This paper evaluates the constitutional limitations of cash bail systems. Cash bail systems historically were used as a preventative measure for blood feuds. Since then, these systems have evolved to prioritize profit over people, and have become extremely unjust. Those who are unable to pay their bail often are detained for weeks or months at a time. Cash bail exacerbates and reinforces mass incarceration, leading to higher incarceration and homelessness rates. Cash bail affects marginalized communities significantly more than those who are privileged, both racially and economically. The effects of detainment are immense: it perpetuates cycles of poverty and affects the mental and physical health of the detained person’s family. The constitutionality of cash bail systems has been a debated topic for decades now, given that the Eighth Amendment prohibits excessive bail and the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees equal protection under the law. There is also significant legal precedent regarding cash bail, including the Bail Reform Act which establishes that danger to the community must be considered when determining bail. What this fails to recognize is that the majority of the people given bail are not a danger to their community, yet they are still subject to these horrific cash bail practices. The Supreme Court has a duty to interpret and uphold the Constitution. Therefore, they must review cases concerning cash bail systems and deem them unconstitutional. This paper concludes by arguing a community-based alternative to cash bail must be implemented to reduce recidivism and heal the communities it has damaged.

The critical role of families in deciding questions pertaining to clinically assisted nutrition and hydration (CANH) persists as a pivotal yet underexplored facet within existing legal scholarly discourse and clinical practice. Adult patients in Prolonged Disorders of Consciousness (PDOC) lack capacity for the purposes of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) to autonomously decide CANH questions. Pursuant to the MCA, decisions relating to their treatment must be made in accordance with their best interests. The current application of the best interests test can aggravate familial distress, and, therefore, warrants a thorough revisitation to foster enhanced familiar support and inclusivity within the decision-making process. Accordingly, clinicians, in their assessment of best interests, must ensure that families participate more comprehensively in the decision-making process. Families’ roles in the assessment of best interests must be expanded in order to align with the spirit of the MCA.

In the complex landscape of constitutional jurisprudence, the clash of originalist interpretations between Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Neil Gorsuch in the Supreme Court case Haaland v. Brackeen emerges as a captivating focal point. Despite both justices employing originalist methodology in their opinions — treating the original meaning of the Constitution as the definitive guiding principle for constitutional interpretation — they ultimately arrived at markedly different conclusions. This paper delves into the heart of this ideological struggle in Haaland v. Brackeen, centering on the interpretation of the Indian Commerce Clause. Justice Gorsuch champions a view that underscores the historical recognition of tribal sovereignty and federal authority over tribal matters, passionately defending the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). In stark contrast, Justice Thomas dissents, vehemently contending that Congress overstepped its constitutional bounds in enacting ICWA. This intra-originalist conflict, while specific to the case, serves as a microcosm of broader debates within originalist jurisprudence.

Beyond the courtroom drama, this paper unravels the profound implications of this dispute. It argues that in cases of historical ambiguity, judicial opinions relying on originalist interpretations run the risk of not only being legally inconsistent but also factually uncertain — potentially endangering the legitimacy of stare decisis application. Ultimately, the paper raises thought-provoking questions about the rule of law itself, emphasizing the need for a nuanced understanding of the complexities inherent in applying originalism to the ever-evolving landscape of constitutional law.

People with epilepsy have been discriminated against in law throughout much of American history. This intolerance is integrally tied to the rise of eugenics in America that reached prominence in the early 20th century. However, after World War II, many states repealed discriminatory laws such as the forced sterilization of people with epilepsy, along with other disabilities. In 1968, Virginia removed epilepsy from its Eugenical Sterilization Act, before eventually repealing the whole law in 1974. This paper will analyze the development of attitudes towards epilepsy in the years leading up to the eventual removal of epilepsy from the Virginia Sterilization Act. Through a case study of this legal reversal, it will illustrate the gradual destigmatization of epilepsy and argue that the unification of advocacy organizations, the development of anti-seizure medications, and the influence of the civil rights movement paved the way for repealing discriminatory laws against epilepsy in holdout states like Virginia.

A preeminent legal issue of the twenty-first century will undoubtedly be the regulation of and the discourse surrounding artificial intelligence. Scholars of various fields predict that AI will permeate countless sectors of the American economy and society. If this technology continues to develop in a relatively unregulated market, Americans’ privacy rights, related to digital privacy, are at risk. Protecting the privacy rights of Americans would include protecting their likeness — including their voice and image — from malicious actors who produce deep fake content and commit identity theft. While companies may be incentivized by profit to continue developing artificial intelligence without significant regulations, legislators and politicians should value the safety of their constituents over the profit of companies and enact stronger federal protection for Americans’ digital privacy. Additionally, stricter federal regulations surrounding artificial intelligence are crucial. That is so because the right to privacy is not explicitly enunciated in the Constitution, and the digitalization of sensitive information has made privacy more complex than ever before.

As the refugee crisis swells, the United Kingdom continues to push out restrictive legislation. The Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2023 is the sequel to 2023 Illegal Immigration Act, and it has been met with just as much opposition from human rights groups. While groups like the UNHCR were concerned with the Illegal Immigration Act’s provisions regarding the deportation of refugees, there is now clamor over the Safety of Rwanda Act’s declaration of Rwanda as a safe destination for asylum seekers. Though the UK tries to shield the public from the bitter details of the Safety of Rwanda Act by reasoning that the Act will deter unsafe migration, it still teeters on the line of violating international refugee laws. Parliamentary sovereignty is a defining element of the British government that gives Parliament final authority. This gives Parliament the ability to override court decisions declaring Rwanda an unsafe destination for refugees. At a time where global crises outscale local problems, it is crucial to examine the efficacy and limits of international human rights law. The UK’s strategic use of parliamentary sovereignty is a danger to these international protocols and the reason why the Safety of Rwanda Act passed.

The critical role of families in deciding questions pertaining to clinically assisted nutrition and hydration (CANH) persists as a pivotal yet underexplored facet within existing legal scholarly discourse and clinical practice. Adult patients in Prolonged Disorders of Consciousness (PDOC) lack capacity for the purposes of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) to autonomously decide CANH questions. Pursuant to the MCA, decisions relating to their treatment must be made in accordance with their best interests. The current application of the best interests test can aggravate familial distress, and, therefore, warrants a thorough revisitation to foster enhanced familiar support and inclusivity within the decision-making process. Accordingly, clinicians, in their assessment of best interests, must ensure that families participate more comprehensively in the decision-making process. Families’ roles in the assessment of best interests must be expanded in order to align with the spirit of the MCA.

The discussion of fast fashion and intellectual property rights has emerged as a pivotal topic in contemporary discussions, driven by consumers' escalating demands for the latest trends. The intricate dynamics surrounding inspiration, imitation, and replication within the fashion industry, are pertinent, considering the widespread proliferation of "dupes" by fast fashion entities and online platforms. Despite legal milestones such as the 2017 Supreme Court ruling in Star Athletica, LLC v Varsity Brands, Inc., persistent challenges remain. Notable cases like Steve Madden v. YSL underscore the ongoing struggle to balance innovation, consumer preferences, and copyright safeguards. Legal reforms are necessary to fortify copyright laws, enhance design patent protections, and establish specialized courts to ensure more consistent rulings on design infringement cases. Platforms like TikTok and Amazon must enact stricter guidelines to protect intellectual property rights and curb the proliferation of dupe culture. Prioritizing the protection of design intellectual property is paramount for nurturing creativity and preserving the integrity of the fashion industry.