The Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025 was enacted in both Houses of Parliament following a period of vigorous discussion and partisan conflict [1]. The amendment revises the definition of waqf and waqif and imposes new eligibility criteria for creating a waqf. Thus, abolishing the long-recognized forms of dedication and mandates written documentation for all future waqf creations. The amendment further restructures the composition of Central and State Waqf Boards by permitting the inclusion of non-Muslim members and significantly extends the Unions Governments supervisory powers over State Boards Including through new mechanisms for administrative control. The apprehension within the Muslim community chiefly arises from the belief that their control over Waqf lands and structures, which have housed mosques, schools, and charitable organizations for generations, will be significantly restricted by the recently revised Act. These articles unequivocally safeguard the freedom of religion and cultural practices, affirming the rights of communities and individuals to autonomously engage in and oversee their religious affairs.

1. In Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974) (“Gertz”) [1], the Supreme Court recognized that private individuals deserve greater protection from public scrutiny because they have not voluntarily assumed public roles inviting attention or criticism. This distinction between the public and private spheres has become foundational to the distribution of privacy rights within American society. Individuals possess an expectation of privacy that protects their personal lives from public intrusion, while the public sphere is characterized by accountability and transparency, particularly for those who hold positions of power [2]. The press, as an institution situated within the public sphere, has a variety of functions within its constitutionally protected role in informing the public. Yet the questions of what constitutes “the press” and appropriate checks against its publishing process remain unresolved. The rise of social media and online news networks has further blurred these boundaries, allowing individuals to publicize personal details on profiles and in comment sections willingly. The norm is to share, which contrasts sharply with the strong value of privacy held by previous generations. This increased transparency has enabled communities and interest groups to thrive within cyberspace, but it has also given rise to a darker phenomenon: doxing.

While an over two-hundred-year-old institution, the Supreme Court and its understanding of the Constitution remains fluid, reflecting societal preferences and ideological epochs. In the last century and a half, the Supreme Court has notably grappled with the balance of state power and judicial intervention, leading to the development of substantive due process. First appearing in Lochner v. New York (1905), substantive due process is generally defined as a judicial framework derived from the due process and equal protections clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, respectively. Substantive due process was reaffirmed in a series of controlling cases following Lochner, gaining popularity for its application in cases involving equal protections for unenumerated substantive rights—the most famous being Roe v. Wade (1973) and reproductive rights.

In our rapidly evolving society, where the bounds of technology continue to be stretched and extended, we have an increasingly significant role to play in ensuring that innovation does not compromise the rights and principles of each individual. In February 2023, an African American man over the age of 40 with depression and anxiety, Derek Mobley, filed a lawsuit against the human resources and financial management artificial intelligence platform, Workday, Inc., after being rejected from more than 100 jobs over the course of several years [1]. Mobley claimed that Workday’s applicant screening algorithm unlawfully rejected candidates based on characteristics such as race, age, and disability. More than two years later, a California federal judge gave approval for the case to continue, with Mobley expanding his age discrimination claim to a national action, allowing the case to take on millions of other plaintiffs over the age of 40. This case, Mobley v. Workday (2025), forces courts to decide how existing anti-discrimination laws apply to artificial intelligence (AI). Algorithms promise objectivity but often reproduce the same inequalities they are supposed to eliminate. Because no comprehensive “AI law” yet exists, judges must rely on long-standing civil rights principles to prevent algorithmic bias from becoming a new, invisible form of systemic discrimination.

In the past few months, there has been a sudden surge in international recognition of Palestinian statehood, and amid continued hostilities without international intervention, the question of the legitimacy of the Palestinian state is as relevant as ever. This article seeks to answer the question: Does Palestine meet the international criteria for statehood, and if so, what rights follow?