connecticutprelawland-blog

[connecticutprelawland-blog]

NY Governor Andrew Cuomo Resigns Amidst Sexual Harassment Allegations

By Joe DeLollo, Wesleyan University Class of 2022

August 24, 2021

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo announced his resignation this past week after a cascade of sexual harassment allegations. His resignation follows a period of glory where he was hailed across the nation for his leadership and daily briefings during the Covid-19 pandemic.[1] The resignation ends a three-term governorship for the 63-year-old.

The announcement came a week after New York State Attorney General Letitia James released a report concluding that Cuomo sexually harassed nearly a dozen women. Several of the women accusing him are current and former government workers, who claim he made inappropriate comments and engaged in unwanted touching. Investigators stated that he had subjected women to unconsented kissing, groped their breasts or buttocks, and made insinuating remarks about their looks and sex life.[2] The report, which was 165 pages long, also found that the governor and his aides unlawfully retaliated against at least one of the women for her complaints and thus fostered a toxic work environment.[3] In a speech given by speaker of the State Assembly, Carl E. Heastie, earlier last week, he made it clear that there is no deal to be made that would allow the governor to avoid an impeachment, which was becoming increasingly inevitable. Cuomo talked with his advisers, one of which being President Joe Biden, who all encouraged him that it would be in the state’s best interest for him to resign.[4] In his resignation speech, Cuomo stated,

“Given the circumstances, the best way I can help now is if I step aside and let government get back to governing,” the governor from his office in Midtown Manhattan. “And therefore, that’s what I’ll do.”[5]

With his resignation, impeachment and criminal charges are still possible, however impeachment is looking unlikely following his stepping down from office. One of his accusers has filed a criminal complaint and several prosecutors continue to investigate the case. The scandal not only ended his career as a politician, but a dynasty started by his father, Mario Cuomo, who served as New York governor in the 1980s and ‘90s.[6]

With Cuomo’s governorship coming to a close, Lt. Gov. Kathy Hochul will fill the position starting August 24th.[7] Hochul is a 62-year-old Democrat and former member of Congress from the Buffalo, NY area. She will be sworn in as New York’s 57th governor and will be the first woman to hold the position. A former Republican representative who served with her in Congress was asked to describe her: “Probably the best way to describe her, and it means something in today’s climate: She’s normal.”[8]

Some New Yorkers doubt her ability to run a government with a budget of $212 billion due to her little experience in politics outside of local positions. Others are optimistic in her abilities and believe she will be a great leader following the rapid decline of Cuomo’s career.[9]

______________________________________________________________

[1] https://apnews.com/article/andrew-cuomo-resigns-17161f546bb83c32a337036ecf8d2a34

[2] Ibid.

[3] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/10/nyregion/andrew-cuomo-resigns.html

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] https://apnews.com/article/andrew-cuomo-resigns-17161f546bb83c32a337036ecf8d2a34

[7] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/16/nyregion/kathy-hochul-governor-ny-cuomo.html

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ibid.

Photo Credit: Delta News Hub

[connecticutprelawland-blog]

Lawfulness of College’s Covid Vaccination Mandates

By Joe DeLollo, Wesleyan University Class of 2022

July 22, 2021

After a school year filled with many unknowns and constant change due to the Covid-19 pandemic, many colleges and universities are mandating that students be fully vaccinated before returning to campus in the fall. As of right now, that list comprises of 578 college or universities nationwide.[1] Many schools are now facing pushback from students that believe it’s not within the school’s right to require the vaccine.

Some students are taking it as far as filing lawsuits against the school due to the mandate. Indiana University recently released their rules regarding the vaccine: stating that all students, faculty, and staff must be fully vaccinated before returning to campus and those with medical or religious exemptions would need to undergo Covid-19 testing throughout the academic year. Shortly after the school released this news, eight students filed a lawsuit against the university. The students claimed that the vaccine requirement violated their 14th Amendment Rights and Indiana state law.[2]

The court ruled that it is indeed lawful for the university to require the vaccine on the grounds that the due process clause of the 14th Amendment allows the university to require vaccinations “in the legitimate interest of public health for its students, faculty, and staff.” This ruling provides support for public colleges that have imposed the vaccination mandate, however, its key legal findings don’t apply directly to the private sector.[3] The U.S. district judge assigned to the case, Judge Damon R. Leichty stated that the students’ right to refuse wasn’t a “fundamental” right that warrants the highest constitutional scrutiny. The court also stated that the university showed that it had a rational basis to conclude that the Covid-19 vaccine is safe for its students. Judge Leichty explained that the students failed to provide strong evidence that would call the reasonableness of the school’s actions into question. The plaintiffs also requested to bar the implementation of testing, social distancing, and mask requirements. The court, again, denied this request, stating that such a ruling would “expand substantive due process rights.” According to the students’ lawyer, the litigation on this matter is far from over. The group of students plan to appeal the order denying the preliminary injunction to the U.S Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.[4]

There are ways, however, to avoid receiving the vaccine and still live on campus in the fall. Many of the schools mandating the vaccine are allowing medical or religious exemptions. In fact, six of the eight students that filed the lawsuit have already been approved for exemptions.[5] Exemptions for the vaccine create another problem for schools as many of the students requesting an exemption simply don’t want the vaccine, with no medical issues or religious conflicts. Medical exemptions at most schools require a signature from a health provider, while religious exemptions are almost always based on the honor system. Nine states have already passed laws that prohibit schools to mandate the vaccine: Ohio, Tennessee, Alabama, Florida, Montana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Arizona, and Utah. [6]

While some people may disagree with the ruling, it is the schools right to mandate a vaccine. As previously stated, the litigation is far from over, however, it doesn’t look too promising for the eight Indiana students. Covid-19 has posed many challenges over the past year and a half, with this being another frontier to navigate.

______________________________________________________________

[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/colleges-universities-covid-vaccination-mandates-facing-pushback-n1273916

[2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/kimberleespeakman/2021/07/19/college-can-mandate-covid-19-vaccinations-federal-judge-rules/?sh=705395696a23

[3] https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/indiana-universitys-covid-vaccine-mask-mandates-likely-lawful

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/colleges-universities-covid-vaccination-mandates-facing-pushback-n1273916

[connecticutprelawland-blog]

Democratic U.S. Senators Push for Federal Marijuana Legalization

By Joe DeLollo, Wesleyan University Class of 2022

July 22, 2021

Senator Chuck Schumer, Senator Cory Booker, and Finance Chairman Rob Wyden released a discussion draft of their marijuana legalization bill in a press conference on June 14th. The bill is called the Cannabis Administration and Opportunity Act and if passed, would remove marijuana from the federal list of controlled substances.[1] Marijuana would be taxed and regulated on a federal level, while still giving states the ability to enforce their own laws regarding the possession, production, and distribution of the drug.[2]

Currently, there are 37 states that allow for medical use of marijuana and 18 states that allow recreational use. The bill would require a new definition of cannabis and would move oversight of cannabis from the Drug Enforcement Administration to the Food and Drug Administration, the same regulators that overlook alcohol and tobacco. The draft stated that the legal age to buy cannabis would be 21 years old and that retail sales transactions would be limited to 10 ounces of marijuana at a time.[3]

Another important facet of the bill is that it would allow cannabis companies to start using banking services and trade on major stock exchanges, a big step for an industry whose growth has been stunted due to federal regulations.[4] Allowing these companies to hold bank accounts and loans, take tax deductions, and list on U.S. stock exchanges would help overcome the regulatory burdens that they have previously faced as well as allow them to grow as businesses and as an industry. Some cannabis company’s stock increased significantly in anticipation of the release of this draft, with some rising as much as 4.5 percent on Tuesday.[5]

A reoccurring question posed prior to the announcement of the draft was how to deal with those who have been previously convicted of marijuana possession charges. The draft states that federal convictions for nonviolent marijuana offenses would be expunged.[6] Additionally, it stated that some tax revenue generated form marijuana sales would be directed to minority communities who have faced disproportionate arrests for possession of cannabis in the past.[7]

A Managing Director at a private equity firm stated, “Our main concern over this current legislation (Cannabis Administration and Opportunity Act) is around the ability to get it passed in the Senate.”[8] Previous proposals to legalize cannabis have stalled due to a lack of Republican support. This new proposal is much more comprehensive in how it addresses regulations.[9] There has been a rapid incline in proponents of the drugs legalization. In 1969, Gallup polling found that only 12 percent of Americans supported the legalization, while a 2020 poll showed that 68 percent of Americans now support it.[10] Even Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, one of the court’s most conservative judges, wrote that the federal laws prohibiting the use or cultivation of cannabis may no longer be applicable. Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer stated, “The Senate has to catch up with the American people.”[11]

Schumer had previously said that it was his goal to enact the legislation by April 20th, although this is a lofty goal as he still does not have the backing of the White House.[12] Even with the growing support of the American people, it is unlikely that the bill will pass, according to Greg Hayman, founder of a cannabis investment firm. In order for this bill to take effect, it would need to pass both the Senate and House of Representatives, as well as signed by President Joe Biden. A final legislative draft will be introduced soon and feedback regarding the discussion draft will be accepted until September 1st.[13]

______________________________________________________________

[1] https://news.bloomberglaw.com/cannabis/senate-democrats-put-legalizing-marijuana-on-legislative-agenda?context=article-related

[2] https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-senate-democrats-release-discussion-draft-federally-legalize-cannabis-2021-07-14/

[3] Ibid.

[4] https://news.bloomberglaw.com/cannabis/schumers-pot-bill-said-to-open-up-banking-stock-exchanges

[5] Ibid.

[6] https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/senate-democrats-rolling-out-draft-bill-end-federal-marijuana-ban-n1273895

[7] https://news.bloomberglaw.com/cannabis/schumers-pot-bill-said-to-open-up-banking-stock-exchanges

[8] https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-senate-democrats-release-discussion-draft-federally-legalize-cannabis-2021-07-14/

[9] https://news.bloomberglaw.com/cannabis/schumers-pot-bill-said-to-open-up-banking-stock-exchanges

[10] https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/senate-democrats-rolling-out-draft-bill-end-federal-marijuana-ban-n1273895

[11] Ibid.

[12] https://news.bloomberglaw.com/cannabis/senate-democrats-put-legalizing-marijuana-on-legislative-agenda?context=article-related

[13] https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-senate-democrats-release-discussion-draft-federally-legalize-cannabis-2021-07-14/

Photo Credit: PumpkinButter

[connecticutprelawland-blog]

Lawsuits Filed in Miami Condo Collapse

By Joe DeLollo, Wesleyan University Class of 2022

July 1, 2021

In the middle of the night on Thursday, June 24, a condominium building collapsed unexpectedly in Miami, Florida. For the past week, rescue teams have worked tirelessly to search through the rubble in hopes of finding survivors.  To this point, the death toll has reached 12 people with 149 people still unaccounted for.[1] The collapse triggered the largest deployment of task force resources in Florida, excluding hurricanes, according to Jimmy Patronis, Florida chief financial officer and fire marshal.[2] The clean-up and recovery efforts have been complicated by weather and safety concerns. Rain in the days following the collapse led to portions of the rubble to flood and difficult to access. In addition, moving the cement must be done carefully to ensure that it doesn’t lead to more damage.[3] Both of these factors have slowed the recovery and clean-up process.

A collapse of an occupied building, absent from a bomb or natural disaster, is rare and investigators are having a difficult time trying to understand what caused the collapse with such little warning. While it is too early to tell with certainty, investigators are focusing in on a spot in the lower part of the condominium complex, possibly in the parking garage, as the catalyst for the structural avalanche. In what’s called a “progressive collapse,” a gradual spread of failures could have been caused by a variety of factors, including design flaws or less robust construction that was allowed under the building codes of four decades ago when the building was erected.[4] However, there were signs in years prior that could have pointed to deficiencies in the structural integrity of the building. A 2018 engineer’s report noted several areas with visible structural damage but wasn’t considered a threat at the time. What open’s eyes is a letter in April of 2021 from the condo’s board president to residents stating that the damage described above had gotten significantly worse. The same letter explained a $15 million assessment that the condo owners were to pay for the repairs to the building, payments starting on July 1st.[5]

There have been three lawsuits filed against the Champlain Towers South Condominium Association. The first lawsuit was filed by a resident, Manuel Drezner, who asked for $5 million as the condo association failed to “secure and safeguard the lives and property” of the residents.[6] The second lawsuit, filed by another resident, is seeking unspecified monetary damages and a jury trial. This suit states that it was the duty of the association to hire “competent contractors, inspectors, engineers, and other appropriate persons and corporations to perform its required maintenance and repair duties if it was not performing the activities itself.”[7] The third and final lawsuit (as of now) was filed on June 28 and is also seeking unspecified monetary damages as well as a jury trial. No news outlet has been able to get a hold of the association’s officials for a comment. [8]

There are still many questions to be answered as to what exactly caused the building to collapse. The residents of the building, as well as loved ones of those lost or unaccounted for are demanding answers. However, with over 100 people still unaccounted for, the focus will be on continuing to work tirelessly to clear the rubble in hopes of finding survivors.

______________________________________________________________

[1] https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/29/us/miami-dade-building-collapse-tuesday/index.html

[2] https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/06/28/us/building-collapse-miami-beach

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/29/us/miami-dade-building-collapse-tuesday/index.html

[6] https://www.local10.com/news/local/2021/06/28/lawsuit-filed-against-surfside-condo-association-by-resident-who-survived-collapse/

[7] Ibid.

[8] https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/29/us/miami-dade-building-collapse-tuesday/index.html

[connecticutprelawland-blog]

Supreme Court Backs (Some) Payments to Student-Athletes in NCAA Case

By Joe DeLollo, Wesleyan University Class of 2022

June 21, 2021

For the past six or so years, the debate of whether college athletes should be paid has been a hot topic in the world of sports. While some believe that athletes are not fairly compensated for the amount of money that they provide their schools, others believe that educational scholarships are more than enough. The controversy eventually worked its way up the judicial system and reached the Supreme Court. Athletes have long argued that the NCAA operates a system that violates the nation’s antitrust laws, while the NCAA argues that they are exempt from such laws because they are committed to preserving amateurism in college sports.[1]

On June 21, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the rules of the NCAA are not reasonably necessary to distinguish between collegiate and professional sports.[2] This ruling upheld a district court judge’s decision that the NCAA was indeed violating antitrust laws by limiting the education-related benefits that schools can provide to their athletes. The decision will now allow schools to provide their athletes with unlimited compensation as long as it is related to their education in some way.[3]

While this ruling only deals with education-related benefits, its logic leads some to believe that the court may be open to challenging the ban on paying the athletes that bring in billions of dollars to American colleges and universities.[4] Justice Brett Kavanaugh published a concurrent opinion that supports this idea.

“Nowhere else in America can businesses get away with agreeing not to pay their workers a fair market rate on the theory that their product is defined by not paying their workers a fair market rate,” Justice Kavanaugh wrote. “And under ordinary principles of antitrust law, it is not evident why college sports should be any different. The NCAA is not above the law.”[5]

However, due to some state officials that grew tired of the NCAA limiting the rights of players, athletes in six states will be able to earn money off their names, images, and likeness as early as next week.[6] Student-athletes in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, New Mexico and Texas will be able to make endorsements and monetize their social media accounts, for example. Although it is a step forward for athletes and their supporters, the NCAA has not granted similar rights to players nationwide.[7]

Monday’s Supreme Court decision allowing athletes to be paid through education-related benefits raises questions about how it could affect the landscape of college sports. The NCAA is free to articulate what can and can’t be considered educational benefits. However, the amount of these benefits can’t be regulated by the NCAA. Some have already argued that if it is up to individual conferences to set standards in terms of compensation, this will create a competition among conferences and affect recruiting.[8] Ultimately, it could lead to the best players going to the same “power five” conferences because they have the most money or benefits to offer.

Players and proponents of the compensation of college athletes are hoping that this ruling will swing the doors open to further change, “so that we can finally see a fair and competitive compensation system in which these incredible players get to benefit from the economic fruits of their labors and pursue their educational objectives.”[9]

______________________________________________________________

[1] https://www.npr.org/2021/06/21/1000310043/the-supreme-court-sides-with-ncaa-athletes-in-a-narrow-ruling

[2] Ibid.

[3] https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/31679946/supreme-court-sides-former-players-dispute-ncaa-compensation

[4] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/21/us/supreme-court-ncaa-student-athletes.html

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid.

[8] https://www.npr.org/2021/06/21/1000310043/the-supreme-court-sides-with-ncaa-athletes-in-a-narrow-ruling

[9] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/21/us/supreme-court-ncaa-student-athletes.html

[connecticutprelawland-blog]

Reinstatement of Capital Punishment for Boston Marathon Bomber

By Joe DeLollo, Wesleyan University Class of 2022

June 21, 2021

The 2013 Boston Marathon Bombing, carried out by Dzhokhar Tsarnaev with help from his brother Tamerlan Tsarnaev, left three people dead while injuring 264 others. Dzhokhar, an immigrant of Chechen origin, was convicted of all 30 charges brought against him and was sentenced to six death sentences and 11 concurrent life sentences.[1] However, due to improper questioning of prospective jurors, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston rescinded the death penalty sentences.[2] The trial judge failed to ask prospective jurors whether the media or any other influences had altered their opinions of the case. He instead relied on self-declarations of impartiality by the jurors, which was problematic as some jurors had admitted before the trial that they had already decided on a guilty verdict. The judge also excluded evidence during the trial’s penalty phase that the older brother, Tamerlan, was involved in a prior triple murder.[3]  

The U.S. Department of Justice under the Trump administration had requested to review the federal appeals court decision that overturned the death sentences. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the government’s appeal on March 22, 2021 after rescheduling the case for consideration six different times.[4]

The current U.S. Department of Justice, under the administration of Joe Biden, has also supported the reinstatement of the death sentence for Tsarnaev in a brief filed June 14, 2021. The brief stated that the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Boston had wrongly vacated the death sentence and demanded a new sentencing hearing.[5] The Department of Justice brief conflicts with the views of President Biden, who pledged to push for the elimination of the death penalty in the federal system during his presidential campaign. Andrew Bates, a White House spokesperson, told news outlets that Biden believes that the DOJ “should return to its prior practice and not carry out executions.” However, the department has independence in making such decisions.[6]

The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case in consideration of two issues. The first of which is whether the 1st circuit made an error in ruling that the trial judge did not adequately screen jurors to identify any biases. The DOJ claimed that the process in selecting a jury was meticulous and was “carefully calibrated to identify juror bias.”[7]

The second issue that is to be considered is whether the trial judge erred in excluding evidence that Tamerlan Tsarnaev, who died in a manhunt after the bombings, was allegedly involved in a triple murder in years prior. This evidence was offered to show that the younger brother was less to blame for the bombings than his older brother was. The 1st Circuit claimed that the exclusion of the evidence was an abuse of discretion on behalf of the trial judge. The DOJ, of course, disagreed and stated that the judge correctly decided that the evidence had “minimal probative value” that was “outweighed by the danger of confusing or distracting the jury.”[8] The DOJ ended the brief by proposing that the Supreme Court should reverse the decision of the 1st circuit to vacate the capital sentence and “and put this case back on track toward a just conclusion.”[9]

______________________________________________________________

[1] https://www.npr.org/2021/03/22/979951518/supreme-court-to-hear-appeal-of-boston-marathon-bombers-vacated-death-sentences

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/news/u-s-supreme-court-to-review-federal-appeals-court-decision-that-overturned-death-sentence-in-boston-marathon-bombing

[5] https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/justice-department-brief-says-supreme-court-should-reinstate-death-penalty-for-boston-bomber

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ibid

[connecticutprelawland-blog]

False Convictions And The Innocence Project

By Joe DeLollo, Wesleyan University Class of 2022

June 15, 2021

Whether Americans choose to believe it or not, the fact of the matter is that there have been tens of thousands of wrongful convictions in our nation in the past two decades alone. People have lost their lives, or years of their lives, due to a prison sentence for a crime that they had never committed. These false convictions have taken place in every state for a variety of crimes over the years. Thankfully, the emergence of DNA evidence has been the basis for exonerations nationwide. Among the states with the highest number of exonerations since 1989 are Texas (363), Illinois (303), New York (281), and California (205).[1] The states with the lowest number of exonerations in the same period include New Hampshire (1), Vermont (2), Delaware (3), and Maine (3).[2] The most common crimes for which individuals are falsely convicted are murder and sexual assault, making up 38% and 13% of exonerations, respectively.[3] A wrongful conviction could happen to anyone, which should be enough reason for concern among the American people.

While there are many reasons for wrongful convictions, the most common include witnesses lying in court, misleading forensic science, inadequate lawyers, defendants with mental disabilities, and racial bias.[4]  These aspects can often lead defendants to produce false confessions, which is admitting to a crime that they didn’t commit. While it’s hard for the average citizen to imagine admitting to a crime that they didn’t commit, it’s a bit more complicated than it seems. The most common form of producing a false confession is through coercion when a defendant is being questioned. This was the case for five young boys of color, dubbed “the Central Park 5,” who were arrested and convicted of raping and beating a woman jogging in Central Park in April of 1989. Four of the five boys, the oldest being 16 and the youngest 14, confessed to committing the crime. The boys later rescinded their confessions stating that they only confessed due to duress; the young boys were deprived of food, drink, and sleep for more than 24 hours during questioning.[5] After serving sentences ranging from six to 13 years behind bars, the true culprit confessed to the crime after meeting one of the boys in jail. The five boys later sued the city of New York and received a settlement of $41 million dollars.[6] This case was popular in the media and was a catalyst for many exonerations to come.

Due to the nature of the topic, research on false confession is difficult to conduct and often takes the form of case studies or interviews with those who have given false confessions. Laboratory studies are difficult in this domain due to ethical considerations; however, some researchers have been able to isolate certain variables that are thought to contribute to these false confessions. For example, Saul Kassin and Katherine Kiechel conducted an experiment that examined if false incriminating evidence could lead people to accept guilt for something they didn’t do.[7] To do so, they had participants follow directions, pressing certain keys on a keyboard when directed. The participants were told that if they pressed the ALT key, then the computer would be damaged. There were two groups: a fast paced and a slower paced group. The participants were all accused of hitting the ALT key and damaging the computer, and initially all denied the accusation. Following this, a confederate told the participant that she had or had not seen them press the ALT key. Those in the fast-paced group were then more likely to internalize guilt for the event, sign a confession, and confabulate details about hitting the ALT key.[8] The results found in this study prove that when defendants are presented with false evidence, they are much more likely to confess to something they did not do.

Due to the recent nature of DNA evidence, exonerations are becoming increasingly popular with the help of organizations like The Innocence Project. The innocence project, founded in 1992, works to “exonerates the wrongly convicted through DNA testing and reforms the criminal justice system to prevent future injustice.”[9] To date, 375 people in the U.S. have been exonerated by DNA testing with the help of the Innocence project, 21 of which awaiting their execution on death row.[10] With help from organizations like these, it is possible to exonerate those who have been falsely convicted, as well as prevent these injustices from occurring as often in the future.

______________________________________________________________

[1] https://www.nealdavislaw.com/criminal-defense-guides/exonerations-by-state-2019.html

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] https://eji.org/issues/wrongful-convictions/

[5] https://www.history.com/topics/1980s/central-park-five

[6] Ibid.

[7] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1996.tb00344.x

[8] Ibid.

[9] https://innocenceproject.org/about/

[10] https://innocenceproject.org/exonerate/

[connecticutprelawland-blog]

The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Where Does the U.S. Stand?

By Joe DeLollo, Wesleyan University Class of 2022

June 15, 2021

Israelis and Palestinians have disputed over claims to the Holy Land for decades. This Holy Land, a Middle Eastern region, has had religious and historical ties to Jews, Muslims, and Christians for thousands of years. The problem is: both Jews and Muslims believe that they’re entitled to the land that is so significant to their past. There was an increasing number of Jews moving to Ottoman Palestine beginning in the early 20th century. This exodus was sparked by the publication of Theodor Herzl’s The Jewish State in 1896, which promoted escaping anti-Semitic Europe to a haven in their ancient homeland.[1] This was only accelerated after World War II and the killing of six million Jews by Nazi Germany.

Following decades of Arab-Jewish violence, in 1947, the UN General Assembly voted for the establishment of two states in Palestine: one Jewish and the other Arab.[2] Not long after this, the Jews living in Palestine declared Israel an independent state, resulting in hundreds of thousands more Jews emigrating there, while also leading to a war launched by neighboring Arab states. The dispute has flared into several forms of conflict including armed uprisings, terrorist acts, and multistate wars.[3] Today, this Holy region is home to over two million Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and three million in the West Bank, while Israel is home for about nine million residents. Because of religious implications, Jerusalem was also split into two cities. Israel claims all of Jerusalem as their capital while Palestinians only claim East Jerusalem as the capital of their state.[4] However, these two groups aren’t the only ones involved in this dispute.

The United States have long been an ally of Israel. The U.S. was actually the first country to recognize Israel as their own independent state in 1948, as well as the first to recognize Jerusalem as the Israeli capital in 2017. [5] This relationship between Israel and America has grown primarily due to their shared goals. These goals include securing essential energy sources, countering terrorism, promoting democracy, and reducing refugee flows. In turn, the United States has sought to resolve this conflict with these strategic objectives in mind and are now important drivers of the region’s dynamics.[6]

Following the Six-Day War in 1967, the United States began their attempt to mediate the conflict alongside western powers such as France, Britain, and Russia. However, it wasn’t until the 1973 war, where Jews were struggling to defend their land against neighboring Arab countries such as Egypt and Syria, that the U.S. took the lead in future diplomacy.[7] During this war, the U.S. backed Israel and arranged a ceasefire. This became an important turning point for American foreign policy as it led to Arab oil producers placing an embargo on the United States as well as a nuclear confrontation between the involved countries. Gaza and the West Bank were under Israeli military occupation starting in the 1970s and lasting into the 1990s.[8] Throughout this time there were talks of peace treaties, but as Israeli settlement increased, peace became less attainable. The U.S. acted as a neutral intermediary between the two conflicting groups throughout this time period.

For decades, the cornerstone of negotiations has been the two-state solution, which would provide Jews and Palestinians their own independent states with recognized and secure borders. This has been the U.S. policy since the George W. Bush administration as it would create a resolution for the conflicting groups as well as advance the regional interests of the U.S.[9] However, tides shifted when the Trump administration recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel as well as moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, which has long been a neutral city shared by Jews and Palestinians. The U.S. now provides $3.3 billion in foreign military financing and $500 million for missile defense annually to Israel.[10] President Trump proposed an Israel-Palestine peace deal in January of 2020 which granted Palestine limited sovereignty and gave Israel full control of Jerusalem. The proposal disregarded the two-state solution and was rejected quickly by Palestinian authorities. The Trump Administration did however broker the Abraham Accords, which brought peace between the U.A.E, Bahrain, and Israel.[11] As of late, the Biden administration has begun supporting a mutually agreed upon two-state solution. In April, Antony J. Blinken, U.S. Secretary of State, announced that the U.S. will provide $150 million in humanitarian aid to Palestinians as well as $75 million for economic development programs in Gaza and the West Bank.[12] It has been a long road for all parties involved and there is still much work to be done.

______________________________________________________________

[1] https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/what-us-policy-israeli-palestinian-conflict

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] https://www.state.gov/u-s-relations-with-israel/

[6] https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/what-us-policy-israeli-palestinian-conflict

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid.

[9] https://www.fp4america.org/israelpalestine

[10] https://fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33222.pdf

[11] https://www.fp4america.org/israelpalestine

[12] Ibid.

Photo Credit: Council on Foreign Relations

[connecticutprelawland-blog]

The Election And The Legal Parameters For The President

By Caleigh Ryan, Wesleyan University Class of 2022

August 31, 2020

The presidential election of 2020 is arguably the most important event to the future of the United States. President Donald J Trump has indicated that he is willing to go to great lengths to ensure that he remains in power. Moreover, there are legal boundaries in place to dictate what the president can and cannot do in regards to an upcoming election. Contrary to President Trump’s previous claims, he cannot legally postpone the election or the next presidential inauguration. [1] The dates for those events are set by law and the procedure is specified in the text of the Constitution. [2] With that said, there is some presidential “mischief” that can occur within the bounds of the law during election time. For example, even in the scenario that the democratic nominee, Joe Biden, wins the presidential election and assumes possession of the White House at noon on Inauguration Day of 2021, Trump and his administration will have had the time and means to manipulate the system to award themselves public resources and presidential privileges. In the past, the current administration has used its unique position to pardon Trump’s associates and family members from criminal charges. [3] At times, President Trump has seemed to view the law as something that does not necessarily apply to himself or his friends in the same way it does for every other American citizen.Public records have been hidden, “disappeared,” or made privatized. Additionally, there were attempts by the administration to sabotage the census in order to promote Republican redistricting after 2020 and improve Trump’s reelection chances. [4]  

Even though Americans have an array of attitudes towards President Trump, which are reflected in the current polls, there are significant tactical advantages to being a president running for their second term in office. Moreover, one of these advantages begins with the institutional powers of the office, specifically the president’s ability to federalize the National Guard and take military control of state voting sites. The Insurrection Act, an old statue, permits the president to take control of the National Guard in certain situations. Moreover, if the president determines that there are unlawful obstructions, partnerships, assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, he has the right call to federal services to restore order. The objective of mobilizing the National Guard is to enforce the laws of the United States in any state where it is impractical or very difficult to do so through the judicial system. In the past, this presidential power has been used by President Eisenhower to integrate the schools in Little rock Arkansas when the state government refused.  

In the case of the election, there are ways in which the current administration could delay and manipulate the voting process in a “technically” lawful manner. For example, it is conceivable that the attorney general sends federal marshals backed by the National Guard to seize votes by mail-in ballots, as the president has previously stated his intense mistrust of their lawfulness. This would produce a constitutional catastrophe and, in turn, delay the outcome of the election. [5] The states’ attorneys have already begun to formulate a plan to sue the administration over the implications of recent policy changes at the Postal Service. [6] Washington state is planning on filing first, and Pennsylvania and New York are expected to follow. However, much of the state’s legal team’s agenda going forward is determined by the events of the upcoming weeks. While President Trump has publicly tweeted that the 2020 election should be delayed “until people can properly, securely, and safely vote,” no concrete action has been taken to make this unlawful idea into the reality. [7] Only time will tell how the election of 2020 is handled and if members of the government remain within the bounds of the law.

________________________________________________________________

[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/07/how-2020-election-could-go-wrong/614842/

[2] ibid.

[3] ibid.

[4] ibid.

[5] ibid.

[6] https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/08/16/us/election-trump-vs-biden

[7] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/30/us/elections/biden-vs-trump.html

[connecticutprelawland-blog]

Voter Rights: Why They Are Important

By Caleigh Ryan, Wesleyan University Class of 2022

August 17, 2020

With the 2020 election approaching, there has been increasing discussion of the importance of the right to exercise the vote. It is every citizen’s right to use their vote to impact the presidential election. However, our nation has a history of attempting to prevent particular groups of citizens from voting. The United States was founded on system which classified certain members of society as more less or important depending on the color of their skin, their gender, and their financial status. Originally, voting was only limited to white men,above the age of 21, and those who owned land. [1] In 1868, the 14th Amendment was passed,which granted full citizen rights, including voting rights, to “all men born and naturalized in the United States.” While this was an important step towards greater inclusion in the voting process, many groups of Americans remained prohibited from the opportunity to vote. Later on, in 1870, the 15th amendment of the Constitution was passed, which banned voting barriers based upon race. [2] However, many states continued to practice voter discrimination; they employed tactics such as poll taxes, literacy tests, fraud, and intimidation to prevent certain groups of citizens from voting. [3] As a result, while this amended law stated that more Americans had the privilege to vote, this was not reflected across the nation. In 1920, the 19th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified, which finally gave women the right to vote in every state.  Subsequently, the Indian Citizenship Act granted Native Americans citizenship and voting rights. [4]

As time progressed, more amendments were made to the Constitution in order to suspend tactics of voter suppression. Voter suppression is any attempt, both legal or illegal, to prevent and restrict eligible voters from voting. [5] Overtime, the ways of voter suppression have changed and evolved to take on different forms. Decades ago, voter suppression was often displayed by demanding citizens take tests, which required a certain level of educational experience and financial means. However, white residents, even those who were low income and poorly educated, were exempt from these tests due to “grandfather clauses.” [6] These provisions stated that anyone who was eligible to vote before the 15th amendment did not have to take these tests to vote in elections.  Consequently, citizens of color were the ones who primarily experienced the unfair ramifications of these difficult tests. Even as the nation’s federal laws became more progressive and inclusive, state requirements led to the systematic exclusion of people from electoral participation. These tactics helped to ensure that the nation’s democratic institutions and policies remained racially homogenous and beneficial to the groups of Americans in power. [7] The civil rights movement made significant strides towards voting equality, including the Voting Rights Act of 1965, known as a landmark, legislative victory. This act allowed civil rights leaders to coordinate with the federal government and gain the tools needed to break free from the grip of Jim Crow laws. [8] However, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was unable to completely free citizens of color from the impact of centuries of structural racism present in the country. Federal and state lawmakers found innovative new methods to suppress the vote. For example, lawmakers in California, Florida, Illinois, Michigan, Mississippi, Nevada, North Carolina, and South Carolina made it more difficult to vote by restraining registration drives. [9]

Voter suppression is far from an issue left in the past. In recent years, the United States has experienced a resurgence of voter suppression. Moreover, in 2013, the US supreme court approved laws that eliminated “core voting rights protections” taking a major step backwards in voting equity advancements. [10] Specifically, the ruling of the case Shelby County v. Holder invalidated decades-old “coverage formulas,” which highlighted parts of the country that were vulnerable to federal scrutiny under the Voting Rights Act. [11] Many of these districts had a history of voter discrimination and using voter suppression tactics to silence particular groups of Americans. As could be expected, voter-identification laws have been enacted in several states, which will make it more difficult for poor people, people of color, and elderly people to vote.

In this upcoming election, efforts to suppress citizens’ votes will continue to occur. President Trump has publicly discussed how he believes vote by mail “absolutely opens the floodgates to fraud.” [13] However, for many citizens, vote by mail is their only option to exercise their right to vote. The President and his administration have vocalized their plans to be aggressive regarding voting-related lawsuits, which may transform into another wave of attempts to suppress the vote.

________________________________________________________________

[1] https://www.sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/history-of-voting-in-america-timeline.pdf

[2] ibid.

[3] ibid.

[4] ibid.

[5] https://www.demandthevote.com/what-is-voter-suppression

[6] https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/race/reports/2019/08/07/473003/systematic-inequality-american-democracy/

[7] ibid.

[8] ibid.

[9] ibid.

[10] ibid.

[11] https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/07/how-shelby-county-broke-america/564707/

[12] ibid.

[13]

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/trump-campaign-2020-voter-suppression-consent-decree-1028988/

[connecticutprelawland-blog]

Divorce And The Complexities Within The Judicial System

By Caleigh Ryan, Wesleyan University Class of 2022

August 14, 2020

Today, in the United States, 39% of all marriages end in a divorce. [1] This statistic seems alarmingly high but divorce can be caused by a series of issues including issues with finances, infidelity, and familial problems. While these matters are very private and deeply personal, there are many legal actions they must occur to abolish a marriage.In America, divorce is governed by the laws of the individual state in which it transpires. Moreover, divorce laws differ state to state, but in every state divorce proceedings are held. These proceedings consist of extensive matters, such as spousal support, child custody, child support, and distribution of property and debt. [2] Spouses filing for a divorce are required to present the court with a reason for the dissolution of marriage by demonstrating a fault by one of the parties involved. [3] However, all US states also grant “no fault” divorces, which usually ensue on the basis of “irreconcilable differences.” [4] This type of divorce indicates that neither spouse is required to prove that the other party has conducted marital misconduct.

During divorce proceedings, many legal issues can arise in determining how to address certain elements of the separation process. In 2019, there were multiple important family law cases and their decisions continue to impact future approaches to divorce law. For example, one case, Fattore vs. Fattore, was a “post-judgement matter where the court opened the door to the possibility of vacating a permanent waiver of alimony.” [5] This meant that one party of a divorce could eventually be released of the responsibility of paying alimony payments if certain conditions occur. Moreover, the Fattore vs. Fattore case questioned if the trial court committed an error by requiring the Mr. Fattore pay Mrs. Fattore her share of equitable distribution of his military pension from another asset or income, even though his pension no longer existed. [6] The appellate division determined that the decision in a previous divorce litigation, the case of Howell vs. Howell in 2017, should be upheld in this court case as well. Howell vs. Howell ruled that “federal law completely preempts state law from treating waived military pay as divisible community property.” [7] Therefore, the appellate division agreed with Mr. Fattore’s claim that the Howell vs. Howell trial made it clear that states are forbidden from regarding waived military retirement  pay as divisible community property.

This case illustrates how impactful previous legal decisions are on all future judicial decisions. In divorce litigation, there are constantly novel situations and conditions that must be addressed and reviewed by the courts. In the past two decades, judicial discretion in divorce cases has significantly grown. [8] Judges wield more considerable discretion in divorce cases than in any other type of civil ligation. As a result of the frequency of divorce proceedings, more Americans will be influenced by the judicial decisions in the purview of divorce than other civil spheres. Considering divorce proceedings can establish a child’s custody plan, a partner’s financial obligations, and ownership of assets, the influence of a judge on many Americans’ lives is not minor. The expansion of judicial discretion in divorce cases has been addressed with varied reactions and beliefs. Some citizens have argued that indeterminate judicial standards produce decisions that are inconsistent, inherently bias, and inevitably expensive. The process by which judicial decisions on divorces are made often vary depending on the judge’s age, sex, experience, and location. However, there has not been extensive research on how judges make their decisions considering that the majority of divorce cases are settled before reaching a court hearing. [9] In an empirical study conducted by Brooklaw, there was evidence found of regional variation, class bias, the intrusion of private values on the decision making process, and general unpredictability in judicial divorce proceedings. The researchers of this study found evidence to both support and contradict the claim of gender bias in the judicial decision making process. [10] Overall, the results of this empirical paper demonstrate the impact of the “natural evolution” of discretionary decision making. Moreover, while it is a point of controversy in the arena of divorce law, this type of subjunctive judicial approach occurs in all areas of the law. Divorce and the issues, questions, and unique conditions that come with it are often difficult for the judicial context to address. As society evolves, judges will be required to make subjective decisions regarding what they believe to be the lawful course of action in citizens’ lives.

________________________________________________________________

[1] https://www.smudailycampus.com/sponsoredcontent/promoted/how-frequently-are-people-divorcing-in-2020

[2] https://www.hg.org/divorce-law-center.html

[3] ibid,

[4]

[4] ibid.

[5] https://www.paonezaleski.com/the-ten-most-important-family-law-cases-reported-in-2019/

[6] ibid.

[7] ibid.

[8] https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1205&context=faculty

[9] ibid.

[10] ibid.

[connecticutprelawland-blog]

Antitrust Laws: Is It Time To Amend?

By Caleigh Ryan, Wesleyan University Class of 2022

August 7, 2020

The United States has a robust economic system, which aims to facilitate capitalism and, simultaneously, competition between businesses. While the government has a duty to remain completely uninvolved in business developments and progress, it also has an obligation to protect the interests of consumers. Antitrust laws are the legal prevention of harmful mergers or negotiations between companies, which may lead to the monopolization of an industry. These laws protect the “process of competition for the benefit of consumers, making sure there are strong incentives for businesses to operate efficiently, keep prices down, and keep quality up.” [1] The first antitrust law was passed by Congress in 1890, known as the Sherman Act.Subsequently, in 1914, two more antitrust laws were passed called the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Clayton Act. [2] While undergoing some revisions, these three main antitrust laws remain in effect today. Throughout the expansion of industries and the creation of completely novel trades, courts have used these laws to make decisions on cases for more than a century.

The Sherman Act outlaws the restriction of interstate commerce and competition in the market place. Additionally, it prohibits any attempted monopolization or conspiracy to limit trade with an industry. [4] Antitrust laws are usually enforced by United States’ attorneys in their respective districts. The penalties for violating this law can be harsh; considering the Sherman Act is criminal law, individuals and corporations that do not abide by this law can be prosecuted by the Department of Justice. This may encompass criminal monetary penalties of 100 million dollars for a corporation and extended jailtimes and additional fines for individuals within the corporation. [5] Decades ago, the Supreme Court declared that the Sherman Act does not ban every restraint of trade, but only those that are deemed “unreasonable.” [6] Moreover, if two parties come together to form a partnership to restrain trade, but it is not viewed as “unreasonable,” then it is regarded as lawful.

Secondly, the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTCA) prohibits “unfair methods of competition” and “unfair or deceptive acts or practices.” [7] In previous cases, the Supreme Court has set the precedent that all violations of the FTCA also violate the Sherman Act. As a result, while the FTCA does not necessary enforce the Sherman Act, it can try cases under the FTC Act that are comprised of actions that also defy the Sherman Act. [8] Thirdly, the Clayton Act includes specific activities that the Sherman Act does not explicitly prohibit. For example, the Clayton Act directly addresses mergers and forbids interlocking directorates, which consists of one person making businesses decisions for multiple competing companies. [9] Moreover, the Clayton Act wasamended to ban certain discriminatory prices, services, and negotiations between merchants. Subsequently, this act was amended again to require major corporations planning to participate in a merger or acquisition to notify the government of their actions in advance. [10] This amendment forces companies to include the government in their pursuits and allows the government to have more involvement in deals between corporations. While some people may argue that these laws restrict the economic freedom of individuals within major companies, these laws work to protect the United States’ economy from monopolization.

In current times, major corporations like Amazon, Apple, Google, and Facebook are dominating the United States’ economy. These four technology giants are worth nearly five trillion dollars combined and influence the daily lives of Americans. The chief executives of America’s four biggest technology companies recently went in front of Congress to defend their respective companies. They argued that their companies enrich the nation and the lives of American citizens. [11] However, house lawmakers presented these CEOs with evidence of their schemes to destroy younger, smaller competitors. While the hearings were confrontational, it is unclear if antitrust laws created over a century ago will be able to restrict these modern internet firms. [12] In the past, the government has used the standard of “consumer welfare” to determine if antitrust violations were occurring. Moreover, if prices were not increasing, the markets were likely competitive and beneficial for consumers. However, these technology giants have not driven up the costs of digital services or consumer goods. As a result, it is difficult for prosecutors to charge these corporations with violating antitrust laws. It seems that while amendments have been made to antitrust laws, changes have not occurred as quickly as industries have emerged and grown. In order to ensure that these laws continue to work to protect the rights of consumers and smaller businesses, antitrust laws must be amended.

________________________________________________________________

[1] https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/antitrust-laws

[2] ibid.

[3] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/sherman_antitrust_act

[4] https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/antitrust-laws

[5] ibid.

[6] ibid.

[7] ibid.

[8] ibid.

[9] ibid.

[10] ibid.

[11] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/31/technology/amazon-earnings.html

[12] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/29/technology/big-tech-hearing-apple-amazon-facebook-google.html

[connecticutprelawland-blog]

The Political And Legal Deliberation On The Environment

By Caleigh Ryan, Wesleyan University Class of 2022

July 28, 2020

The quality of the environment is a crucial element to human well being and the longevity of life. However, the prioritization of a healthy environment has become a political and legal debate. There have been countless steps made towards improving the condition of the atmosphere, including implementing regulations on the quantity and types of emissions that are permitted around the globe. Environmental issues are unique in that they affect all nations and places in the world, and therefore is not the responsibility of a single country or leader. Instead, many nations must collaborate and compromise on the most effective ways to improve the treatment of the atmosphere and prevent climate change.  One approach adopted by many nations in order to reach these objectives is called the Paris Agreement. [1] The Paris Agreement is an environmental landmark in the history of international relations; it aimed to substantially reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. [2] The construction of the agreement occurred in 2015 at the United Nations Framework Convention (UNFC) on Climate Change’s 21st Conference of parties. World leaders, who represented 195 nations, came to a consensus to commit to fighting climate change. [3] President Barak Obama formally entered the United States into the agreement under international law by the means of executive order. [4] The Paris Agreement did not create a completely new international law but instead, it reiterated the responsibilities previously written in No. Article 4 of the 1992 UNFC. [5] Therefore, a new round of Senate advice and consent was not necessary for President Obama to make the decision for the United States to partake in the agreement.

There have been many laws previously passed by Congress, which authorized plans to cut carbon pollution. [6] For example, the Clean Air Act (CAA)of 1970 allocated the Environmental Protection Agency the authority and responsibility to set standards to restrict carbon pollution from cars, trucks, power plants, and other sources. It also allowed the Environmental Protection Agency to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in order to protect public health and welfare. [7] One of the goals of this act was to achieve a pollutant standard in every US state, and help guide states to develop state implementations plans. This act was amended in 1977 and 1990, mainly to set new goals and a new timeline for the achievement of the NAAQS. [8] The United States Supreme Court has upheld the Clean Air Act’s authority over domestic carbon pollution regulations three times in the past eight years. [8] Essentially, every domestic action the president approved of when he signed the Paris Agreement was already authorized by existing domestic United States’ laws.

One element of the Paris Agreement includes that developed countries, as in the United States, must intend on continuing to mobilize a combination of public and private sector funds to help less developed nations contain their gas emissions. [9] This may be perceived as unfavorable for the United States’ economy, but in reality, this practice has been agreed upon and functioning since 1992. Moreover, the restriction of carbon emission around the globe is extremely beneficial to the well being of every nation and their citizens.

However, President Trump and the current administration have expressed their disapproval of the United States’ commitment to the Paris Agreement. Additionally, the Trump administration took their stance a step farther and formally notified the United Nations in November of 2019 that it would withdraw from the Paris Agreement on Climate Change.[10] This left global climate diplomats with the challenging task of devising a way to maintain the structure of the Paris Agreement without the world’s largest economy. [11] There are nearly 200 nations under this agreement that have agreed to cut their greenhouse gas emissions and help poor countries cope with the consequences of a warming planet. [12] However, this task will be significantly more difficult without the economic support of the United States. In America, environmentalists are advocating to individual states, cities, and businesses in an attempt to persuade them to cut emissions and move to renewable energy sources. [13] Hundreds of local governments and businesses have made pledges to reduce emissions and started voluntary initiates to track these efforts.

President Trump cited the “legal liability” associated with remaining a part of the Paris Agreement in his statement regarding the withdrawal. [14] This could refer to the belief that Paris Agreement obligations may prevent the US federal government from rescinding or changing its domestic rules and litigation under the Clean Air Act. [15] However, former Department of State attorney, who worked on the Paris Agreement, declared that if the executive branch sought to invoke the Paris Agreement to modify the Clean Power Plan, the courts would not find legal grounds to constrain this action. [16] It seems that the actions of the current administration send a message to the international community that America does not prioritize the environment.  

________________________________________________________________

[1] https://www.nrdc.org/stories/paris-climate-agreement-everything-you-need-know

[2] ibid.

[3] ibid.

[4] ibid.

[5] ibid.

[6] ibid.

[7] https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-clean-air-act

[8] https://www.nrdc.org/experts/david-doniger/paris-climate-agreement-explained-does-congress-need-sign

[9] ibid.

[10]https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/04/climate/trump-paris-agreement-climate.html

[11] ibid.

[12] ibid.

[13] ibid.

[14] https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/IF10668.pdf

[15] ibid.

[16] https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/IF10668.pdf

Photo Credit: Presidencia de la República Mexicana

[connecticutprelawland-blog]

A President’s Role In The Judicial System

By Caleigh Ryan, Wesleyan University Class of 2022

July 22, 2020

The President of the United States was tasked with many important responsibilities, roles, and decisions in the Constitution. The Founding Fathers designed a government, which did not intend to delegate a tyrannical amount of power to the president, yet did gave him the authority to be effective. The government was constructed to operate through a series of checks and balances, allowing the three branches, executive, legislative, and judicial, to collaborate and restrain one another’s authority. The, arguably, most important privilege a president is granted is the power to appoint federal and Supreme Court judges in the event a judge steps down or dies during a president’s tenure. Article III of the Constitution states that the president has the authority to nominate federal judges and Supreme Court justices, which then must be confirmed by the Senate. [1] Federal judges and Supreme Court justices hold their tenure for life, which was thought to insulate them from reelection pressures and political influences when making decisions in court. [2] Judicial appointments have become an opportunity for a president to leave a lasting legacy. Additionally, judicial appointments have grown increasingly partisan, meaning presidents use their power to appoint to align future judicial decisions with their own political ideology.

During his tenure, President Trump has already installed a historic number of federal appeals court judges. [3] President Trump has appointed nearly 200 judges, significantly more than his last three predecessors. [4]His choices for these positions have been predominately male judges and, overall, less diverse than the picks of his recent predecessors. More specifically, 76% of his appointments are male, 85% are white, and 66% are white males. [5] These demographics are not representative of the nation’s population as a whole and many of the newly appointed judges have openly engaged in issues important to Republicans. For example, some of President Trump’s appointments have previously taken a public stance on extremely polarizing issues, such as opposition to gay marriage and the withdrawal of government funding for abortion. These nominees also happen to include younger candidates, which means they will most likely serve on the stand for a long time into the future. [5] While the checks and balance system requires that the Senate approve a president’s nominees for their respective judicial position, there is relatively limited guidelines or basic criteria in the Constitution as to who is qualified to be a judge. Moreover, President Trump even named some of his judgesbefore they received a rating from the American Bar Association and three of them were rated as “unqualified” by the association yet were still approved by the Senate. [6] There seems to be a decreasing separation between the supposedly insulated, bipartisan judges and the politics that occur in the two other branches of government. Moreover, President Trump has nominated judges that have ties to the Trump administration, have financially and publicly supported Republican campaigns, and have previously weighed in on cases important to the Republican party. [7] The impact of President Trump’s appointments to the federal court are far-reaching and will leave his conservative imprint on judicial cases for decades to come.

Moreover, the gravity of the President’s authority to appoint judges becomes even greater when selecting United States Supreme Court nominees. The Supreme Court began to form with the passing of the Judiciary Act of 1789 and was first assembled in 1790. [8] The Supreme Court is the nation’s highest judicial tribunal and makes decisions on the most widespread and impactful judicial cases. They have the power to overturn lower court decisions on issues that pertain to individuals all over the nation. If a justice on the Supreme Court dies or steps down, there are long standing procedures outlined in the Judiciary Act of 1869, which indicate what should occur to fill a vacancy. [9] Once there is a vacancy, the president can nominate someone to the bench. [10] If the Senate is in session, an executive session and hearings regarding the nominee will be held by senators, which usually takes two to three months. Once the Senate confirms the nominee, the judge becomes a Supreme Court justice for life. [12] However, there are ways for a Senate to delay this process and prevent a President from having the opportunity to see his nominee through the confirmation process. This occurred in 2016; following Justice Anthony Scalia’s death, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell kept Scalia’s seat vacant until after the 2016 Presidential election. This prevented President Obama from getting his moderate pick, Merrick Garland, approved. [12] Instead, President Trump was given the opportunity to fill Justice Scalia’s vacant seat and time will tell if he has the chance to nominate more justices. Currently, there are multiple Supreme Court justices who have experienced health issues and recent hospitalizations. The timing of the next vacancy will impact the type of judge that is nominated and the decisions of many future judicial hearings.

________________________________________________________________

[1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/the-judicial-branch/

[2] ibid.

[3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/two-years-in-trumps-appeals-court-confirmations-at-a-historic-high-point/2019/02/03/574226e6-1a90-11e9-9ebf-c5fed1b7a081_story.html

[4] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/14/us/trump-appeals-court-judges.html

[5] https://www.newsweek.com/trump-judicial-nominees-mostly-white-men-1482638

[6] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/14/us/trump-appeals-court-judges.html

[7] ibid.

[8] https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/historyandtraditions.aspx

[9] https://www.businessinsider.com/what-happens-if-supreme-court-justice-dies-retires-election-rbg-2020-7

[10] ibid.

[11] ibid.

[12] ibid.

Photo Credit: UpstateNYer

[connecticutprelawland-blog]

Mental Health And The Law

By Caleigh Ryan, Wesleyan University Class of 2022

July 16, 2020

In recent decades, America has grown a greater awareness of the influence mental health has on our society. Mental illness can impact an individual’s judgment, perception of their surroundings, evaluation of situations, and overall decision-making process.  There have been countless terrible incidents across the nation where the perpetrator was suffering from mental illness that was not being treated or managed. However, the law does not properly reflect the severe effect that mental illness has on our population. The complex discipline of mental health is constantly expanding and evolving and,as a result, the law is required to respond to the progression achieved. [1] The crossover between mental health and the law has significantly broadened overtime; originally mental health was confined to the narrow parameters of the understanding forensic psychiatry. [2] However, the intersection of the two areas has grown to become more multidisciplinary, including fields of psychiatry, psychology, and medicine. Not only does the criminal justice system address perpetrators who have committed crimes as a result of their mental state but laws also determine what can be done in certain health situations. Moreover, many mental health laws can be rather prohibitive in nature. For example, a federal law was passed in 1996 known as Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPPA). This act is designed to protect the medical background and history of citizens, as well as limit a doctor’s ability to disclose information to a patient’s family. [3] While this privacy is important in protecting civil liberties, it also comes with significant consequences in particular circumstances. If a patient is suffering from a mental illness, he or she’s medical records cannot be assessed by the medical community. [4] This is extremely problematic in cases involving mentally unstable patients. For example, if a person is admitted into the hospital for having an emotional, violent outburst, it is difficult to access if they have a history of similar incidents or if this was a first-time, unique situation. [5] This information would greatly impact the hospital’s course of treatment, when or if the patient is released from the hospital, and the safety of medical professionals and other patients.

Additionally, there are strict controls regarding involuntary hospitalization, often limiting it to cases in which a patient is a risk to themselves or others. [6] However, concerning mental health, the line is often blurry and the state of patients suffering from mental illness is more ambiguous than a physical aliment. It can be very difficult for doctors to navigate the proper course of action due to the legal restrictions that have been put in place.Moreover, patients who are suffering from a mental condition have the right to refuse medical treatment. Even if they are involuntarily hospitalized and are diagnosed with a mental illness, a psychiatrist has to attend court to obtain a judge’s order for “treatment over objection.” [7] Laws designed to protect citizens’ rights and privacy have begun to exceed patient needs and the well being of society at large. Earlier identification of people with mental illness could prevent the possibility of tragic events, such as mass shootings, as well as suicides and violent acts. However, this can only be achieved if the laws that protect the privacy of patients are amended to be flexible in special circumstances.  

There have been a few measures taken to address the risks of complete confidentiality between doctors and patients. One is the law titled Mental Health Processionals’ Duty to Warn. This permits doctors to breach their legal obligation of confidentiality if they assess a patient as being a danger to other people. [8] These laws are often referred to as “duty to protect” laws and are passed on a state by state basis. [9] While these rulings do allow doctors to preemptively warn third parties of danger, it is not a federal mandate, and therefore, is only legal in some states.

Another important progression in addressing mental health in America is the inclusion of mental health in healthcare packages and federal funding. In 2016, the US Congress passed the 21st Century Cures Act, which is a healthcare package of bills that involves mental health, substance abuse, and criminal justice provisions. [10] This bill indicates a significant first step towards reforming the mental health care system in America and will provide citizens with greater support and resources to get help. Mental health should receive equal recognition from the government as physical well-being and this act demonstrates progress towards this understanding.

________________________________________________________________

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5282610/

[2] ibid.

[3] ibid.

[4] ibid.

[5] ibid.

[6] ibid.

[7] ibid.

[8] https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/mental-health-benefits-state-mandates.aspx

[9] ibid.

Photo Credit: Quince Media

[connecticutprelawland-blog]

The Newest Travel Ban: International College Students

By Maya Colon, University of Hartford, Class of 2023

July 15, 2020

On July 6th, 2020, The Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP), a Department of Homeland Security program, has declared new changes to temporary exemptions for international students taking online classes during the pandemic in the United States for the Fall 2020 semester.  This means that unless an international student is enrolled in at least one-in person class, they will not be allowed into the country, and if they are already in the United States, they will be deported.  In response, Harvard and MIT have already filed a lawsuit against Homeland Security and the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), in which they express, “ICE’s action leaves hundreds of thousands of international students with no educational options within the United States. Just weeks from the start of the fall semester, these students are largely unable to transfer to universities providing on-campus instruction, notwithstanding ICE’s suggestion that they might do so to avoid removal from the country. Moreover, for many students, returning to their home countries to participate in online instruction is impossible, impracticable, prohibitively expensive, and/or dangerous.”1 Essentially, ICE is changing the plans of many schools and students for the fall, and is risking the well being of them and other university students at the same time.

The United States has over one million international students,who have serious economic impact on universities and colleges.  International students usually pay full tuition, and spend all four years on campus, increasing the revenue for universities.  In 2018, international students contributed about forty-five billion dollars to the U.S. economy.  After graduating from undergrad, most international students continue onto graduate school and research studies, further adding to the revenue that they create for schools.  International students add money, as well as jobs and culture to our country, and are and importance force for both the United States’ universities and its economy.  

In Harvard and MIT’s lawsuit, they state that “ICE’s Directive reveals no consideration of its action’s impact on the health of students, faculty, staff, or the surrounding communities,” and that it is Homeland Security’s prerogative to reopen schools, despite the obvious risks.  In declaring these new changes for international student visas, ICE revises a guidance made on March 13, where students with an F-1 visa would not be required to attend in-person classes to keep their visa status, and that the exemption for their visas would remain “in effect for the duration of the emergency.”Universities and colleges made their plans for the Fall 2020 semester with this directive in mind, and now many have to revise the plans they had, not only to ensure that the international students can retain their visas, but to protect the faculty staff and all students from coronavirus. The March 13thguidance also stated that the exemptions on the F-1 visas would be in effect for as long as the United States would be in a state of emergency. Since March, the coronavirus infection rate has only increased, and America is still in a state of emergency.  In the July 6th directive, ICE specifies that the agency intends to publish the modifications to F-1 visas in the Federal Register as a Temporary Final Rule. However, in the Administrative Procedure Act, which governs the process by which federal agencies develop and issue regulation, a proposed rule in the Federal Register requires a notice for the proposed rule, and an opportunity for the pubic to comment on the proposed rule. ICE has failed to do so, and is treating this rule as law that affects people’s lives, and this is a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.  

Harvard and MIT make it clear in their lawsuit that the July 6thdirective fails to consider all the aspects of the directive amid the coronavirus pandemic, fails to offer a reasoned basis that could justify this policy, and violates the Administrative Procedure Acts requirement of notice-and-comment rulemaking.  Through this lawsuit, Harvard and MIT hope that they can stop ICE from enforcing the new directive, replacing it with the March 13thguidance, and declare that the policies in the July 6th directive were unlawful.

________________________________________________________________

Chakravorti, Bhaskar, et al. “ICE's International Student Ban Is a Politicized Pandemic Response That Hurts America.” NBCNews.com, NBCUniversal News Group, 9 July 2020, www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/ice-s-international-student-ban-politicized-pandemic-response-hurts-america-ncna1233256.

Hollingsworth, Julia. “One Million Foreign Students Risk Being Frozen out of US Colleges. Some Might Never Come Back.” CNN, Cable News Network, 8 July 2020, www.cnn.com/2020/07/08/americas/international-student-visa-united-states-intl-hnk/index.html.

Jdickler, Jessica. “Harvard, MIT Sue Trump Administration over Rule barring International Students.” CNBC, CNBC, 8 July 2020, www.cnbc.com/2020/07/08/harvard-mit-sue-trump-administration-over-rule-barring-international-students.html.

United States District Court of Massachusetts, President and Fellows of Harvard College; and Massachusetts Institute of Technology v. United States Department Of Homeland Security; U.S. Immigration And Customs Enforcement; Chad F. Wolf; and Matthew Albence. July 8th, 2020, https://orgchart.mit.edu/sites/default/files/reports/20200708-Harvard-MIT-Complaint-Injunctive-Relief.pdf

“SEVP Modifies Temporary Exemptions for Nonimmigrant Students Taking Online Courses during Fall 2020 Semester.” ICE, 6 July 2020, www.ice.gov/news/releases/sevp-modifies-temporary-exemptions-nonimmigrant-students-taking-online-courses-during.

[connecticutprelawland-blog]

Marriage: The Legal Implications Of A Personal Commitment

By Caleigh Ryan, Wesleyan University Class of 2022

July 7, 2020

The institution of marriage has been a central and widespread part of the American lifestyle for centuries. Marriage is the way to legalize the romantic, personal, and permanent commitment a citizen makes to another person. A couple attains many legal benefits when they establish themselves as married under the law. It allows a couple to start a family, have children, establish roots, and fully participate in American society. However, it seems as time has progressed the institution of marriage has struggled to include all forms of relationships that exist within our society.

Moreover, for example, interracial marriage was legalized nationwide by the U.S Supreme Court only 50 years ago. [1] The decision in the Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia of 1967 ruled that race-based restrictions on marriages, like the miscegenation laws that were present in many states, were unconstitutional. [2] It determined that banning interracial marriages violated the Equal Protection Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment, which declares that no state can “deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” [3] This effectively took power out of the hands of state officials and lawmakers to allow for more citizens to have the freedom to marry who they love, regardless of their skin color. However, this is a relatively recent concept in the nation’s history. Even after 1967, there continued to be citizens extremely against interracial marriages in certain states. This made it difficult to have a normal, accepted marriage in society for many coming years.

Subsequently, the LGBTQ community fought for their right to have marriages between same-sex partners recognized by the government. There is an extensive timeline of legal cases and state rulings which both banned and honored same-sex marriages in the United States. In 1983, the issue of “spousal” rights of same-sex couples became highlighted when a lesbian couple encountered the medical limitations of not being acknowledged as married in the eyes of the law. [4] One woman was in a car accident and her partner was denied the right to care for her due to their lack of legal marital status. In 1984, Berkeley, California passed the nation’s first domestic partnership law, which did not grant same-sex couples marriage,but did allow for the allocation of domestic partnership benefits. [5] These benefits included health insurance, parental leave, and housing rights. However, this was not a nationwide ruling and other states reacted very differently to calls for same-sex marriage inclusion. In 1993, Hawaii legislators passed an amendment to ban gay marriage, and in 1995 Utah governor signed a state Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) into law. [6] In 1996, the DOMA statue was signed by President Clinton on a federal level. This act stated that a marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman and any federal law or benefits that applied to marriages only pertained to heterosexual couples. This essentially denied married same sex couples the right to collectfederal benefits that come with marriage. [7] Fifteen long years later, President Obama declared the DOMA act unconstitutional and slowly more states began to legalize same sex marriage. In 2015, the Supreme Court made same-sex marriages legal in all fifty states in the Obergefell v. Hodges case and overturned DOMA. [8]

The lengthy journey to the legalization and equalization of same-sex marriage in this nation illustrates many issues within the institution of marriage that exists, even today. According to the Pew Research Center, the percentage of American adults, over 25, who are not married is at all-time high. [9] More frequently, adults are getting married later in life or choosing to live with their partner and raise children outside of the label of “married.” However, while this mindset is progressive and liberating, it does not change the fact that there are many legal and financial benefits to marriage under the law. Married couples qualify for an estate tax marital deduction, can contribute to their spouse’s IRA account, will receive survivor’s benefits from a pension plan, have more legal rights, and have advantages when buying a home. [10] The government has purposefully made it extremely advantageous for American citizens to establish their romantic relationships within the parameters of the law. When the nation excluded interracial marriages and same-sex marriages from occurring, they were not only disregarding a set of committed, loving relationships, but were also denying all citizens equal opportunities and rights. The benefits that come with marriage provide couples access toa better quality of life. The government has effectively intertwined the most private part of a citizen’s life, their romantic relationships, with a financial and legal status. Therefore, it is essential that all types of relationships are included and recognized under the law.

 _______________________________________________________________

[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/06/12/key-facts-about-race-and-marriage-50-years-after-loving-v-virginia/

[2] Ibid. 

[3] https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendment/amendment-xiv

[4] https://guides.ll.georgetown.edu/c.php?g=592919&p=4182201

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] https://law.seattleu.edu/prebuilt/library/samesexmarriage/section04b.asp

[8] https://guides.ll.georgetown.edu/c.php?g=592919&p=4182201

[9] https://www.forbes.com/sites/kateashford/2014/09/26/deciding-not-to-get-married/#554e1f02edf3

[10] Ibid.

Photo Credit: David Ball