This article explores the ways COVID-19 has impacted the process of jury trials, particularly as it relates to jury selection and witness testimony. Without a national standard, there is a great risk that convictions will be appealed or even overturned due to Constitutional Violations. While this is certainly an unprecedented time, action needs to be taken to ensure Sixth and Eighth Amendment rights of defendants are met while at the same time ensuring public safety for potential jurors.

On October 28 2020, Poland tightened its abortion laws that were already one of the strictest in the European Union. Under the new law, Polish women are only legally permitted to have abortions in cases of rape or incest, or if the life of the mother is endangered. Poland's constitutional court ruled that abortion due to fetal defects was unconstitutional. Until now, on estimate 98% of legal abortions were carried out due to fetal birth defects, meaning that the ruling effectively places a total ban on abortions. This article examines this development in the context of the broader tensions between the EU and its member states.

On November 26, 2020, a new European Union human rights sanctions regime, the so-called Magnitsky Act, was agreed upon by foreign policy experts from the 27 EU member states and will be formally approved by ministers on December 7, 2020, or by written procedure on December 10, 2020. This would add an important tool for the EU to sanction human rights abuses and help the union become more cohesive in tackling human rights issues.

In 2019, the Supreme Court ruled that, in certain cases, inmates who develop dementia and other forms of cognitive dysfunction since their trials and sentencing can prevent death row inmates from being executed. Although this upholds a prior precedent, it raises questions about the Eighth Amendment’s application to incarcerated individuals that develop dementia while serving their sentence: is prison a cruel and unusual punishment if an individual does not understand or remember why they are incarcerated? What does this mean for the ever-aging prison population in the United States, especially as life expectancy increases and “life without parole” sentences become longer?

On Saturday, November 7th, a nation erupted with cheers, dancing, and tears (both of joy and sadness) as numerous news outlets projected that Vice President Joe Biden had become the 46th President-Elect and Kamala Harris would soon become the first woman, black person, South Asian person, and biracial person to be Vice President of the United States. My roommates and I, too, joined in the celebration, hugging each other and calling our families while Van Jones flowed tears of relief on the television screen. Many thoughts bubbled up and fleeted in people’s heads that day, but I am still anxiously wondering: what does this mean for the Supreme Court?

On October 5, 2020, the European Court of Justice ruled that Hungary’s law on foreign universities operating within Hungary breaches EU law. The 2017 law is designed to specifically target the Central European University (CEU), founded by the Hungarian-American philanthropist and investor George Soros. CEU has now moved most of its courses to Vienna, Austria, due to the legal challenges. The law is seen as a direct attack from the country’s nationalist government and Prime Minister Viktor Orban on George Soros, who does not comply with Hungary’s anti-migration views.

On June 15, 2020, the Supreme Court reached an affirmative opinion that discrimination based on gender identity is a violation of sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Three cases comprised this decision, colloquially known as Bostock, however, I will focus on R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment and Opportunity Commission as the other two cases deal with sexual orientation, not gender identity. In R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment and Opportunity Commission, Aimee Stephens, funeral director for R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, was fired from her job after informing her employer of her intention to transition from man to woman and begin wearing more traditionally feminine clothes.

This article examines the implications of the Supreme Court’s recent decision that upholds a Kansas law barring one of the generally accepted applications of the so-called Insanity Defense. After a brief historical overview, it looks toward the potential impact mentally ill defendants may face, not only in the state of Kansas, but across the country