judge. At that stage, I coordinated with folks at ICE to facilitate his return to the United States, which is not something that they normally do, and ICE granted him parole into the United States. It was a very frustrating process, both for him and for us,

as we worked our way through it over many years, but we are gratified that justice was ultimately done. Life does not slow down while the cases are pending, and without the firm’s commitment to pro bono, his deportation to Cuba likely would have been the end of that part of the story. There are so many stories like this playing out in the justice system every day. While the firm’s business is [in] commercial disputes, we are very proud to play a part in bridging the gap for unrepresented people with our pro bono work.”

Horowitz’s case demonstrates just how public service and nonprofit work benefit from the resources of private practices. Horowitz was successful at the end of an extensive process that most likely would have

consumed the resources of a smaller, nonprofit organization.

Pro bono work from private practices is not merely a supplement to the public service and nonprofit work already taking place; it is a key aspect of the legal environment. Private firms will always have more resources and capacity at hand, and dedicating even a small percentage to pro bono work can have a sizable impact. Private practices stand to gain too; pro bono work sharpens attorneys’ skills and establishes a firm’s positive reputation. There is no inherent division between commercial law and social impact. Prospective attorneys should embrace the opportunity to apply the resources of private practices to advancing causes they are passionate about.

EMILY D. CREWS:

CHALLENGING RELIGIOUS NARRATIVES THAT SHAPE ABORTION POLITICS

by JENNIFER LI STAFF WRITER

This June marks three years since the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which ended the constitutional right to abortion. Since then, states have continued battling over abortion bans, shield laws, and access restrictions to reproductive care, while research has documented the deadly consequences of abortion bans in affected states. Abortion is often framed as one of the most controversial issues of our time, but as Dr. Emily D. Crews (PhD’21), Executive Director of the Martin Marty Center for the Public Understanding of Religion, points out, we rarely stop to question why. “We just take for granted that it’s polarizing, or in some cases, take for granted that it’s religious,” she says. In doing so, we accept a narrative around abortion that shapes legal and political battles without examining its origins.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote that “the right to abortion is not deeply rooted in the nation’s history and tradition,” frequently invoking “history” as a justification for the Court’s decision.1 Crews, who studies religion and reproductive politics, contends that this argument is in bad faith. “These claims about what our country once did or thought […] being the foundation for making abortion illegal […] don’t actually fit with what our nation did do legally, or what our common sense practices around those laws have been,” she explains. Until the mid-nineteenth century, abortion was widely understood to be both 1 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215 (2022).

morally and legally acceptable until quickening—the point when a pregnant person could feel fetal movement—which was usually well into the second trimester.2 In the country’s earliest years, Indigenous people, enslaved people, and European settlers, including the Pilgrims, performed and received abortions. It was not until the 1970s that a coalition of primarily white American Catholics and Evangelicals strategically reframed abortion as a religious and moral issue, manufacturing a narrative that linked opposition to abortion with faith itself, creating the predominant narrative that religious people must oppose abortion on moral and legal grounds.3 Crews thinks that the Dobbs ruling was not merely an oversight by the Supreme Court, but a strategic misreading of history that “makes recourse to certain kinds of religious and political values that imply [...] the United States was and should be […] Christian and conservative.” The ruling is part of a broader trend of using law to enshrine a selective and misrepresented version of American history, legitimizing the values of a specific political or religious movement. Passed in 1993, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) was originally designed to protect the right to religious practice, particularly

2 Zoila Acevedo, RN, PhD, “Abortion in Early America,” Women & Health 4, no. 2 (Summer 1979): 159–67, https://doi. org/10.1300/J013v04n02_05.

3 Daniel K. Williams, “The Real Origins of the Religious Right,” Politico, May 10, 2022, https://www.politico. com/news/magazine/2022/05/10/ abortion-history-right-white-evangelical-1970s-00031480.

for minority religions, by requiring laws to minimize government interference with religious practices.4 However, in the post-Roe era, Christian nationalists effectively used RFRAs to shield anti-abortion laws from legal challenges.5 In broader reproductive rights cases, courts have even begun explicitly citing the Bible in their decisions, as seen in LePage v. Center for Reproductive Medicine, P.C. regarding embryos created through IVF.6 These legal maneuvers further entrench the false idea that abortion is inherently a religious issue and religiosity necessitates opposition to abortion.

“What you learn when you dig around in the data is that perspective isn’t even true for all Catholics or all Evangelicals, much less all Christians or all religious people in the country,” Crews says. “I think one reason we take it for granted is [...] because it’s easy in some ways.” Crews says that there is a moral clarity in utilizing biblical justification or basing justification on tradition, but in reality—where tradition, experience, interpretation, and community inform religious practice differently—the relationship between abortion and religion is far more complex than dominant narratives suggest. Crews reflects on her own upbringing in the South, where she was raised in an Evangelical church that made it clear that if you were Christian, you could not have an abortion:

4 U.S. Congress, Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, Public Law 103141, U.S. Statutes at Large 107:1488, codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb–2000bb-4.

5 Francesca Oppenheimer, dir., Underground (PBS POV, 2022), https://www. pbs.org/pov/films/undergd/.

6 LePage v. Center for Reproductive Medicine, P.C., No. SC-2022-0515 (Ala. Feb. 16, 2024).

“If you can’t see the opposition to abortion as part of the bigger political project, then your ability to support or argue for abortion is radically weakened.”

emily d. crews

executive director of the martin marty center for the advanced study of religion

“Abortion was a sin, you know, it was opposed to the laws of God.” During college and graduate school, Crews was “able to see this incredible proliferation of religious perspective. And studying religion, it’s so easy […] to see how non-hegemonic ideas about religion can be if you give space for them.” She highlights abortion doulas, abortion chaplains, and religious practitioners who are committed to compassionate care for people having abortions and do so not in spite of, but out of religious motivation, but these perspectives are often drowned out. “The louder the voice, the more political power, the easier it is to make your story seem like the only story,” she notes.

This tendency to take dominant voices at face value has further weakened the pro-choice movement. Crews says that “we end up with issues such as Dobbs in part by not paying attention to the full complexity of reproductive politics or reproductive and sexual justice.” A singular focus on abortion rights overlooks the interconnected struggles shaping reproductive freedom—like forced sterilization, economic justice, and healthcare access—which have long been neglected by white feminist organizers. Just as dominant voices have obscured those of faith-based advocates for repro-

ductive care and the historical basis of abortion in America, the prioritization of abortion within pro-choice discourse has sometimes sidelined other critical reproductive justice concerns. By failing to address the full range of threats to bodily autonomy and recognize the role of faith-based advocates, the movement has missed opportunities to build broader coalitions and counter the systemic forces that led to Dobbs in the first place.

Crews sees signs of change in the wake of Dobbs. “I think there’s been a real increase in intersectional work thinking about the various ways that political threats to certain individual freedoms are connected to others,” she says. At the same time, she warns that some advocates are doubling down on an abortion-first focus without recognizing how abortion restrictions are part of a larger conservative political project. “If you can’t see the opposition to abortion as part of the bigger political project, then your ability to support or argue for abortion is radically weakened,” she cautions. This is perhaps the central danger of taking dominant narratives for granted—whether accepting the Dobbs decision’s misleading historical narrative, assuming abortion is inherently a religious issue, or failing to see abortion rights as part of a broader

fight. When we allow dominant voices to define the terms of the debate, we reinforce the very structures that threaten reproductive freedom. Only by interrogating the narratives that brought us to the post-Dobbs era can we create the possibility for a more expansive, intersectional movement— one that is prepared for the battles ahead.

PROFESSOR HAJIN KIM:

ESG INVESTIGATING AND THE QUESTION OF STAKEHOLDER CAPITALISM OR “WOKE CAPITALISM”

by ALIA BENCHEQROUN STAFF WRITER

While The Financial Times declares that the Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) party is over,1 a recent lawsuit against American Airlines suggests the controversy is far from over. The airline faced a lawsuit from one of its pilots, Bryan Spence, who alleged that it violated its fiduciary duty by permitting BlackRock, its asset manager and major shareholder, to allocate retirement funds into ESG-focused investments. The case has reignited the debate over ESG and raised concerns among legal experts and investment managers that the ruling could open the floodgates to more lawsuits challenging corporations’ fiduciary responsibilities in relation to ESG.

ESG investing has become one of the most contentious issues in corporate governance. To gain a deeper understanding on the matter, we interviewed Hajin Kim, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, who provided a nuanced perspective on the controversy, drawing from her expertise in environmental law, social psychology, and corporate governance. Her research explores the intersection of corporate decision-making, regulation, and market-driven ethical norms, shedding light on the shifting role of corporations in shaping both policy and society.

One of the main concerns surrounding ESG investing is wheth-

1 Financial Times. 2024. “Who Killed the ESG Party? | FT Film.” YouTube. July 16, 2024. https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=hMW_pT7w-Y8.

er corporations fail to uphold their fiduciary duty to investors when advancing ESG goals. In Spence v. American Airlines, the court defined ESG investing as prioritizing non-pecuniary interests, meaning that investment decisions driven by social or environmental goals rather than financial outcomes could be seen as a fiduciary duty violation. However, as Professor Hajin Kim points out, “the line between social responsibility and fiduciary duty is often porous.” This tension was central to the 401(k) plan lawsuit, when BlackRock defended its ESG approach by arguing that its participation in Climate Action 100+ was financially motivated, citing the growing impact of climate risk on investment portfolios. However, the court remained skeptical of this justification, pointing to BlackRock’s history of proxy voting activism. One example among many was its April and May 2021 voting record, when BlackRock opposed management-recommended directors at over a dozen oil and gas companies for “failing to meet desired climate targets” and failing to “adequately diversify their board.”2 The lack of standardized ESG regulations creates ambiguity in fiduciary duty, as witnessed in Spence v. American Airlines, making it difficult to distinguish financially justified ESG strategies from those driven primarily

2 O’Connor, Judge Reed . 2024. “UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT of TEXAS FORT WORTH DIVISION.” https://climatecasechart. com/wp-content/uploads/case-documents/2025/20250110_docket-423cv-00552_findings-of-fact-and-conclusions-of-law-1.pdf.

by social objectives. The key question, then, is whether ESG objectives can truly be profit-maximizing. As Professor Hajin Kim notes, the evidence is mixed—while ESG considerations may lead to higher returns in some cases, they do not always do so. An interesting perspective comes from Lubos et al. (2021), who introduce a key third variable: rising climate concerns. Their study suggests that green asset outperformance has been largely driven by increasing investor demand tied to climate concerns, rather than inherently higher expected returns, meaning that as investor demand surged, prices rose, but future returns are likely to be lower.3

In the case of Spence v. American Airlines, did American Airlines breach its fiduciary duty, or, as senior research analyst for investment management firm Sage Advisory Andy Poreda suggests, is the bar for fiduciary duty violations being set too low?4 The second and perhaps most prominent concern with ESG investing lies in the fact that ESG advocates take positions on political controversies that may have nothing to do with the company’s actual business. The politicization of this controversy, as Professor Kim highlights, is part of the broader culture war in the Unit-

3 Lubos, Robert, Lucian Stambaugh, and Taylor. 2021. “Dissecting Green Returns.” https://bfi.uchicago.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/BFI_WP_202170.pdf.

4 Johnson, Lamar. 2025. “Federal Judge Rules against American Airlines in 401(K) ESG Lawsuit.” ESG Dive. January 15, 2025. https://www.esgdive.com/ news/federal-judge-rules-against-american-airlines-class-action-401k-esg-lawsuit/737459.

“The line between social responsibility and fiduciary duty is often porous.”

professor haijin kim

assistant professor of law at university of chicago law school

ed States. Indeed, the ESG debate has transformed into a battle between “RedRock” and “BlueRock.” Larry Fink, the CEO of BlackRock, calls ESG investing approaches “stakeholder” capitalism—corporations serve the interest of all stakeholders, including society as a whole. On the other end of the political spectrum, anti-ESG activists such as Senator Ted Cruz, in 2022, blasted Fink for allegedly “woke” investment decisions, arguing that money managers should be barred from voting on behalf of other investors if they are doing so to advance their own political interests.5 The controversy runs even deeper: it is not just about corporate responsibility but rather about the core of capitalism itself. For instance, critics argue that stakeholder capitalism allows corporate leaders to circumvent the democratic process, using their economic power to set political and ethical norms without pub-

5 Mangan, Dan. 2022. “‘That Is Not Capitalism, That Is Abusing the Market:’ Sen. Ted Cruz Blasts BlackRock’s Larry Fink’s ‘Woke’ ESG Policies.” CNBC. May 24, 2022. https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/24/ sen-ted-cruz-blasts-larry-fink-over-wokeshareholder-votes-on-climate.html.

lic debate or accountability. However, Professor Hajin Kim suggests that ESG investing is often a response to public opinion instead of a top-down imposition, pointing to the surge in DEI investments following the George Floyd protests.

To conclude, ESG investing remains a deeply contested issue, with compelling arguments on both sides. When asked about its future, Professor Hajin Kim remarked that “ESG as an acronym is almost certainly dying,” just as The New York Times declared, but corporate social responsibility existed before ESG and will continue beyond it because the debate it ignited points to a far deeper issue – the evolving role of corporations in American society. As my discussion with Professor Hajin Kim highlighted, corporations no longer function solely as economic actors; they have become major political and social forces, shaping law, policy, and public discourse. Their influence extends beyond the marketplace, as corporate political spending and lobbying efforts significantly impact regulation. As Professor Hajin Kim notes, the idea that corporations should simply maximize profits within the bounds of the law while leaving

externality regulation to the government “falls apart as a theory for how to get to a first-best world.” This raises a crucial question: have we entered an era where economic power is the most dominant force in governance? If so, then perhaps the alignment of social and financial goals is not merely a corporate strategy but the most pragmatic and democratic response to urgent challenges like climate change.

PROFESSOR TOM GINSBURG:

FREE EXPRESSION IN THE UNIVERSITY SETTING

by KEVIN GUO ASSOCIATE EDITOR

At the time of this article’s publication, Kevin Guo is a member of the University of Chicago Forum for Free Inquiry and Expression’s Student Advisory Board.

OnSeptember 9th, 2024, members of the University of Chicago community awoke to a surprise email from President Paul Alivisatos announcing that a donor had committed $100 million “in support of free inquiry and expression at the University”1—the eighth nine-figure donation in the University of Chicago’s history.2 This donation, reflecting the University’s longstanding history of—and growing influence on—matters of academic freedom, came on the heels of the establishment of the Chicago Forum for Free Inquiry and Expression in October 2023. Since then, the Chicago Forum has led various initiatives to foster dialogue across the University community, and has promoted the Chicago Principles and the Kalven Report, two documents fundamental to the University of Chicago’s free expression identity, across higher education.

The Chicago Principles, in sum, articulated the position of the

1 Paul Alivisatos, “An Extraordinary Gift in Support of Free Expression,” The University of Chicago Office of the President, September 26, 2024, https://president. uchicago.edu/en/from-the-president/ announcements/240926-an-extraordinary-gift-in-support-of-free-expression.

2 Brandon Dupré, “UChicago’s $100 million donation is among its largest ever. See where it stacks up,” Crain’s Chicago Business, September 27, 2024, https:// www.chicagobusiness.com/education/heres-how-university-chicagos-100m-donation-stacks.

University of Chicago on free expression, stating that “[e]xcept insofar as limitations on that freedom are necessary to the functioning of the University, the University of Chicago fully respects and supports the freedom of all members of the University community to discuss any problem that presents itself.”3 Notably, the Chicago Principles are grounded in First Amendment terminology4: the report describes how “[t]he University may restrict expression that violates the law, that falsely defames a specific individual, [or] that constitutes a genuine threat or harassment”5 while “reasonably regulat[ing] the time, place, and manner of expression.”6 Though public institutions are, by definition, bound by the First Amendment, private institutions—like the University of Chicago—are not, allowing such institutions to theoretically discipline students for unfavored speech. As a result, free speech advocacy groups, such as the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), have urged private institutions across the country to adopt the Chicago Prin-

3 “Report of the Committee on Freedom of Expression,” The University of Chicago, July 2014, https://provost.uchicago. edu/sites/default/files/documents/reports/FOECommitteeReport.pdf (internal quotes omitted).

4 See, e.g., Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) (imminent lawless action); Beauharnais v. People of State of Ill., 343 U.S. 250 (1952) (defamation); Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003) (true threats); City of Austin v. Reagan Nat’l Advert. of Austin, LLC, 596 U.S. 61 (2022) (time, place, and manner restrictions).

5 “Report of the Committee on Freedom of Expression,” The University of Chicago.

6 Id.

ciples—and to commit, in effect, to abiding by the First Amendment. The Kalven Report, on the other hand, established the concept of institutional neutrality—reasoning that because “[t]here is no mechanism by which [the university] can reach a collective position without inhibiting that full freedom of dissent on which it thrives,” “[t]he university is the home and sponsor of critics; it is not itself the critic.”7 Moreover, as Professor Tom Ginsburg, Faculty Director for the Forum for Free Inquiry and Expression notes, “No one cares what university presidents think about anything other than keeping our university running and defending us when we’re under direct attack.”

Interestingly, according to the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, 27 of the 30 universities that adopted a policy of institutional neutrality similar to that of the Kalven Report—including Yale, Stanford, and the University of Michigan8—did so on or after December 5, 2023, after the presidents of Harvard, MIT, and the University of Pennsylvania testified before Congress on their handling of antisemitism and islamaphobia on campus, though they equivocated on many questions asked during the hearing.9 Without a formal policy

7 “Report on the University’s Role in Political and Social Action,” The University of Chicago, November 11, 1967, https:// provost.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/ documents/reports/FOECommitteeReport.pdf.

8 “Adoptions of an Official Position of Institutional Neutrality,” Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, accessed February 22, 2025, https://www.thefire. org/research-learn/adoptions-official-position-institutional-neutrality.

9 Stephanie Saul and Anemona Hartocollis, “College Presidents Un-

“No one cares what university presidents think about anything other than keeping our university running and defending us when we’re under direct attack.”

professor tom ginsburg faculty director for the forum for free inquiry and expression

of institutional neutrality to point to, as Professor Ginsburg notes, “[These presidents] really didn’t like it. They didn’t do a good job. Three of them got fired over this process.” Because of this hearing, he says, “I think there’s a pragmatic move to neutrality [and] to seeing the virtues of it.” Nevertheless, in Professor Ginsburg’s view, “it’d be much better had they adopted this five years ago rather than in the heat of the battle,” as their adoption now “looks extremely opportunistic.”

The Chicago Forum has been operating for over a year now against this backdrop, and was established with the mission of—in Professor Ginsburg’s words—“deepening free expression on campus [and] improving people’s opportunities to have conversations across different views” while “advanc[ing] free expression in the country, particularly around issues of academic freedom at a time when they’re in great peril.” The Forum has already taken steps towards its mission: when asked about the most perder Fire After Dodging Questions About Antisemitism,” New York Times, December 6, 2023, https://www. nytimes.com/2023/12/06/us/harvard-mit-penn-presidents-antisemitism. html.

sonally rewarding initiatives, Professor Ginsburg notes that “the Student Advisory Board has been amazing . . . because [you all are] just coming in with all your ideas and energy and we’ve been facilitating things you all want to do,” which “just feels great” and is “so interesting and fun.” Professor Ginsburg also pointed to a few faculty-only events, such as when the Forum held a faculty-only event after the dismantlement of the encampment on campus, where “it was really interesting to have people in the same room being able to talk to each other, even if they really disagreed about the underlying issues” and “about whether the encampment should have [been] taken down.”

Looking ahead, Professor Ginsburg is similarly optimistic: he notes the Forum’s plans to start a fellowship program, in which individuals with ties to free expression— such such as “a scholar punished for [their] freedom of speech in another country”—”will spend some time to interact with students [and] to give talks on various important issues” in the very near future. When asked for his vision of the Forum ten years from now, he noted his hopes that the Forum building—5737 S. University

Ave.—“would be abuzz with students all the time” with “tons of events on all kinds of topics.” Ultimately, “because repression is occurring in all kinds of countries,” Professor Ginsburg “hope[s] that [the University of Chicago] would be seen as a sort of mecca for these issues—like a central place for thought and research not just for the United States, but for the world.”

UPCOMING CHICAGO

CHICAGO SCHOOL RANKING SYSTEM GETS AN OVERHAUL: EQUITY OR JUST REBRANDING?

by JONATHON JI STAFF WRITER

Chicago Public Schools (CPS) is shaking up its approach to evaluating school performance with a bold new policy shift. Chicago Public Schools’ newly implemented Continuous Improvement and Data Transparency Policy (CIDT) represents a dramatic departure from the School Quality Rating Policy (SQRP) that previously governed school performance assessment. The outdated SQRP—which assigned numeric rankings to schools based on standardized test scores, attendance, and graduation rates—functioned as more than an evaluation mechanism.1

Given its evaluation metrics mirroring larger systemic inequities, the SQRP became the justification for school closures, disproportionately targeting Black-majority neighborhoods and accelerating the privatization of education in Chicago.2 The CIDT policy, five years in development, replaces punitive rankings with a broader set

1 Chicago Public School, “School Quality Rating Policy (SQRP) | Chicago Public Schools,” www.cps.edu, November 19, 2019, https://www.cps.edu/about/district-data/metrics/sqrp/.

2 Jankov, Pavlyn and Caref, Carol. “Segregation and Inequality in Chicago Public Schools, Transformed and Intensified under Corporate Education Reform,” Education Policy Analysis Archives/Archivos Analíticos de Políticas Educativas 25 (2017): 1–32, https://www.redalyc. org/articulo.oa?id=275050047104.

of performance indicators, acknowledging that school quality cannot be captured by test scores alone. But despite its promise, the policy’s effectiveness remains uncertain—particularly in whether it will meaningfully redress decades of racial and economic disparities in school funding or merely reframe old inequities in the new language.

SQRP, the school rating system introduced in 2014, quantified school performance into five levels, ranging from Level 1+ (highest) to Level 3 (lowest). The rating formula prioritized SAT and NWEA MAP test scores, combined with attendance rates, graduation rates, and college enrollment metrics.3 While intended to measure school effectiveness, the system largely ignored external factors, failing to acknowledge how poverty, housing instability, and structural disinvestment shaped student outcomes. In doing so, it functioned not as a neutral measure of school success, but as a mechanism for justifying closures.4 The consequences of these

3 Chicago Public School, “School Quality Rating Policy (SQRP) | Chicago Public Schools,” www.cps.edu, November 19, 2019, https://www.cps.edu/about/district-data/metrics/sqrp/.

4 Jankov, Pavlyn and Caref, Carol. “Segregation and Inequality in Chicago Public Schools, Transformed and Intensified under Corporate Education Reform,” Education Policy Analysis Archives/Archivos Analíticos de Políticas Educativas 25 (2017): 1–32, https://www.redalyc.org/ articulo.oa?id=275050047104; Ibid.

closures were concentrated in historically Black neighborhoods, where over 50 schools were shut down in 2013 alone.5 The closures pushed families out of the public system and increased reliance on charter schools, which were not subject to the same accountability measures but expanded rapidly in the wake of SQRP-induced disinvestment.6 Between 2000 and 2020, CPS lost nearly 100,000 Black students, reflecting a larger pattern of displacement and erasure that accompanied the dismantling of Black-majority public schools in Chicago.7

The CIDT policy marks a shift in how CPS defines school success, removing numerical rankings altogether. Instead of assigning schools a single performance score, CIDT evaluates them using a holistic set of criteria, including:8

CONTINUED ON PAGE 80

5 Id.

6 Id.

7 Chicago Teachers Union, “What’s the Matter with SQRP? What Is SQRP?,” January 25, 2020, https://www.ctulocal1. org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/ Whats-the-matter-with-SQRP-3.0.pdf; Koumpilova, Mila. “Chicago Adopts New Policy for Evaluating How Schools Are Doing,” Chalkbeat, April 26, 2023, https://www.chalkbeat.org/chicago/2023/4/26/23699911/chicago-public-schools-school-improvement-policy-board/.

8 Chicago Public School, “Continuous Improvement and Data Transparency | Chicago Public Schools,” Cps.edu, 2023, https://www.cps.edu/sites/cps-policy-rules/policies/300/302/302-15/.

CHICAGO POLICY

WHO IS TO BLAME FOR GUN VIOLENCE IN CHICAGO?: EXAMINING THE LAWSUIT AGAINST GLOCK INC.

by GIANNA GRANT STAFF WRITER

Gun violence has plagued Chicago for decades, leaving the city with one of the highest homicide rates in the country. Chicago’s homicide rate is six times higher than New York City’s and three times higher than Los Angeles with 29 firearm homicides per 100,000 residents.1 Both the City of Chicago and the state of Illinois have implemented a variety of public safety laws to combat this issue; for example, the mayor’s office in Chicago established the Office of Violence Prevention in 20192 and the state of Illinois passed the Protect Illinois Communities Act in 2023, which banned the sale of assault weapons. Despite these efforts, incidents of violence remain high. Now, the City of Chicago decided to take a new approach; in March of 2024, the city filed a “first of its kind” lawsuit against gun manufacturer Glock Inc. for unreasonably endangering Chicagoans “by manufacturing semi-automatic pistols in such a way that they can be easily converted into illegal machine guns in a matter of minutes.”3 The lawsuit also targets

1 “Impact of Gun Violence in Illinois,” One Aim Illinois, accessed February 21, 2025. https://oneaimil.org/the-issue/ impact-of-gun-violence/

2 Moving Forward Chicago, “Public Safety and Violence Prevention,” City of Chicago, accessed February 21, 2025. https://movingforward.chicago.gov/ public-safety

3 “Chicago Expands Glock Lawsuit,

Chicago-area gun stores, namely Eagle Sports Range and Midwest Sporting Goods for manufacturing, selling, and marketing these products.4 This case has sparked an important conversation about the role corporations play in perpetuating gun violence and the extent to which they should be held accountable.

The City of Chicago argues that Glock Inc. endangers Chicagoans by selling semi-automatic pistols that can be converted into machine guns with an auto sear, otherwise known as a “Glock switch”. These switches are the size of a quarter and can be purchased online for $20 or manufactured at home using a 3D printer. The lawsuit was filed under the 2023 Firearms Industry Responsibility Act, which aims to “hold bad actors in the gun industry accountable for unlawful sales and marketing tactics.”5 The

Seeks to Hold Glock’s Parent Company and Local Gun Dealers Accountable for Their Role in Endangering the City Through the Sale and Marketing of Easily Modified Glocks,” Everytown Law, May 21, 2024. https://everytownlaw.org/ case/chicago-sues-glock-inc-for-endangering-chicagoans-by-manufacturing-and-selling-handguns-that-can-be-easily-modified-to-illegal-machine-guns/

4 Id.

5 “Attorney General Raoul Applauds Governer Pritzker for Signing Legislation to Hold Bad Actors in Gun Industry Accountable for Unlawful Consumer Practices,” Office of the Illinois Attorney General, August 12, 2023. https://www. illinoisattorneygeneral.gov/news/story/ attorney-general-raoul-applauds-gov-

Cook County Circuit Court has targeted Glock Inc. in particular because they have recovered over 1,100 Glocks that have been converted into illegal machine guns in the last two years; these guns have been connected to numerous homicides, assaults, kidnappings, and robberies. The court has argued that Glock Inc. could significantly reduce these crimes by taking easily converted pistols off the market and that the continued sale of these products has caused significant harm.6 In a complaint filed by Glock Inc. on October 30, 2024, the company argued that it should not be held liable for the actions of third parties; the company states that they are protected under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act passed by Congress (PLCAA) in 2005. Essentially, the act prevents manufacturers from being held responsible for criminal acts committed using their products by protecting them from qualified civil liability actions. Furthermore, Glock argues that Chicago’s causes of action fail to state a claim under Illinois state

CONTINUED ON PAGE 81

ernor-pritzker-for-signing-legislation-to-hold-bad-actors-in-gun-industry-accountable-for-unlawful-consumer-practices

6 “Chicago Announces First-of-ItsKind Lawsuit Seeking to Hold Glock Accountable for Manufacturing and Selling Pistols That Can Easily Be Turned into Machine Guns Using ‘Glock Switches,’” Office of the Mayor, March 19, 2024 https://www.chicago.gov/city/en/ depts/mayor/press_room/press_releases/2024/march/glock-lawsuit.html

CHICAGO SCHOOL RANKING SYSTEM GETS AN OVERHAUL: EQUITY OR JUST. . .

CONTINUED FROM PAGE 78

১ Student well-being and engagement (social-emotional learning, access to extracurricular programs).

১ Educator retention and leadership stability (reducing turnover, investing in teacher development).

১ Postsecondary preparedness (tracking not only college enrollment but also career readiness and persistence).

১ School climate and community integration (support networks, family engagement, and equity initiatives).

Unlike SQRP, which framed underperforming schools as failing institutions, CIDT acknowledges systemic inequities and aims to address them by directing resources where they are needed most. The policy also aligns with CPS’s Equity Framework, committing to “Targeted Universalism”—the principle that closing racial achievement gaps requires prioritizing historically underserved schools9. Yet while these structural shifts offer the potential for a fairer school evaluation system, they do not, on their own, guarantee meaningful change.

Despite broad support for CIDT’s conceptual shift away from punitive rankings, concerns remain regarding its implementation and impact. According to Chalkbeat, some educators worry that while the policy claims to promote equity, it lacks concrete mechanisms for ensuring equitable resource distribution.10 Eliminating

9 Id.

10 Koumpilova, Mila. “Chicago Adopts New Policy for Evaluating How Schools

rankings does not automatically increase funding for struggling schools, nor does it prevent charter expansion from continuing unchecked. The policy’s success depends on the willingness of CPS to follow through on promises of reinvestment.

Parents, too, have expressed uncertainty. The newly created school profile system, designed to provide families with a more comprehensive look at their school’s performance, has been criticized as difficult to navigate11 . While the goal is to replace simplistic letter grades with nuanced data, some parents worry that without clear, digestible information, families in historically disinvested neighborhoods will remain disadvantaged in accessing quality education.

Further complicating the transition is the persistent role of charter schools. While neighborhood schools suffered closures and disinvestment under SQRP, charter schools expanded without the same accountability requirements.12 The CIDT policy

Are Doing,” Chalkbeat, April 26, 2023, https://www.chalkbeat.org/chicago/2023/4/26/23699911/chicago-public-schools-school-improvement-policy-board/.

11 Koumpilova, Mila. “Chicago Adopts New Policy for Evaluating How Schools Are Doing,” Chalkbeat, April 26, 2023, https://www.chalkbeat.org/chicago/2023/4/26/23699911/chicago-public-schools-school-improvement-policy-board/.

12 Jankov, Pavlyn and Caref, Carol. “Segregation and Inequality in Chicago Public Schools, Transformed and Intensified under Corporate Education Reform,”

does not explicitly address whether charter operators will be held to the same transparency standards as public schools, raising concerns that privatization could continue after the implementation of the CIDT policy.

The shift from SQRP to CIDT marks a significant shift in philosophy from the punitive ranking systems system to one that aims to be more holistic, acknowledging that school performance cannot be reduced to test scores alone. However, without monetary investment and systemic support, the risk remains that CPS has merely replaced rankings with performance indicators while leaving funding disparities untouched. The CIDT’s success will also depend on CPS’ willingness to rectify historic racialized disinvestment. Without substantial reinvestment in historically underfunded schools, CIDT may ultimately serve not as a solution to inequity, but as a new document for obfuscating and preserving it.

Education Policy Analysis Archives/Archivos Analíticos de Políticas Educativas 25 (2017): 1–32, https://www.redalyc.org/ articulo.oa?id=275050047104.

WHO

IS TO BLAME FOR GUN VIOLENCE IN CHICAGO?: EXAMINING THE. . .

law7. In a similar case, the City of Chicago v. Beretta USA Corp (2004), the Illinois Supreme Court found that the City’s complaint failed to state claims under Illinois law based on lack of duty and proximate cause.8 According to this case and the PLCAA, Glock, Inc. and other manufacturers should not be held liable because they are (1) immune from lawsuits premised on the criminal misuse of their lawful products (2) Glock pistols are qualified products9

7 City of Chicago v. Glock, Inc, Civil Action No. 2024CH06875 (2024)

8 Proximate cause refers to an event that is directly related to injury or harm.

9 According to the PLCAA, qualified products are firearms, ammunition, or component parts of either that have been transported across state or national borders.

(3) the lawsuit is considered a qualified civil liability action (4) it can be considered unconstitutional if the ICFA qualifies under the predicate exception.10 This is not the first time that Glock, Inc. has had a lawsuit against them; New Jersey, Maryland, and Minnesota sued the company in 2024 for selling products that could be easily converted into machine guns. So, it is clear that the company holds some responsibility for the continuation of gun violence. If Glock has the power to make these communities safer, why would they not take action by taking these products off the market? The solution is seemingly straightforward; however, this is just one step in finding

10 City of Chicago v. Glock, Inc, Civil Action No. 2024CH06875 (2024)

a long-term solution to gun violence. While Glock may be liable in this particular case, the city of Chicago must also acknowledge its role in the gun violence epidemic by implementing comprehensive solutions. For example, the city could take a public health approach by implementing community violence intervention programs that target structural inequality in addition to further regulating firearm manufacturers. Ultimately, this case shows that the issue of gun violence is incredibly complex and widespread and must be addressed by both corporations and policymakers.

LANDLORD RETALIATION ACT: A VICTORY FOR TENANT RIGHTS

by JACK BORDEAUX STAFF WRITER

OnAugust 9, 2024, the Landlord Retaliation Act became law in Illinois. Effective on January 1, 2025, the law repealed the Retaliatory Eviction Act, adding greater protections for tenants and more opportunities for redress when landlords do retaliate. The old Retaliatory Eviction Act, which was originally passed in 1963,1 made it illegal for “landlord[s] to terminate or refuse to renew a lease or tenancy of property used as a residence on the ground that the tenant has complained to any governmental authority of a bona fide violation of any applicable building

1 Illinois Compiled Statutes, “765 ILCS 720/ Retaliatory Eviction Act,” Illinois General Assembly, accessed 2/12/25, https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ ilcs3.asp?ActID=2204&ChapterID=62.

code, health ordinance, or similar regulation.”2 The new Landlord Retaliation Act keeps these protections in place but expands the kinds of landlord behaviors that are considered retaliation under the law and adds to the kinds of tenant behaviors that are protected from retaliation. The new law also clarifies and expands the legal recourse available to tenants.

More specifically, the Landlord Retaliation Act declares that “landlord[s] may not knowingly terminate a tenancy, increase rent, decrease services, bring or threaten to bring a lawsuit against a tenant for possession or refuse to renew a lease or tenancy”3 if the tenant complains of code violations to “the rel-

2 Retaliatory Eviction Act, 765 ILCS 720, (repealed on January 1, 2025).

3 Landlord Retaliation Act, 765 ILCS 721/5.

evant government agency, elected representative, or public official”4 responsible for such codes. Similarly, landlords may not terminate a tenancy, increase rent, etc. if a tenant complains about a “code violation or an illegal landlord practice to a community organization”5 or seeks assistance from said organization. The law also protects tenants who request that “the landlord… make repairs to the premises as required by a building code, health ordinance, other regulation, or the residential rental agreement,”6 as well as tenants who “organize[] or become a member of a tenants’ union or similar organization”7 and tenants who “testif[y] in any court or administrative

CONTINUED ON PAGE 82

4 Id. 5 Id.

6 Id.

7 Id.

LANDLORD RETALIATION ACT: A VICTORY FOR TENANT RIGHTS

CONTINUED FROM PAGE 81

proceeding concerning the condition of the premises; or… exercise[] any right or remedy provided by law.”8

The law establishes more clear means of legal recourse for tenants whose landlords have violated the law. The previous law just stated that the listed landlord’s actions were illegal. The new law expands upon this, saying that “the tenant has a defense in any retaliatory action against [them], and a landlord shall be subject to a civil action for damages and other appropriate relief, including, but not limited to”9 the termination of the rental agreement and return of the security deposit as well as all prepaid rent, recovery of “possession of the premises if the landlord has dispossessed, threatened to dispossess, or is in the process of dispossessing; and… recovery of an amount equal to and not more than 2 months’ rent or 2 times the damages sustained by the tenant, whichever is greater, and reasonable attorney’s fees.”10 Landlords can defend themselves in court by proving “a legitimate, non-retaliatory basis for [their] action”11 or by proving that they “began the action before the tenant engaged in the protected activity,”12 but the law also establishes a “rebuttable presumption that the landlord’s conduct was retaliatory” if said conduct occurred within a year after the tenant engaged in any of the protected actions, putting the burden of proof squarely on the landlord in those circumstances. Understandably, the new law has not been popular with landlords,

8 Id.

9 Landlord Retaliation Act, 765 ILCS 721/10/

10 Id.

11 Landlord Retaliation Act, 765 ILCS 721/15.

12 Landlord Retaliation Act, 765 ILCS 721/20.

who say that the new law is too strict on them. Paul Arena, the Director of Legislative Affairs at the Illinois Rental Property Owners Association, has been quoted in Multifamily Dive, an industry website, saying that landlords need to be a lot more careful about who they rent to and the actions they take. “If a landlord fails to act in response to lease violations in one case it could be used against them if they take action in other cases,” he said. “Document everything you do and the reasons for your actions.”13 Documenting everything you do is the best practice for running any business, but landlords are indeed going to have to have immediately available reasons for raising rents or choosing to renew leases. It is also true that they are now more open to lawsuits. Whereas before they had more control over renters, this law shifts more control over to tenants at the expense of landlords such that they can’t be evicted for no reason, and it puts more redressive power in the hands of tenants at the expense of landlords such that they can enforce their new rights.

Originally, the law was even harsher on landlords. Before the bill, which originated in the State House of Representatives, was passed into law, a Senate amendment stripped the bill of a provision for “punitive damages as a remedy for tenant[s]” as well as a provision protecting tenants from landlords “complaining to or seeking the assistance of the news media.” The amendment also removed affirmative defense language for landlords. All of this was

13 Mary Salmonsen, “Illinois property managers barred from retaliation,” Multifamily Dive, Informa TechTarget, 9/10/24, https://www.multifamilydive. com/news/illinois-property-managers-barred-from-retaliation-law-regulation/726615/.

done because of concerns raised by the Chicagoland Apartment Association, a landlord group who, after the amendments were passed, declared that they were neutral on the bill. The bill ended up passing by a vote of 63-38 with one person voting present.14

The state law itself is not unique, but it is an affirmation of Illinois’s commitment to protecting tenants. Chicago tenants are already protected from landlord retaliation—the city has a similarly worded law on its books that offers even greater protection (including the aforementioned protection against landlords going to the media), and it’s been in place since 1986.15 Only six other states—Idaho, Louisiana, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and Wyoming—do not have landlord retaliation statutes. Moreover, the new law adds protection against retaliation to already existing tenant protections, like the right of tenants in Chicago to “withhold an amount of rent that reasonably reflects the reduced value of the unit” if a landlord refuses to keep a property in compliance with relevant codes (and the tenant is not responsible for the noncompliance).16 Overall, the Landlord Retaliation Act is a victory for tenants and tenants’ rights. It will offer safeguards for renters across the state. In Chicago, despite existing protections, the act serves as a reminder of the state and municipal government’s commitment to protecting tenants.

14 State of Illinois, 103rd General Assembly, House of Representatives Transcription Debate, 113th Legislative Day, 5/25/24, pp. 108-110, https:// www.ilga.gov/House/transcripts/ Htrans103/10300113.pdf.

15 Chicago, IL, Municipal Code of Chicago, 5-12-150.

16 Chicago, IL, Municipal Code of Chicago, 5-12-110.

TATTLETALES OR TRUTH-TELLERS?: ILLINOIS WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION ACT

by LETOM KPEA STAFF WRITER

The Illinois Whistleblower Act1 is a newly revised bill that seeks to protect employees who report illegal or unethical workplace practices from facing legal repercussions from their employers. The Illinois Whistleblower Act is a subset of the Federal Whistleblower Act of 1989 (WPA)2 that serves to protect federal employees who hold positions within the executive branch of the government. Whistleblower retaliation is a prohibited personnel practice that is investigated by the US Office of Special Counsel. If evidence is present, the case gets reported to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB)3 and to the agency that engaged in the prohibited personnel practice. In 2012, Congress amended the WPA through the enactment of the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act (WPEA)4. The WPEA has extended the WPA by including protections for employees exercising “any appeal, complaint, or grievance right” regarding a confi-

1 Disparti Law Group, New Illinois Whistleblower Laws & Protections/2025 Update

2 United States federal law that protected federal whistleblowers who work for the government and report the possible existence of an activity constituting a violation of law, rules, or regulations, or mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority or a substantial and specific danger to public health and safety

3 Protect Federal merit systems against partisan political and other prohibited personnel practices by adjudicating employees and appeals over which the Board has been given jurisdiction

4 Amends federal personnel law relating to whistleblower protections to provide that such protections shall apply to a disclosure of any violation of law (currently, a violation of law).

dential person, clarifying that certain actions by employees in making a case won’t terminate the protections of the WPA, and requiring that agency non disclosure agreements include a specific statement informing employees of their rights. The Whistleblower Act has an extension to military personnel and legislative branch employees as well.

In 2025, there have been new adjustments to the Whistleblower Act in Illinois following some cases that occurred in years prior. In September 2018, in the case of Conway v City of Chicago5 Michael Conway, an employee at the Chicago Department of Aviation reported to the FAA and Chicago’s Office of Inspector General that a former deputy commission ordered him to report a claim that dry runway conditions while also witnessing other operations personnel being ordered to make similar falsified claims. The employee received retaliation from the organization and on October 16, 2018, filed a complaint with the US Department of Labor’s Occupational Health and Safety Administration alleging he was facing extreme backlash. Following his whistleblow, Conway received a five-day suspension, was relieved from his airfield position because he “violated FAA procedures,” was not eligible for overtime compensations, and was not selected for a promotion. Another incident occurred in Chicago on October 2nd, 2020 in the case of Svec v. the City of Chicago6, in which a police officer filed a claim against her co-workers and supervisors for falsifying a police report. Following the in-

5 Conway v City of Chicago, 20 C 4966

6 Walker, D.B. (2024b). Beth Svec v The City of Chicago

cident, Svec’s supervisor relocated her to a different location and shift time, Svec also claimed to be experiencing financial hardship and emotional distress from her prior working environment.

Following these incidents, Illinois added some new adjustments to the Whistleblower Cause in Illinois.

As of January 2025, there have been new revisions including an addition of the “good faith belief”7 inscribed under 740 ILCS 174/15 (b)8 of the bill it follows: An employer may not take retaliatory action against an employee for disclosing or threatening to disclose information to a government or law enforcement agency related to an activity, policy, or practice of the employer, where the employer has a good faith belief that the activity, policy, or practice of the employer (i) violated a State of federal law, rule, or regulation or (ii) poses a substantial and specific danger to employees, public health or safety. Within the bill, an employee extends broadly to various career fields, including teachers and physicians. In addition, Attorney Generals are granted the jurisdiction to investigate alleged violations and intervene in civil actions.

Overall, The Whistleblower Act is an important bill that sustains the ethical obligations of a company, maintains a standard of integrity of corporations, and discourages fatal incidents from occurring. Whistleblowers are the first line of defense against corruption, fraud, and wrongdoing and are the primary source of informa-

CONTINUED ON PAGE 85

7 PricewaterhouseCoopers. (2007b). Economic Crime: People, Culture, and Controls

8 Illinois Whistleblower Act - Brian J Graber LLC, Attorney at law.

THE IMPACT OF THE DIGNITY IN PAY ACT ON WORKERS WITH DISABILITIES

by SAMUEL MORSE STAFF WRITER

The Dignity in Pay Act (HB793)1, signed into law by Governor JB Pritzker2 on January 21, 2025, marks a historic shift in labor rights for disabled workers in Illinois. By phasing out subminimum wages by 2029, the Act directly confronts the long-standing exclusion of workers with disabilities from full economic participation. The law challenges federal policies under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)3, which allows certain employers to pay disabled workers less than the minimum wage under 14(c) certificates. Though intended to encourage employment, disability rights advocates argue that 14(c) has perpetuated a segregated labor system, undermining the principles of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

While Illinois is positioning itself as a leader, other states4 such as Vermont, Maryland, and Colorado have already phased out 14(c) wages, demonstrating that economic inclusion for disabled workers is both viable

1 Illinois General Assembly, Illinois House Bill 793, Amendment 3, 103rd General Assembly, accessed February 12, 2025, https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=10300HB0793ham003&DocNum=793&DocTypeId=H-

B&GA=103&GAID=17&LegID=142668&Session=&SessionId=112&SpecSess=

2 WCIA News, “Dignity in Pay Act

Signed into Illinois Law,” WCIA, accessed February 12 2025, https://www.wcia. com/news/capitol-news/dignity-in-payact-signed-into-illinois-law/

3 U.S. Department of Labor, “Workers with Disabilities,” Wage and Hour Division, accessed February 12, 2025, https:// www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/workers-with-disabilities

4 APSE, “State Legislation,” accessed February 12, 2025, https://apse.org/ state-legislation/

and beneficial. For Chicago, a city with a strong tradition of labor activism and progressive wage policies, the Act represents both an opportunity and a challenge. Transitioning to full wage parity will require legal clarity, economic adjustments, and investment in workforce integration programs. Nevertheless, Illinois is now positioned as a leader in the national movement to recognize fair pay fundamentally as a disability rights issue.

The FLSA’s 14(c) exemption, created in 1938, was based on the assumption that workers with disabilities would struggle to be “productive” in competitive jobs. However, modern disability law—including the ADA (1990) and subsequent Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (2014)5—has increasingly rejected segregated workplaces and substandard pay. Legal experts argue that 14(c) is fundamentally incompatible with the ADA’s mandate for workplace equality. Unlike other wage exemptions (e.g., tipped wages), 14(c) explicitly devalues disabled labor, raising questions about whether it should be legally sustained. Illinois’ decision to eliminate 14(c) wages raises a federal preemption issue: can a state law override a federally sanctioned labor exemption?

While employers may challenge the Act under federal preemption claims, recent case law suggests that states have latitude to establish stronger wage protections than federal law. Nat’l Meat Ass’n v. Harris, 565 U.S. 452 (2012)6 indicates that states

5 U.S. Department of Labor, “Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA),” Employment and Training Administration, accessed February 12, 2025, https:// www.dol.gov/agencies/eta/wioa

6 United States Supreme Court, Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church

cannot impose workplace regulations in addition to or different from federal labor laws. However, in New York v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 363 F. Supp. 3d 109 (2019)7 courts upheld a state’s right to expand worker protections beyond federal minimums, signaling that Illinois may have a strong defense against preemption claims. These legal precedents frame the Dignity in Pay Act as a civil rights expansion rather than an economic disruption, shifting the debate from business burdens to the fundamental question of disability-based wage discrimination.

The impact of the Dignity in Pay Act will be especially significant in Chicago, where many disability rights organizations, workforce development programs, and inclusive employment models are already in place. As of 2024, there were 801 employers nationwide using 14(c), affecting 40,579 workers (U.S. Dept. of Labor, 2024)8. In Illinois, about two dozen employers are authorized under 14(c), many of which are nonprofits and disability service providers. Advocacy groups such as Access Living9 and the Illinois Council on Developmental Disabilities10 have

and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 565 U.S. 452 (2012), accessed February 12, 2025, https:// supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/ us/565/452/

7 United States District Court, New York v. U.S. Department of Labor, accessed February 12, 2025, https://casetext.com/ case/new-york-v-us-dept-of-labor

8 U.S. Department of Labor, “Section 14(c) Certificate Holders,” Wage and Hour Division, accessed February 12, 2025, https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/ workers-with-disabilities/section-14c/ certificate-holders

9 Access Living, “Access Living,” accessed February 12, 2025, https://accessliving.org/

10 Illinois Council on Developmental Disabilities, “Illinois Council on Develop-

“The Dignity in Pay Act is more than a wage

law; it is a civil rights milestone

for workers with disabilities. By eliminating subminimum wages, Illinois has positioned itself as

a leader in labor equity, recognizing that economic inclusion is central to disability justice.”

long supported ending subminimum wages. Their work has helped shift the narrative from seeing disabled workers as “charity cases” to recognizing their economic contributions. Additionally, programs such as Aspire Chicago11 have demonstrated that workers with disabilities can thrive in integrated, competitive employment environments when given appropriate training and employer incentives.

The elimination of subminimum wages requires businesses and nonprofits to restructure employment models. However, fears of job losses may be overstated, as several states have already transitioned away from 14(c) without mass layoffs. To support busi-

mental Disabilities,” accessed February 12, 2025, https://icdd.illinois.gov/ 11 Aspire Chicago, “Aspire Chicago,” accessed February 12, 2025, https://aspirechicago.com/

nesses and workers, Chicago policymakers can implement key workforce development initiatives, including:

১ Tax incentives for businesses that hire disabled workers at full wages.

১ Expansion of job coaching and training programs under City Colleges of Chicago12.

১ Grants for disability service providers to transition from 14(c) to inclusive employment models. By taking these steps, Chicago can set a national precedent for equitable labor policies, ensuring that disabled workers are fully included in the state’s economy.

The Dignity in Pay Act is more than a wage law; it is a civil rights milestone for workers with disabilities. By eliminating subminimum wages, Il-

12 City Colleges of Chicago, “Accessibility Services,” accessed February 12, 2025, https://colleges.ccc.edu/accessibility/

linois has positioned itself as a leader in labor equity, recognizing that economic inclusion is central to disability justice. While legal and economic challenges remain, this transition aligns with the broader shift toward fair wages and full workforce participation. If implemented effectively, the Act could pave the way for nationwide disability wage reform, challenging the future of 14(c) and similar labor exemptions at the federal level.

Just as past labor movements fought for equitable wages and fair treatment, the elimination of subminimum wages marks a new chapter in the fight for economic justice. By embracing this transition, Illinois can continue its legacy of labor leadership, setting a national precedent for disability wage equity.

TATTLETALES OR TRUTH-TELLERS?: ILLINOIS WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION.

CONTINUED FROM PAGE 83

tion about fraud and other illegal activities. Some historic whistleblowers have prevented the danger to national security, dismantled invasive political regimes, and exposed individuals who have abused their position of power. The most infamous whistleblower was the informant who broke the silence of the Watergate scandal in

1972.9 Through his actions, President Nixon was held accountable for his actions and forced to resign. Although his identity finally came to light 35 years after the incident, it still holds

9 Law, S.F. (2022, November 9). 10

Most famous whistleblower - St Francis School of Law

the title of one of the most noteworthy cases in U.S. history. Despite the dangers of coming forward, with the revisions of the Whistleblower Act, more individuals can gain the courage to sustain integrity, ethics, and most importantly law and order, all in the hopes of maintaining their right to be protected.

GHOST TRAINS AND GRIDLOCK IN CHICAGO’S FUTURE

by JAHLANNY MORROBEL-PEÑA STAFF WRITER

Ona freezing February evening, you rush to your usual CTA platform, expecting the train to arrive within minutes, but as you stare at the digital board, you see nothing. The estimated arrival times usually displayed are missing, so you wait. Five minutes becomes 10, 10 becomes 20, and still, no train is in sight. Frustrated commuters shuffle their feet, check their phone, and sigh as they brace for another delay. What was once a rare inconvenience could soon become an everyday reality. With federal COVID-19 relief funds drying up, Chicago’s transit system faces an unprecedented fiscal crisis. Since 2020, the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) has received a total of over $2 billion in emergency funding to survive the ridership plunge during the pandemic.1 The FY2024 CTA operating budget was balanced with $472.5 million in federal COVID relief funds, and the FY2025 projected budget gap of $481.2 million will similarly be balanced using the remaining aid.2 However, by FY2026, those funds will have been depleted, leaving the CTA with a $577 million budget deficit and forcing service reductions of up to 40% by 2027.3 Without intervention, the city’s transit network will decay, pushing Chicago toward a car-dependent, congested, and inequitable future.

Public transit in Chicago has long operated under financial strain.

1 Chicago Transit Authority Approves $2.0 Billion Budget, Faces 2026 Fiscal Cliff | Civic Federation. (2024, October 24). Civicfed.org. https://www.civicfed. org/node/4231

2 Ibid.

3 Mishra, R. (2024, October 17). CTA ridership is just 60% of pre-COVID levels while the budget is 30% higher. Illinois Policy. https://www.illinoispolicy.org/ cta-ridership-just-60-of-pre-covid-levelswhile-budget-is-30-higher/

Illinois state law requires CTA, Metra, and Pace to recover 50% of their operating costs from farebox revenue, but ridership remains below pre-pandemic levels.4 In 2023, ridership was projected to be a mere 60% of pre-COVID levels in 2019, when there were 455.8 million riders.5 The CTA alone moves 1.7 million riders on an average weekday, yet revenue from fares has not rebounded, in part due to remote work, safety concerns, and declining service reliability.6

If Illinois lawmakers fail to reach a transit funding solution by Spring 2025, federal Title VI requirements and fiscal calendars will force transit agencies to initiate budgeting processes that will propose drastic service cuts and fare increases, further exacerbating service reliability issues.7

A 40% reduction in service is not just an inconvenience, it is a funda-

4 Regional Transportation Authority | Why Illinois legislators must reach a transit funding solution by spring 2025— and what happens if they don’t. (2024, October 9). Regional Transportation Authority. https://www.rtachicago.org/ blog/2024/10/09/why-illinois-legislators-must-reach-a-transit-funding-solution-by-spring-2025-and-what-happensif-they-dont

5 Mishra, R. (2024, October 17). CTA ridership is just 60% of pre-COVID levels while the budget is 30% higher. Illinois Policy. https://www.illinoispolicy.org/ cta-ridership-just-60-of-pre-covid-levelswhile-budget-is-30-higher/

6 Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) - Travel Information. (n.d.). Www.chicago.gov. https://www.chicago.gov/city/en/depts/ other/provdrs/cta.html

7 Regional Transportation Authority | Why Illinois legislators must reach a transit funding solution by spring 2025— and what happens if they don’t. (2024, October 9). Regional Transportation Authority. https://www.rtachicago.org/ blog/2024/10/09/why-illinois-legislators-must-reach-a-transit-funding-solution-by-spring-2025-and-what-happensif-they-dont

mental breakdown of Chicago’s mobility. If these cuts occur, riders can expect longer wait times and overcrowded vehicles as trains and buses run less frequently. This could create unsafe conditions and increase delays. With fewer transit options, many will turn to driving or ride-hailing services like Uber and Lyft, worsening traffic congestion and pollution. Since the pandemic, ridership has struggled to recover, while car usage has surged. The total miles traveled by all vehicles, or VMT, climbed by 12% between May 2019 and May 2024, reaching record levels. This shift toward car dependence has led to higher carbon dioxide (CO₂) and particulate matter (PM2.5) emissions, exacerbating air pollution and climate change. Chicago risks following the same trajectory without sustainable transit funding, with worsening congestion and declining air quality. Further, seniors, people with disabilities, and those without access to a vehicle will face major barriers to mobility. Ride disruptions could also disproportionately affect low-income communities, particularly workers who rely on public transit for commuting. Transit advocates warn that such cuts will trigger a “death spiral” because as service deteriorates, fewer people will choose public transport, leading to further revenue loss and additional cuts.8

Besides the CTA, Metra, and Pace, organizations like the Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) are working diligently to develop solutions before Spring 2025. The RTA has approved a 2025 regional transit oper-

8 Pyke, M. (2024, November 22).

Transit’s fiscal cliff gets steeper as leaders warn of “death spiral.” Daily Herald. https://www.dailyherald. com/20241122/transportation/fiscalcliff-facing-transit-gets-steeper-as-leaders-warn-of-death-spiral/

“Public transit is not just about getting from point A to point B; it’s a lifeline for economic mobility, environmental sustainability, and urban equity.”

ating budget and a 2025-2029 capital program, aiming to address the financial challenges facing Chicago’s transit system.9 Similarly, the CTA has proposed a $2.16 billion operating budget for 2025, focusing on maintaining current fare levels and enhancing service hours to improve the transit experience before the anticipated budget shortfall in 2026.10 Additionally, The Metropolitan Mobility Authority Act (SB 3937) introduced by Senator Ram Villivalam (D-IL) offers a potential solution.11 This proposal would merge the CTA, Metra, and Pace into a single agency, which would eliminate inefficiencies and save an estimated $250 million annually.12 The bill would also introduce a universal fare system, allowing riders to use one pass across all transit networks. However, critics of the bill argue that it fails to address the critical issue of securing sustainable funding for the transit system.13 The estimated $250 million

9 Regional Transportation Authority | RTA Board approves 2025 Regional Operating Budget and 2025-2029 Capital Program for metropolitan Chicago transit. (2025). Regional Transportation Authority. https://www.rtachicago.org/ about-rta/press-releases/rta-board-approves-2025-regional-operating-budget-and-2025-2029-capital-program-for-metropolitan-chicago-transit 10 SB3937 103RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY. (2023). Ilga.gov. https://www.ilga. gov/legislation/103/SB/10300SB3937. htm

11 Id.

12 Regional Transportation Authority | Why Illinois legislators must reach a transit funding solution by spring 2025— and what happens if they don’t. (2024, October 9). Regional Transportation Authority. https://www.rtachicago.org/ blog/2024/10/09/why-illinois-legislators-must-reach-a-transit-funding-solution-by-spring-2025-and-what-happensif-they-dont

in annual savings may look promising, but without a tangible plan for reinvestment or a dedicated funding stream, those savings could be offset by rising costs in maintenance, service expansion, and modernizing the system.

Advocates from the Regional Transit Authority argue that Illinois lawmakers must commit to new sustainable revenue streams.14 One proposal is to expand state funding for transit operations, mirroring emergency measures taken in Philadelphia, where federal highway funds were temporarily redirected to support public transit amid a similar budget shortfall caused by the expiration of pandemic aid.15 Another controversial idea is congestion pricing, which would charge a fee for driving in high-traffic areas to generate additional

policymakers resist tax increases or major funding shifts, the reality is there is no alternative—either the city invests in its public transit system or watches it collapse.

Public transit is not just about getting from point A to point B; it’s a lifeline for economic mobility, environmental sustainability, and urban equity. A weakened transit system will undoubtedly exacerbate economic disparities, limit access to jobs and education, and increase Chicago’s dependence on cars, worsening climate change and urban congestion. While some may not feel the immediate effects of these budget cuts, the long-term consequences will reshape the city’s future. Will Chicago invest in a modern, reliable transit system, or will it let its infrastruc-

13 Id.

EXCLUDING MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING: CHICAGO ZONING LAWS

by ADDISON MARSHALL STAFF WRITER

Chicago’s skyline continues to expand, but for many residents, those towering developments symbolize rising costs rather than new opportunities. According to South Side Weekly, “[...] housing is too expensive for 43% of Chicagoans.”1 With this, the city government attempted to mandate affordability by imposing “inclusionary zoning laws” or “affordable housing.” Inclusionary zoning laws are a type of rent control that aims to keep housing prices down for those who are housing-burdened. In the fall of 2024, Chicago imposed further inclusionary zoning laws to stabilize housing prices for Chicagoans affected by a large wealth gap and increasing housing rates/prices. The “Affordable Requirements Ordinance” zoning implementation capped the cost of housing for 10% of units in residential developments with 10 or more units. These acts have been on the rise since 2007, with different forms of inclusionary and affordable housing coming out. As more laws are passed, the state continues to signal the idea that its goal of housing affordability has been established well and is benefitting the Chicago community. However, with these positives arising, so do criticisms regarding the policies per multi-family housing and their more subtle consequences.

Chicago began enacting policies to establish an increased amount of affordable housing in 2017, with a “Citywide Affordable Rental Housing Analysis”–which resulted in more affordable housing for renters in the

1 Agrelo, Justin. “Can The New Affordable Requirements Ordinance Help Solve Chicago’s Housing Inequality?” South Side Weekly, February 25, 2022.

city. With the rise of increased housing costs before this, in 2007, the burden on Chicago’s housing market has yet to fall back into a stable position–making affordable housing a key issue.2 This difficulty was challenged again by creating the “Chicago Five-Year Housing Plan” in 2014. This plan would only be seen to increase gentrification in the city’s 2017 plan update, along with creating little to no positive effects on the overall housing market.3 The idea of this new housing, “[...] distorts the housing market by acting as a deterrent and disincentive to develop rental housing [...]” and when the new rented housing is developed, takes away densely populated buildings in favor of single-family homes, leading to further displacement.4 In 2017, there was a sudden housing boom in Chicago, resulting in more housing units being sold and rented, causing rising prices and ultimately hurting house-burdened Chicagoans. Given Chicago’s difficult relationship with housing, the aforementioned “Affordable Requirements Ordinance” was put in place by the city legislature.

The Affordable Requirements Ordinance (ARO)5 is aimed at benefiting mixed or low-income communities by providing affordable housing for single-family buildings, providing more accessibility to better neighborhoods for households with lower incomes, re-

2 Muhammad, Richard. “Struggling homeowners, renters, loss of units make housing affordability major 2007 election issue, says new Chicago Rehab Network analysis,” Chicago Rehab Network Press Release, January 23, 2007.

3 “2014-2018 Chicago Five-Year Housing Plan,” Chicago Department of Planning & Development, December 2017.

4 Estabine, LyLena. “Inclusionary zoning’ excludes Chicago’s poor from housing,” Illinois Policy, November 28, 2024.

5 “Affordable Requirements Ordinance,” Chicago.gov, 2024.

ducing the effects of gentrification on Chicago, stimulating the economy, and increasing housing diversity.6 The ARO plans for new construction, reconstruction of existing multifamily housing (increasing residential units in the building), reutilizing an existing building from non-residential to residential, and converting rental properties into condominiums.7 The data results of the ARO policy have yet to be released, however, there has already been an uproar as to how this policy will affect the citywide community.8

The proposed and enacted solutions regarding affordable housing and zoning laws have yielded a less-than-desirable outcome. Lower-funded zoning has used space and resources to create more affordable housing for single-family households in the form of buildings that can occupy one family, taking away opportunities for multi-family households utilizing buildings that house more than one family. Chicago faces an issue with a lack of affordable housing, specifically in a decreased subset of buildings that house multiple families. Illinois is stated to need 289,000 more affordable homes as of November of last year, as reported by Illinois Policy, stating that “If housing costs more than 30% of a household income, that family is considered housing burdened” going on to state that around 43% of house-

CONTINUED ON PAGE 90

6 Castaneda, Lissette. “Affordable Requirements Ordinance Rules,” Chicago. gov, February 2024.

7 “Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance,” Metropolitan Planning Council, 2024.

8 Ball, Thomas and Poznansky, Chad M.. “Chicago’s So-Called “Anti-Gentrification” Ordinance Has Potential Impacts on Apartment Owners and Lenders on Chicago’s Northwest Side,” Clark Hill, October 9, 2024.

CHICAGO’S “ONE SYSTEM INITIATIVE”: PURPORTED PRINCIPLE AS POLITICS

by SEBASTIAN ARNAL STAFF WRITER

The city of Chicago, under Mayor Brandon Johnson’s administration, has begun a new “One System Initiative” for arriving migrants and community members who are experiencing homelessness.1 The new system follows three years of policy reactions to an influx of migrants from the southern border, many bussed in from Texas. Since this influx, Chicago’s recent mayors have struggled to maintain an image of Chicago as a “Welcoming City” in the face of logistical, political, and fiscal concerns. The new changes to Chicago’s homeless sheltering system are the latest development in a continuous story of Chicago migration politics.

Chicago and its mayors have long prided themselves on Chicago’s identity as a city welcoming and supportive of immigrants. In 2012, Mayor Rahm Emanuel (2011-2019) instituted the “Welcoming City” ordinance, aimed at making Chicago “the most immigrant-friendly city in the country.”2 Mayor Lori Lightfoot continued the tradition in 2021, signing an update to the Welcoming City Ordinance to disallow local law enforcement’s coopera-

1 Cherone, Heather. “Chicago Will No Longer Guarantee Migrants a Bed in City Shelters Under New Unified Approach: Mayor.” WTTV News, October 21, 2024. https://news.wttw.com/2024/10/21/ chicago-will-no-longer-guarantee-migrants-bed-city-shelters-under-new-unified-approach

2 “Mayor Emanuel Introduces Welcoming City Ordinance: Ensure Trust And Good Relationships Between Chicago’s Immigrant Communities, Regardless Of Immigration Status.” Mayor’s Press Office, July 10, 2012.

https://www.chicago.gov/city/en/ depts/mayor/press_room/press_releases/2012/july_2012/mayor_emanuel_introduceswelcomingcityordinance.html

tion with federal immigration’s deportation of immigrants living in Chicago.3 Chicago’s historic commitment to the image of a welcoming city continued to play a central role in policy as a new influx of migrants arrived.

In August of 2022, this narrative was taken advantage of by Texas Governor Greg Abbott who began a policy of putting migrants received at the southern border on buses to outof-state cities like Washington D.C., New York City, and Chicago.4 The policy’s purported goal was to provide relief to Texas border communities from then-President “Biden’s ongoing border crisis.”5 After the arrival of the first 76 migrants to Chicago, Lightfoot stood by Chicago’s identity as a welcoming city, asserting that anyone coming to Chicago would be taken care of, would find shelter, and be welcomed.6 Ryan Johnson, the mayor’s deputy director of communications at the time, said, “This is not new; Chicago wel-

3 Pathieu, Diane, and Michella Gallardo. “Mayor Lori Lightfoot signs updated Welcoming City Ordinance, adding protections for undocumented residents.” ABC 7 Chicago, February 23, 2021.

https://abc7chicago.com/chicago-welcoming-city-ordinance-lori-lightfoot-mayor-news/10364297/

4 Melhado, William. ‘Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot’s office calls Gov. Greg Abbott’s migrant busing strategy “racist.”’ The Texas Tribune, August 31, 2022.

https://www.texastribune. org/2022/08/31/texas-migrant-buses-chicago-lori-lightfoot/

5 Id.

6 Yin, Alice, Dan Petrella, Gregory Royal Pratt, Nell Salzman. “A year in, Chicago’s migrant crisis exacerbated by City Hall and state delays, hefty contracts and questionable decisions.” Chicago Tribune, March 11, 2024.

https://www.chicagotribune. com/2023/09/02/a-year-in-chicagosmigrant-crisis-exacerbated-by-city-halland-state-delays-hefty-contracts-andquestionable-decisions/

comes hundreds of migrants every year to our city and provides much-needed assistance.”7 The incoming number, though, would surpass the triple digits. By January 6th of this year, Chicago would record having received a final total of 51,779 migrants since August of 2022.8 The last bus from Texas would arrive in June 2024 (as reported in October 2024).9 This years-long influx would produce a migrant housing crisis for the city. The administrations of Mayor Lori Lightfoot, and eventually Brandon Johnson, scrambled to find facilities and resources to house the arriving migrants. The arriving migrants were housed in makeshift shelters, sleeping on the floors of O’Hare International Airport, various Chicago police stations, and other repurposed buildings.10 By May 2023, Lightfoot would issue a declaration of emergency to allow for the allocation of emergency funds to address the mounting numbers of arriving immigrants.11 Bran-

7 Melhado, William. ‘Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot’s office calls Gov. Greg Abbott’s migrant busing strategy “racist.”’ The Texas Tribune, August 31, 2022.

8 “A Welcoming City: Chicago’s New Arrivals.” 40th Ward City Council. https://40thward.org/city-council/ new-arrivals/#new-arrivals-data

9 Cherone, Heather. “Chicago Will No Longer Guarantee Migrants a Bed in City Shelters Under New Unified Approach: Mayor.” WTTV News, October 21, 2024.

10 Yin, Alice, Dan Petrella, Gregory Royal Pratt, Nell Salzman. “A year in, Chicago’s migrant crisis exacerbated by City Hall and state delays, hefty contracts and questionable decisions.” Chicago Tribune, March 11, 2024.

11 “Mayor Lightfoot Issues Declaration of Emergency in Response to Influx of New Arrivals.” City of Chicago Press Office, May 9, 2023.

https://www.chicago.gov/city/en/ depts/mayor/press_room/press_releas-

EXCLUDING MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING: CHICAGO ZONING LAWS

holds identify with this definition.9 And with little development in the supply of multi-family the housing burden has yet to see a large decrease. With roughly 79%10 of Chicago housing being single-family zoned, but two-thirds of Chicago being housing burdened, a clear problem arises. Illinois Policy reported that “Early data has already shown these new requirements hurt construction…” urging that the ordinances, “are inspiring new workarounds and limiting contributions – ultimately reducing housing supply and hurting affordability.” The issue lies within the city’s failure to adhere to the needs of their communities which account for a large portion of the city population.

It is time to start thinking about how multi-family buildings and hous-

9 Estabine, LyLena.“Inclusionary zoning’ excludes Chicago’s poor from housing,” Illinois Policy, November 28, 2024. 10 Rodkin, Dennis. “Beyond Chicago: ‘One household, one yard’ no more,” Crain’s Chicago Business, July 25, 2019.

ing are being affected by “inclusionary” zoning laws and what that means for Chicago. As a city with a predominant low-income community, underfunded families need to have housing available to them to sustain their family and the current environment in Chicago. It is important to start zoning out sectors and using materials to provide for those in need, not just those in want. Inclusionary zoning laws that have been established in Chicago since 2007 leading up to the present day have been marketed to be a solution to the housing crisis in Chicago–creating more affordable housing for lower-income households. While it may seem that the inclusionary zoning laws exist to benefit those with a lower income in Chicago, they are contributing to housing segregation and perpetuating more gentrification in the lower-income portions of Chicago. From the zoning space taken to establish single-family housing to the zoning restrictions put in place. Only around CONTINUED FROM PAGE

21% of the city is currently zoned for multi-family housing, with single-family buildings taking up zoning space that could be better utilized for maximum capacity. These acts require substantial funding, resources, and land.11 The city of Chicago must take action to develop zoning that is inclusive to all housing situations, rather than attempting to solve the housing crisis through implementing single-home buildings. With housing prices increasing year after year, those who are housing-burdened in Chicago are left with little to no housing options; leaving the community to wonder how can low-income families successfully sustain themselves within Chicago.

11 Wade, Stephanie and Chatman, Samantha. “City Council members introduce ordinance to make finding affordable housing easier,” ABC Eyewitness News, September 25, 2024.

| cover illustration by lia yufei he

CHICAGO’S “ONE SYSTEM INITIATIVE”: PURPORTED PRINCIPLE AS POLITICS

CONTINUED FROM PAGE 89

don would inherit the crisis and would similarly struggle, often failing to meet self-imposed deadlines for moving migrants out of police stations.12 As the crisis built up over time and the migration influx’s demand for more resources became the status quo, criticisms built up among some local Chicago residents. In one example of community tension, residents near one newly organized shelter felt slighted by the government and erupted in outrage in early 2023 when resources were quickly directed to welcoming newcomers in a building that was meant to be for job training.13 Johnson would respond to these mounting concerns with the implementation of a 60-day limit on shelter stays for migrants in November 2023. He announced it as “A promise to never sacrifice the needs of Chicagoans in support of those who wish to become Chicagoans. Chicago, I heard you, and I hear you.”14

The logistical and political housing crisis would eventually recede with the wave of migration. The arriving numbers decreased and migrants exited shelters, making the relative size es/2023/may/DeclarationEmergencyResponseInfluxNewArrivals.html

12 Yin, Alice, Dan Petrella, Gregory Royal Pratt, Nell Salzman. “A year in, Chicago’s migrant crisis exacerbated by City Hall and state delays, hefty contracts and questionable decisions.” Chicago Tribune, March 11, 2024.

13 Barón-López, Laura, Sam Weber, and Ryan Connelly Holmes. “How Chicago Residents Feel About the City’s Response to a Migrant Surge.” PBS News, August 16, 2024.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/ how-chicago-residents-feel-about-thecitys-response-to-a-migrant-surge

14 Horng, Eric. “Chicago Migrants will have 60-day Limit to Shelter Stays, Mayor Johnson Announces.” ABC 7 Chicago, November 15, 2023.

https://abc7chicago.com/chicago-migrant-crisis-how-to-help-migrants-inshelters-brandon-johnson/14066939/

of the city’s once massive concerns shrink.15 In this new context, Mayor Johnson announced plans in October 2024 for the eventual implementation of Chicago’s “One System Initiative” by January 1, 2025.16 The new initiative combined the systems for processing newly arriving migrants and longtime residents into one system.17 Billed as “cost-effective, equitable and strategic”, the system’s homeless capacity would be 6,800. The homeless sheltering capacity at the time of the announcement was 8,000, with 5,000 of those being migrants.18 The administration addressed the scaling down, estimating that 4,000 people in need of beds would not be able to be served.19 As soon as the plan was announced advocates criticized its lack of resources beyond even the lack of bed space.20 The availability of language access, a known logistical problem for

15 “A Welcoming City: Chicago’s New Arrivals.” 40th Ward City Council. https://40thward.org/city-council/ new-arrivals/#new-arrivals-data

16 Cherone, Heather. “Chicago Will No Longer Guarantee Migrants a Bed in City Shelters Under New Unified Approach: Mayor.” WTTV News, October 21, 2024. https://news.wttw.com/2024/10/21/ chicago-will-no-longer-guarantee-migrants-bed-city-shelters-under-new-unified-approach

17 Wall, Craig and Sarah Schulte, “Chicago to merge migrant New Arrivals shelter program with state homeless system” ABC 7 Chicago, October 21, 2024. https://abc7chicago.com/post/chicagomigrants-city-merge-new-arrivals-shelter-program-state/15450230/

18 “A Welcoming City: Chicago’s New Arrivals.” 40th Ward City Council. https://40thward.org/city-council/ new-arrivals/#new-arrivals-data

19 Id.

20 Bediako, Abena. “Advocates Push Back Against City’s New Shelter Approach for Migrants, Unhoused Chicagoans.” WTTW News, November 14, 2024 https://news.wttw.com/2024/11/14/ advocates-push-back-against-city-s-newshelter-approach-migrants-unhousedchicagoans

the city of Chicago, would only be expected to compound with questions of “track[ing] somebody who no longer has a place to live..[and]..figur[ing] out how [to] get in contact with them again if they do need the services.”21 In the larger view of things, advocates point out that sheltering resources merely represent a Band-Aid for the larger issue of funding affordable housing.22 Johnson, evidently cognizant of the program’s shortcomings, emphasized the limits of the city budget in announcing it, pointing to the failure of a ballot measure known as Bring Chicago Home that would have allowed the raising of property taxes. Johnson blamed this failure on “stingy and greedy corporations.”23 Nonetheless, Johnson touted the new phase as a sign of success, saying, “We fought back and showed the world just how welcoming we can be.”24

The new initiative continues the now decades-long tradition of Chicago’s commitment to the image of an immigrant-welcoming city. As a policy manifestation of a political commitment, it comes as a product of political demands. As a short-term solution for homelessness in Chicago and the housing of arriving immigrants, the new system is limited in its impact. Nonetheless, it accomplishes for Mayor Brandon Johnson the commitment Chicago mayors have been making since Rahm Emmanuel, to make the city of Chicago a welcoming city for immigrants.

21 Id.

22 Id.

23 Cherone, Heather. “Chicago Will No Longer Guarantee Migrants a Bed in City Shelters Under New Unified Approach: Mayor.” WTTV News, October 21, 2024. https://news.wttw.com/2024/10/21/ chicago-will-no-longer-guarantee-migrants-bed-city-shelters-under-new-unified-approach

24 Id.

ULM is a Registered 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.