Mental Health in Prison: The Unintended but Catastrophic Effects of Deinstitutionalization

Prisons and jails are not adequately equipped to manage the ever-growing population of mentally ill inmates. Despite deinstitutionalization efforts, prisons have steadily become the new psychiatric hospitals and unfortunately, because of the lack of treatment and the ability to properly supervise this population of inmates, these individuals are dying by their own hands at an alarming rate. This Note argues that the lack of proper care for mentally ill inmates is a violation of their constitutional right, despite their incarcerated status. The Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) should incorporate more concrete and universal rules and regulations for the care and treatment of these inmates to ensure that their constitutional rights are not being violated. Changes are necessary to protect their rights and more importantly, to keep them alive

Pandemics of Limitation of Rights

This Article discusses the limitation of rights due to pandemics. It analyzes from a constitutional standpoint the holding of the German Federal Constitutional Court (Das BUNDESVERFASSUNGSGERICHT) from April 2022 as a symptom of moral panic disguised through an analytical process. Though it focuses on this case, it sheds light on the moral panic that characterized many countries’ approaches during the COVID-19 pandemic. On April 27, 2022, the German Federal Constitutional Court held that a provision to provide proof of vaccination against COVID-19, recovery from COVID-19, or a medical exemption to COVID-19 vaccination as a condition of employment in the health and care sectors was constitutional. In the name of the necessity to protect life—which is undoubtedly the supreme value—the German Federal Constitutional Court was dragged after the global moral panic and has given a hand to disproportionately trampling human rights. It refused to recognize an alternative means of submitting negative COVID-19 tests as a condition of working with vulnerable people and as a less restrictive means of reaching the goal of protecting vulnerable people. It did not give weight to the autonomy of the individual, including vulnerable people, to take risks. It did not accord the due weight to the injury to livelihoods, career losses, the interruption of academic studies, and the breach of bodily integrity. It needed to adequately address the legitimacy of the sacrifice of the individual for the collective good. The failure to satisfy the requirement of proportionality could indicate the underlying intention of the ruling—putting pressure on people to get vaccinated. The COVID-19 pandemic crisis illustrates the great potential of coercive public health powers to infringe on civil liberties and the fragility of human rights when faced with danger to health. This Article advances the case for demonstrating greater respect for peoples’ autonomy to take health risks before establishing coercive measures— which curtail fundamental rights—to prevent or reduce the spread of infectious diseases. The Article sets forth principles the state should consider before limiting constitutional rights and claims that people around the world should not be deprived of their choices

Is Jacobson v. Massachusetts Viable After a Century of Dormancy? A Review in the Face of COVID-19

The COVID-19 pandemic has stretched us into the vast unknowns, emotionally, logically, politically, and legally. Relying on their police power, governments inched into the darkness of the powers’ fullest extent, leaving many to wonder whether the exercise of this power was constitutional. This Article examines the extent of the police power that both the federal and state governments have, and how Jacobson v. Massachusetts1 was the “silver bullet” for governments across the United States. Further, this Article provides an overview of police power, and the status of COVID-19 mandates. This Article additionally examines quarantine case law and provides an analysis of Jacobson. Finally, this Article discusses Jacobson’s efficacy and future. While the rationale of Jacobson has in some instances been limited, its reasoning has in other ways been expanded, as seen in its application with respect to rationalizing COVID-19 mandates in the interest of protecting the public’s welfare

Community Caretaking Exception Saves Lives . . . the Supreme Court Disagrees

As many are aware, the Fourth Amendment protects the people against unreasonable searches and seizures. A warrant is necessary for said activities. While there are a few exceptions to the warrant requirement, the Supreme Court recently held that the community caretaking exception does not extend to the home. Extending this exception to the home would allow police officers to enter and engage in functions that are unrelated to the investigation of a crime. Essentially, this exception would allow police to aid individuals and prevent serious, dangerous situations to protect the community. This Note discusses why the Supreme Court erred in its decision to deny the extension of the community caretaking exception to the home. Further, it argues how denying the extension of this exception to the home could prevent police from being able to intervene and help individuals in need in situations that do not rise to the criteria of an “emergency” which would fall under the exigent circumstances exception

The Mad Hatter’s Quip: Looking for Logic in the Independent State Legislature Theory

The Supreme Court is set to hear a case that threatens the bedrock of America’s democracy, and it is not clear how it will shake out. The cumbersomely named “Independent State Legislature Theory” is at the heart of the case Moore v. Harper, which is before the Supreme Court this term. The theory holds that state legislatures should be free from the ordinary bounds of state judicial review when engaged in matters that concern federal elections. Despite being defeated a myriad of times at the Supreme Court, the latest challenge stems from a legal battle over North Carolina’s redistricting maps. If the Court rules in favor of the theory—as some recent scholars urge them to do—then historically undemocratic state legislatures would be free to engage in all manner of devious disenfranchisement tactics, with little to no redress in state courts

Franchising Law in the United States Between Theory and Practice: Heads Up for Foreign Investors

As a dynamic vehicle for fostering investment opportunities, both domestically and internationally, franchising spans a diverse array of industrial sectors, encompassing both goods and services. The United States plays a highly influential role in global franchise industry promotion, with a vast majority of International Franchise Association members representing American companies. Present data underscores that franchising has extended its reach to virtually every sector of the American economy. Notably, the United States stands among just four common law nations that have established dedicated franchise legislation, operating at both state and federal levels. This framework includes provisions for pre-sale disclosure, registration of franchise offerings, and the regulation of contractual relationships between the parties involved. Gaining a firm grasp of the pertinent federal, state, and case law surrounding franchising, especially for foreign investors, contributes significantly to establishing credibility and garnering respect. With the aim of offering a thorough insight into the fundamentals of franchising from a legal standpoint in the U.S.A., this article delves into several key aspects. These include the components of a franchise as defined by both federal and state laws, the extent of these law’s applicability, the incentives and support mechanisms designed to encourage foreign investment in the franchising sector, and the regulatory framework governing franchise relationships. While adhering to the framework presented above for introducing and analyzing franchising in the U.S., specific observations come to light

The Categorical Imperative: In Search of the Mythical Perfect Privilege Log So Devoutly to Be Wished

Though evidentiary privilege is amongst the most perplexing fields of the law, privilege logs are assuredly amongst the most vexing. With vastly increased discovery in the age of electronically stored information, the burdens incurred by individually articulating claims of privilege on every document have grown gargantuan. In desperate search of efficiencies, many commentators and courts have looked to “categorical” privilege logs that assert claims over generic groups of similar material rather than over each item seriatim. Disputes, however, have remained distressingly acrimonious, as these new categorical logs have proven no cure-all for the fundamental divergence of interests between litigants in pitched battle. Nonetheless, the furious debate over the merits and demerits of categorization offers glimmers of hope for a less rancorous and more fruitful future for privilege logs, if not for discovery practice as a whole

Blocking Faith: How American Muslims Are Chilled Through the New Anti-Muslim Statutes and the Security Agencies’ Surveillance in the Era of Digital Policing

This Article explores the legal repercussions resulting from the new wave of anti-Muslim statutes and the state monitoring operations on American Muslims’ First Amendment rights. This Article argues that the U.S. government security agencies’ surveillance operations (actions) that target American Muslims’ religious activities and the new anti-Muslim statutes (laws) established in various states are clear violations of Muslim Americans’ First Amendment rights