The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution states that:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

In the state of New York, the law stipulates that it is a crime for any person to possess a firearm small enough to be concealed without a license, whether the person is inside or outside the home. This law is commonly known as the Sullivan Act. In the case that a person wants to carry a firearm outside of his home, he must satisfy certain requirements. The person must apply for and obtain an unrestricted license to “have and carry [a] concealed pistol or revolver [if the person can prove that] proper cause exists for the issuance thereof”— pursuant to New York Penal Law section 400.00(2)(f).

What is at stake in the SFFA v. Harvard case? This article provides a succinct overview of affirmative action cases in American legal history and reveals the consequences of overturning such a legacy

The case of Public Prosecutor v Soh Chee Wen, decided by the Singapore High Court in 2019, is significant for extending legal professional privilege to public prosecutors. In particular, it has developed the doctrine of litigation privilege, one of the two types of legal professional privilege alongside legal advice privilege, in Singapore common law. Given that the lack of explicit statutory provisions and inconclusive prior court decisions surrounding litigation privilege in Singapore, it is invaluable to explore how Public Prosecutor v Soh Chee Wen may have addressed the corresponding controversies. This article does so across five key issues and concludes that while Public Prosecutor v Soh Chee Wen raised more questions than answers with respect to the doctrine of litigation privilege, it is expected to serve as a springboard for future decisions in clarifying the law on legal professional privilege as a whole.

The restorative justice approach circumvents core deficiencies of the conventional penal system. Due to its numerous benefits, restorative justice merits being seriously considered by attorneys and legislators in the United States. However, it is imperative not to regard restorative justice as a panacea for all the ills that plague the American criminal justice system. As currently implemented, restorative justice has several drawbacks that need to be addressed if it is to be used at a nationwide scale.

The fight for the Equal Rights Amendment is taking place at both the state and federal levels. The original federal Equal Rights Amendment, which guaranteed legal protections against sex discrimination, failed to be ratified into the Constitution in the 1970s and is perceived by many today as dated. However, Nevada and other states are leading a movement to implement expansive state equal rights protections. In November 2022, Nevada passed the country's most inclusive "Equality of Rights Amendment," which could serve as an example of the importance of a more inclusive federal Equal Rights Amendment.

The Clean Air Act has been a cornerstone of U.S. climate policy since its creation in 1970. It was given the power to be flexibly deployed against unidentified environmental and health risks, allowing it to address the expanding climate crisis. The Clean Air Act has massively addressed emission of greenhouse gases and other dangerous pollutants. However, although it has taken important steps to improve U.S. air quality, the scope of the Clean Air Act is insignificant and rapidly declining. Because the Clean Air Act focuses so closely on large-scale regulation and action, it often overlooks or is unable to address air pollution "hotspots." Additionally, action by the Trump Administration and the recent decision of West Virginia v. EPA have severely limited the Clean Air Act's scope and have worrying implications for its future integrity. It is vital that new policies building upon and strengthening the Clean Air Act are passed.

Under federal law, marijuana is categorized as a Schedule I drug, meaning it has “no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.” Many states are now beginning to legalize marijuana despite it being illegal on the federal level, creating tensions in the financial and transportation industries. The prohibition of marijuana has many negative public health effects due to a lack of quality control. Prohibition also has costs such as the cost of enforcement and the forgoing of tax revenue that could be imposed on the marijuana industry. Because the economic costs of federal prohibition outweigh the benefits, it is time for the federal government to mend tensions with state laws by legalizing marijuana across the U.S.

The Supreme Court recently heard arguments in Merrill v. Milligan (2022) to decide the fate of congressional maps in Alabama which were thrown out by a federal court for violating Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. After the Court struck down Section 4 of the VRA in 2013, this case puts the future of voting rights in America at stake. The impact of the Court refusing to enforce Section 2 in this case would be another devastating blow to voting rights.

In the wake of Dobbs v. Jackson (2022) and the elimination of a constitutional right to abortion, measures restricting the procedure in states where it is legal have become even more consequential. A judicial bypass is a process meant to accommodate minors who need abortions but are unable to obtain parental consent—the minor may petition a judge to undergo the procedure without the knowledge of her parents. Although judicial bypasses claim to serve the best interests of the minor, they are ultimately both biased and legally inconsistent, acting as barriers to the procedure. This article examines judicial bypass laws in Kansas and identifies three main flaws: judicial bypass laws implicitly designate pregnancy as the default state of the minor, are inconsistent with the mature minor doctrine, and are ideologically inconsistent within themselves. The article advocates for the eradication of judicial bypass laws in all states, allowing minors to autonomously obtain abortions.

The Uighur genocide in China is a human rights atrocity that has been met with an attitude of global complacency, allowing for the intense escalation of conflict over the past few years. To put an end to China’s numerous violations of international human rights treaties and conventions, the global arena should present a unified front through a boycott, divest, and sanctions campaign against China. The historical uses of BDS in ending apartheid in South Africa and the current sanctions against Russia for their actions in Ukraine can be turned to as successful endeavors to be replicated with China to take a stand against their crimes against humanity.

The sovereign immunity doctrine has historically deterred state employees from pursuing legal action against state governments even if accused of violating federal statutes. Although Congress has enacted various labor laws to protect and uphold fair employment practices for Americans of all diverse backgrounds, the sovereign immunity doctrine insulates states from private suits in federal and state courts, rendering state employees vulnerable and defenseless to employment discrimination. To reduce incidents of employment discrimination against state employees, this article argues that legal remedies are available—not through means of state employees but the federal government.

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution states that “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” In modern times, this protection has been used to justify the complete elimination of firearms regulations, with some opponents of regulation using the argument that the founders of the U.S. would have opposed any and all forms of gun control. However, by drawing on historical precedent from the English Bill of Rights and cultural context, this article demonstrates that the opposite is true. Contrary to the “originalist” argument, the founding fathers would have been proponents of individual gun control, and the Second Amendment’s firearms protections exist to protect the rights of oppressed groups of people, not individuals.

The Electoral College's winner-take-all system has elected five presidents in U.S. history without a plurality of the nation's popular votes. As such, activists and academics have increasingly sought to address this undemocratic paradox by proving winner-take-all's unconstitutionality. Other accounts have yet to successfully invoke the "one-person, one-vote" argument for unconstitutionality established under the Fourteenth's Equal Protection clause; however, one recent and compelling account suggests that winner-take-all can be proved unconstitutional by virtue of it being a historically invidious act of disenfranchisement. This article agrees that winner-take-all could be a historically intentional and invidious act of disenfranchising minority voices — yet, it is this very feature that makes the winner-take-all system constitutional.

Non-fungible tokens, also referred to as NFTs, are regarded as one of the most pervasive yet confusing manifestations of the new era of digital assets. Notably, the introduction of NFTs to the mainstream art market has profoundly shaped how the market and artists monetize art as work and product. NFTs have provided a new form of artistic expression and a unique market form dependent on the emotional value carried by its product.

As climate change continues to ravage the world's ecosystem and destroy infrastructure, the Biden administration struggles to implement solutions. His newest legislation, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), targets the social cost of climate change, providing American families with economic incentives to reduce their carbon footprint. However, his ambitious goals aren't without obstacles. Recent cases have indicated strong pushback from state legislators and the Supreme Court, underlining the lack of jurisdiction from independent executive organizations like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Without congressional support, policy execution continues to be a challenge. Moreover, environmental issues must require bipartisan support, which has been challenging due to America's increasingly fractured political environment. On the other hand, Biden's IRA works by uplifting rather than restricting American businesses and consumers, offering tax credits and subsidies to transition towards green energy. Thus, his stance is promising. Time will tell with how people respond to these new opportunities –– hopefully, not before it's too late.

Any organized sports league is, by definition, a cartel; none is more so than the NCAA. Yet even with its 119-year history of collusive behavior, it has remained immune from antitrust litigation until relatively recently, when the Supreme Court affirmed in NCAA v. Alston (2021) that the NCAA’s restrictions on academic-related compensation violated the Sherman Act. Why were collegiate sports accorded such special treatment? In this article, I contend that the Supreme Court’s historical favoritism for the collegiate sports industry stems from an acknowledged need to preserve the principle of amateurism distinguishing collegiate from professional sports. Challenges to the NCAA’s powers were usually rejected under this amateurism defense, as outlined in NCAA v. Board of Regents (1984) and NCAA v. Tarkanian (1988). However, the judicial landscape may be changing in favor of the student athletes, with the aforementioned Alston case potentially setting precedent for change by opening up name, image, and likeness (NIL) as an area outside the jurisdiction of the NCAA.

John Rawls’ foundational theory of civil disobedience outlines three conditions for justification: it is the last resort when other appeals have failed, there is clear and substantial injustice, and the agent engaging in civil disobedience is willing for others to also engage in similar acts. However, there should be an additional justification condition: civil disobedience should not impose an excessive cost on a targeted and specific agent or group unless that party is more liable to incur the costs of civil disobedience knowingly.

Many factors contribute to the number of years a judge decides to sentence a defendant. The criminal justice system has a significant pattern of incarcerating defendants with a a prior criminal history, resulting in extending their sentencing. Longer sentencing is not necessary in the case of two unrelated crimes. It is unjust to serve a tried crime twice, let alone add a longer sentence to two crimes with no correlation to one another. The multitude of incarcerated individuals are also wrongly convicted. Sentencing guidlines have created this loophole of keeping innocent prisoners detained based on their history with the criminal justice system. In the final analysis, our current sentencing guidelines has furthered the rising rates of mass incarceration.

In order to fully realize the legislative intentions of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (specifically the Fair Housing Act), reparative policies that addresses past housing discrimination must be passed. The enduring legacy of de jure housing discrimination will continue to cause suffering, especially as the climate crisis worsens; the intention to end the suffering caused by housing discrimination, not just housing discrimination itself, must be realized.

As former President Trump faces criminal investigations in multiple states, he may be wondering if it is possible to avoid their jurisdiction. By sheltering in Florida, he may be able to take advantage of a convoluted legal loophole in interstate extradition. If Trump is arrested, convicted, and sentenced in Florida, Governor DeSantis can use his powers of clemency and to commute Trump's sentence to state confinement and simultaneously reject interstate extradition requests on the grounds that Trump is being held in state custody.