What principles should courts keep in mind when inquiring into a defendant’s financial situation? In this Contribution, Leah Romm (’19) discusses the equal protection and due process challenges to incarcerating individuals because of their inability to pay fees or fines. Ultimately, this Contribution argues that courts are constitutionally required to inquire into and determine the financial status of individuals who fail to pay the fees or fines they owe.
How should courts address the contradiction between the preemption rules for pre-1972 recordings in the Copyright Act and the safe harbors in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act? In this Contribution, Ari Lipsitz (’18) analyzes the statutory conflict between these provisions and examines how courts have dealt with issues under these statutes. Ultimately, this Contribution discusses the potential effects of the Second Circuit’s decision in Capitol Records v. Vimeo and proposes legislative reform and judicial interpretations to protect internet policy and copyright law.
Under what standard should courts of appeals review decisions of the Board of Immigration Appeals regarding supporting documentation in asylum cases? In this Contribution, Deirdre Dlugoleski (’19) explains the role of supporting documentation entered into evidence in asylum cases by the applicant, the government, and the Immigration Judge and the standard for admission. The Contribution argues that the scope of substantial evidence review of supporting documentation should be broad, and that courts play an important role in holding the BIA accountable for basing its decisions on reliable information.
How should police officers take into account the different needs of a person with disabilities during an arrest? In this Contribution, Andrew Breland (’18) examines the role of the Americans with Disabilities Act in governing arrests and investigations by police of persons with disabilities. Ultimately, this Contribution argues that the ADA’s reasonable accommodation requirement modifies what searches and seizures of individuals with disabilities are considered reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
In a capital case, can a defense attorney, against his client’s express objections, concede his client’s guilt to the jury? In this Contribution, Rona Li (’19) discusses the trial strategy of a defense attorney conceding guilt to avoid a death sentence and the conflict with his client’s Sixth Amendment right to conduct his own defense. Ultimately, this Contribution argues that when a defense attorney admits his client’s guilt to the jury over his client’s unequivocal objection, he violates the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to make fundamental decisions about his case, and further, that his actions constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.
When an automobile is parked in a driveway in the curtilage of the home, does the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment still apply? In this Contribution, Kristin Mulvey (’19) argues that the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment should not apply when the vehicle is in the curtilage of the home. Further, this Contribution demonstrates that the underlying justifications for the automobile exception do not support a warrantless search of an automobile parked in a driveway.
How should police officers take into account the different needs of a person with disabilities during an arrest? In this Contribution, Conor Gaffney (’18) examines the role of the Americans with Disabilities Act in governing arrests and investigations by police of persons with disabilities. Ultimately, this Contribution argues that the ADA’s reasonable accommodation requirement modifies what searches and seizures of individuals with disabilities are considered reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
To what extent can state actors limit an individual’s Second Amendment right after District of Columbia v. Heller? In this Contribution, Deepa Devanathan (’19) argues that to properly balance Second Amendment rights with a State’s need to protect people from gun violence, gun permit schemes that cover both open carry and concealed carry must include a procedural right to appeal permit denials and “good cause” requirements to get permits.
In 2008, federal trial and appellate courts found against the NFL Players Association on the appeal of an arbitrator’s decision on the grounds that the league and policy administrators had breached their fiduciary duties to players. The trial court held that the steroid policy’s strict liability regime precluded any breach of fiduciary duties, and the Eighth Circuit found on appeal that plaintiffs had failed to offer authority under New York law for a public policy encouraging the performance of fiduciary duties. Did the NFL case get it right? In this Contribution, John Muller (’19) argues that to preserve New York’s public policy, courts should set aside the result of arbitration under a collective bargaining agreement on state common law grounds in these breach of fiduciary duty cases.
When patent holders gain standard-essential status, should antitrust law treat the monopoly conferred on them like every other monopoly? In this Contribution, Randi Brown (’19) argues that the best approach to such monopolies is not to expose them to antitrust scrutiny, but instead to allow contract and patent remedies to maintain the benefits to competition and innovation afforded by standardization.