Beyond \u3ci\u3eMicrosoft\u3c/i\u3e: A Legislative Solution to the SCA’s Extraterritoriality Problem

The Stored Communications Act governs U.S. law enforcement’s access to cloud data, but the statute is ill equipped to handle the global nature of the modern internet. A pending U.S. Supreme Court case, United States v. Microsoft, raises the question whether a warrant under the statute may be used to reach across international borders to obtain data that is stored in another country, regardless of the user’s nationality. While the Court will determine whether this is an impermissible extraterritorial application of the current law, many have called for a legislative resolution to this issue. Due to the insufficiency of the current law, the limits of traditional judicial doctrines, and the inherent advantages the legislature has over the judiciary in addressing technological change, this Note also recommends a legislative resolution. Building upon a legislative proposal, this Note proposes a framework with two separate sets of legal procedures based on user identity. These separate domestic and extraterritorial procedures provide a framework that would set clear guidelines for law enforcement and service providers while giving due respect to foreign sovereignty

Fluoridation of Public Water Systems: Valid Exercise of State Police Power or Constitutional Violation

The addition of fluoride to public water systems is naively accepted by most Americans as a purported method of reducing tooth decay, but the toxic properties of fluoride and its effect on the human body are virtually unbeknownst to the public. Many lawsuits have been brought over the last thirty years seeking to enjoin the artificial fluoridation of public water, but courts have always upheld the statutes as a valid exercise of state police power. However, this police power is not absolute; statutes enacted to protect the health of citizens must not violate any constitutionally guaranteed rights. Those statutes which impinge on fundamental rights must pass the demanding standard of judicial review called strict scrutiny. Because two recent Supreme Court decisions have held that compulsory medication against one\u27s will is a constitutional violation of the 14th Amendment liberty interest, this Comment argues that fluoridation statutes will not pass a strict scrutiny analysis and that the United States Supreme Court should find these statutes to be in contravention of the Constitution