Integration of Airborne Dust Prediction Systems and Vegetation Phenology to Track Pollen for Asthma Alerts in Public Health Decision Support Systems

No abstract availabl

SCOTUS’ Landmark AI Case-Gonzales v. Google

Background: What happened? On Tuesday the SCOTUS heard arguments for Gonzales v. Google which could result in a monumental decision for big tech companies. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 focuses on two main goals; one, it clarifies the practices that have limited free speech on social networks, also, this act acknowledges the increase of harmful online content. [2] The Debate: Where do we draw the line on liability? The ultimate question in this case is, to what degree should we hold big tech companies accountable for harmful content that is published by users’ on their platforms? With AI technologies becoming more developed, it is going to be more challenging for harmful information to be regulated. [1] Implications: What could this mean for AI companies? If the court ceases protections for big tech companies, this raises some questions as to how we will hold these companies accountable for the spread of misinformation. Would the people who post harmful content on these platforms take responsibility for their actions? It is also important to consider the role that the First Amendment plays in this situation, since a lot of hate speech is protected. Depending on the decision outcome of Gonzales v. Google, American citizens could become more responsible for their online content that they share. This could result in penalties such as fines, hence, it is necessary that American citizens act sagaciously when posting content online.</p

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis’ Plan for Migrants

Background:  Southern states trying to tackle the large influx of migrants coming through the U.S.-Mexico border. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis-R sees this as an opportunity to expel migrants to blue states. Recently, he used Florida state funding to fly migrants from Florida to Martha’s Vineyard in Massachusetts. He now is facing a class-action lawsuit filed by the migrants. [1] The Details:  The Florida legislature signed a bill that will most likely be signed into law by Governor DeSantis. The law will mandate that migrants be transported to blue states. On January 6, 2023 Governor DeSantis signed an executive order that deployed the National Guard to the Florida Keys to quell the influx of migrants. [2] Implications:  This law will face some legal challenges since it only declares that money in the budget will only be used to help transport migrants out of Texas. Also, the D.C. attorney has launched an investigation to evaluate the ethicalness of the law. Many activists say that DeSantis’ actions are dehumanizing towards migrants. [1] Governor DeSantis has left many immigrants without proper food, water, and shelter. These are basic necessities that every migrant deserves. Conclusions:  Governor DeSantis’ actions show how ill-equipped the U.S. is to manage migrants from the U.S.-Mexican border. Thus, effective legislation is needed and perhaps, President Biden should take a more active role in this situation.</p

Kyrsten Sinema Faces Ethical Accusations

Background: Who is Kyrsten Sinema? Senator Kyrsten Sinema (I-Arizona), was formerly a part of the Democratic Party. Sinema is a staunch advocate for bipartisanship and fostered compromises on infrastructure and gun legislation. [2] The Details: What caused Sinema to receive backlash? Sinema is accused by thirteen activist groups from Arizona of forcing her Senate staff to conduct tasks that are irrelevant to their responsibilities. Allegedly, Sinema made her staff run personal errands and complete household tasks at her residence. Sinema also coerced her staff to manage her political fundraisers and meetings with donors. [1] Based on the Senate Ethics Committee, “Congressional staff cannot participate in campaign activities while on congressional property…..” [1] Implications: What does this mean for the Democrats? Sinema leaving the Democratic party poses concerns among the Democratic Party. There has been some tension between Sinema and Democrats; this is because Sinema could potentially be causing the Democrats a must win Senate seat in 2024. [2] Conclusions: Will Sinema be held accountable? It is unclear how the government plans to hold Sinema accountable for her actions. It should be recognized that Sinema is in violation of ethics under the Senate Ethics Committee. It would be a mistake for the government to ignore the misconduct of Kyrsten Sinema. If we want to have a democracy, it is important to hold everyone accountable to the law, even our government officials.</p

Tesla Under Close Legal Watch After Racial Bias Claims Arise

Tesla’s Workplace Discrimination: Earlier this week, a former Black general manager for Tesla, John Goode filed suit against Tesla. He claims that after he confronted his White supervisor about racist comments, he was fired on baseless grounds. This is not the only racial bias claim that Tesla is facing; a former Black elevator operator, Owen Diaz, is suing Tesla for racial harassment in the workplace. Additionally, Tesla faces a class-action lawsuit from a group of Black employees alleging widespread racial discrimination at Tesla’s Fremont Plant in California. [1] All of these former Tesla employees are seeking damages for “emotional distress and punitive damages” upwards of millions of dollars. [1] Interestingly, Tesla has yet to claim responsibility for its employees’ actions in the workplace. Tesla continually denies any allegations of racial discrimination at their worksites. Attorneys for the company argued that Tesla doesn’t stand for this type of behavior in their workplace. [2] However, nothing is being done to discipline employees responsible for racial harassment nor does Tesla seem to care about how this will affect other employees of color. Legal Precedents: In 2021, Owen Diaz (former elevator operator for Tesla in California) sued Tesla for severe racial harassment. Diaz’s attorneys say that he was “repeatedly called the N-word over sixty times and no immediate action was taken to end this workplace discrimination” [3]. The court awarded punitive damages to Diaz in the amount of $137 million. [2] However, Diaz was denied an additional$15 million award because Judge Orrick did not see evidence of a sustained and concrete injury. The court ultimately held that Tesla was responsible for racial bias discrimination and workplace harassment against Diaz. Implications: This case prompts a unique discussion surrounding corporate conduct and responsibility. Is it necessary for Tesla to publicly disclose its employees’ misconduct, in these cases, racial harassment and discrimination? Also, is Tesla being transparent with the public by continuously denying to acknowledge racial bias claims? This is a multifaceted question and there doesn’t seem to be one concrete answer. It is highly important to evaluate the positions of all stakeholders in this situation. For example, it is necessary to think about how public acknowledgement of racial discrimination in Tesla’s workplace would impact not only Tesla itself, but also the victim of the harassment. If Tesla takes its accountability into public view this may bring a feeling of relief to victims and their families. Last month, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that it will incentivize companies to be more transparent about reporting employee misconduct. [4] It seems as if this policy proposal has hit rock bottom considering Tesla refuses to publicly take responsibility for workplace misconduct. Even if Tesla publicly acknowledges its employees’ misconduct how would the ramifications change in this situation? Would Tesla be held less accountable by the court based on incentives derived from the DOJ’s policy proposal? In this context it is imperative to consider the actions of people in positions of power such as higher up managers and supervisors within Tesla. It is probable that these supervisors might do just about anything to put this case behind them and receive less harsher punishment.</p

Pelosi attack increases fears of political violence

Background: What happened? Paul Pelosi, husband of Nancy Pelosi, was attacked by 42 year-old David DePape, who “embraced false claims that the election was stolen in 2020.” [1] Paul Pelosi was attacked by DePape and was repeatedly struck with a hammer and suffered a skull fracture. According to law enforcement, the attack was intentionally targeted. [1] DePape forcefully entered Nancy and Paul Pelosi’s home and shouted “‘Where is Nancy?’” [3] Results: What happens next for DePape? According to the U.S. Code § 351, “if any person assaults a member of Congress, they shall be fined, imprisoned.” [4] DePape is facing charges of homicide and elder abuse. [1] He is expected to be arraigned on Tuesday with felony charges against him. [5] Implications: What does this mean for other Congressmembers’ security? Members of Congress are voicing their concerns about potential security threats. Republicans and Democrats are worried about the rising threats of political violence. Rep Adam Kizinger (R-IL) said “…the real concern is about those who act without warning.” [2] Rep Sarah Jacobs (D-CA) said “the attack certainly heightened my own concerns about personal safety.” [2] Many have proposed increased security measures such as having officers stationed outside congress members’ homes, yet no new regulations have been initiated. Law enforcement should continue to pursue DePape’s motives for the attack. Political violence has surfaced in American Democracy today more than it ever has in history. It is important to hold people accountable for their actions in American Democracy.</p

Obama’s Concerns for American Democracy

Context: Obama goes to Philadelphia On Saturday, former President Obama was in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania campaigning for the U.S. Senate Candidate John Fetterman. [1] This U.S. Senate race “could potentially determine which political party is going to maintain control of the upper chamber.” [1] Fetterman acknowledged that he is “‘proud’” to campaign with Obama and President Biden. [2] Key Ideas: What was said in Philadelphia? Obama asserted that it is not complex to understand the “‘vile’” comments that have been made by people in positions of power. [1] In his speech, Obama referred to the recent antisemitic comments made by Ye and Kyrie Irving. [1] Obama continued to note how “‘dangerous and unacceptable’” this was. [1] Obama even called on Fetterman’s opponent, Mehmet Oz and said “If somebody’s willing to peddle snake oil to make a buck, then ‘he’s probably willing to sell snake oil to get elected.’” [1] Implications: What do Obama’s ideas mean? Obama is raising some important concerns about American Democracy. How do we know that our democracy will be stable in the future? There has been a recent uptick in threats of violence which have contributed to polarization. In order for our democracy to thrive, Levitsky and Ziblatt (scholars from Harvard University) argue that we should agree on some basic norms. [3] These norms include viewing opponents as legitimate, rejecting the use of violence in political processes, and accepting the results of the election. [3] It will be challenging to remedy the fractures within our democracy. Perhaps, these norms pose efficacious ideas which could facilitate a harmonious atmosphere between Democrats and Republicans. </p

SCOTUS’ Shocking Decision To Strike Down Affirmative Action

Background: On Thursday, June 29th, 2023, the Supreme Court upheld in a 6-3 decision that colleges no longer have to abide by affirmative action programs. [1] This essentially rids public universities of the ability to enact programs that prioritize admissions of historically marginalized groups including Black and Latino applicants. [1] These types of programs have been in place for years at various universities across America. This decision will ultimately terminate opportunities for underprivileged students and will further the education gap between White students and Latino/Black students. Legal Precedents: This is not the first time affirmative action programs have been up for debate in the SCOTUS. In the Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, the framework for affirmative action programs, was put into effect in 1978. The respondent in this case, Allan Bakke, a White man, applied to the University of California Davis Medical School. Despite his grades, he was declined admission since the school had a type of affirmative action program in place. The school allocated sixteen spots out of the class of one hundred students to minorities, in order to tackle minority exclusion in the medical industry. Bakke took his suit to the courts and argued that he was being discriminated against under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court agreed and forced the school to admit Bakke; but, in a 8-1 decision the justices held that racial restrictions on admissions decisions were constitutional. [3] Additionally, justices backed affirmative action programs in other cases such as Grutter v. Bollinger. The defendant, Barbara Grutter applied to the University of Michigan Law School; she was a White resident of Michigan and had a 3.8 GPA with a 161 on the LSAT, and was denied admission. The issue at hand in this case was whether Grutter’s rights in the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment were denied by the school’s affirmative action program. Ultimately, the court held in a 5-4 decision that affirmative action programs at the University of Michigan Law School did not violate the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. [4]  How did the SCOTUS reach its decision? The justices concluded that Affirmative Action programs unfairly prioritize minority students over White students. The justices explained that it is unconstitutional for a university to give preference to a student based on their race. [2] The majority of the justices who ruled in this case are conservative. [2] The liberal justices dissented, Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued “‘Ignoring race will not equalize a society that is racially unequal. What was true in the 1860s, and again in 1954, is true today’” [1].  What does this mean for private universities such as AU? University President Sylvia Burwell released an email following the decision, noting that the university will continue to strive towards inclusivity. However, the means of how this idea will be employed remain unclear. Burwell noted that the university is trying to build a diverse community, yet Burwell noted that the university is trying to evaluate the impact of this decision.  What happens next? Public universities have been entrapped by the SCOTUS and this has prompted the removal of educational opportunities for Black and Latino students across the country. We can only hope that private universities take matters into their own hands and continue to utilize Affirmative Action Programs. </p

U.S. Appeals Court Limits Bond Hearings for Immigrants

Background: What happened? On Monday, a U.S. appeals court stated that immigrants do not have a constitutional right to a hearing. This hearing would determine whether or not they could potentially be released from detention upon a bond. [1] This poses an intricate and complex subject matter that focuses on removing an immigrant’s access to due process. Results: What are the circuits saying? There are conflicting opinions from various circuits. The New York-based 2nd circuit, and Boston-based 1st circuit ruled that immigrants who have spent 15 months in detention have a right to a bond hearing. [1] The Philadelphia-based 3rd circuit and Virginia-based 4th circuit ruled the opposite. [1] A recent trial occurred in which Aroldo Rodriguez Diaz, who was detained for gang ties in El Salvador. He claimed that he had a right to another bond trial, but the 9th U.S. The Circuit Court of Appeals denied his actions in a 2-1 ruling. [1] According to the district court, Rodriguez Diaz was granted another bond hearing. The district court further explained that it is necessary for the higher courts to “provide clear and convincing evidence that Rodriguez Diaz is a threat to his surrounding community” [2]. Despite this, it was not possible for Rodriguez Diaz to have access to a bond hearing, based on actions taken by the higher courts. Conclusions: What are the implications? This ruling by the Circuit Court of Appeals raises many questions about immigrants’ constitutional rights in the U.S. There are clearly ambiguities within our Constitution that don’t provide clear and concrete answers to immigrants’ protection of habeas corpus. The case ruling in Rodriguez Diaz v. Garland ultimately shows a violation of due process and habeas corpus.</p

U.S. Justice Department Rejects January 6th Trump Immunity Claim

The DOJ Takes Action: Earlier this month, the DOJ attempted to persuade an appeals court to deny Trump’s immunity claims from being involved with his supporters’ lawsuits. [1] The Department of Justice has received an overwhelming amount of lawsuits claiming Trump liable for the January 6th riots. It seems that the DOJ will move forward in pursuing an investigation to hold Trump liable for inciting violence and conspiring with his supporters on January 6th. [1] Legal Precedents: A relevant legal precedent to this issue is Nixon v Fitzgerald. The respondent, Fitzgerald, was a civilian analyst for the United States Air Force. [2] He gave testimony in front of a congressional committee about the obstacles he faced when building the C-5A transport plane. [2] Fitzgerald was later fired as a cause of specific actions by President Nixon. Fitzgerald claimed that Nixon was responsible for his termination from his job, and sued Nixon. The court had to decide whether the president could be immune from being held accountable under the law in a civil suit. Ultimately, the court held in a 5-4 decision that President Nixon was protected and given immunity under this civil case. Justice Powell noted in the decision that “the constitutional tradition of separation of powers” exempted President Nixon from being held liable for the dismissal of Fitzgerald. [2] Implications: This court case raises unique ideas about how the United States should hold executives accountable for their actions. If the Constitution requires the courts to hold everyone accountable to the law, why should presidents receive special treatment? Is it better to hold the president less accountable for their actions so that they appear stronger? Or is it bolder to weaken the president’s power by holding them liable for their actions without immunity? School of Public Affairs Professor, Chris Edelson, specializes in analyzing presidential national security power in the United States. Professor Edelson notes in his book that there are two approaches from scholars Louis Fisher and John Yoo about presidential power. [3] Scholar Fisher argues that it is imperative to keep the president in check by preventing them from overstepping the bounds of their power. Scholar Fisher also writes that it is important to hold presidents accountable to the law under the judiciary system. [3] Contrastingly, Scholar Yoo argues that in order for the president to carry out their constitutional functions, it is necessary that they have plenary power, this includes the power to act in emergencies when it is in the interest of protecting citizens of the United States. [3] In the past as stated above in Nixon v. Fitzgerald, it is easy for presidents to become immune to the laws within the Constitution. This poses some potential problems when it comes to former President Trump and linking him to the violence of the January 6th riots. It is inconceivable that government officials would grant Trump immunity from the law. Nowhere in the Constitution does it explicitly say that the president is immune to the law or being held accountable for their actions. If the DOJ aims to hold Trump liable for his actions, this could potentially strengthen American Democracy. If we want to move towards a fairer America, it is important to uphold our constitutional values without any alteration.</p