Comrades or Foes: Did the Russians Break the Law or New Ground for the First Amendment?

This Article discusses the recent decision by the United States Federal Government to indict more than a dozen Russian nationals for conspiracy to defraud the United States of America. The Government accused the Russians of staging protests, distributing false propaganda, and spreading political messages and ideologies online in an effort to affect the outcome of the 2016 Presidential Election. We argue that while the Defendants violated several other laws, the majority of the acts the Government classifies as a conspiracy to defraud the United States should not be considered criminal. Rather, these acts are protected political speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution because the Russians engaged in conduct that is crucial to political discourse in a Democracy and which the Founding Fathers intended to protect. Therefore, prosecution of the Russian Defendants on that basis should cease

A Second Opinion: Can Windsor v. United States Survive President Trump’s Supreme Court?

This Article examines President Donald Trump’s recent recomposition of the United States Supreme Court and the potential effects on Windsor v. United States and its progeny. The Article considers whether the shifting balance of the Court may lead to reconsideration of Windsor, particularly via attempted exploits of the weaknesses in the standard of review applied to reach the decision. The Article will conclude that while revolutionary, Windsor lacked the doctrinal clarity of its offspring, Obergefell v. Hodges, and therefore may be at greatest risk of reversal by the increasingly conservative Court. In particular, the Court may rely on the conflict between Windsor and preceding jurisprudence regarding the rational basis review standard to draw the conclusion that Windsor should have been decided differently under the state of the law in 2013

Comrades or Foes: Did the Chinese Break the Law or New Ground Ground for the First Amendment

Prior to exiting the White House, President Trump placed a variety of restrictions on Chinese-owned social media applications, TikTok and WeChat, threatening to greatly curtail their influence in the United States. While couching his actions in the context of national security, the former president engaged in viewpoint discrimination in plain violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The court rulings in favor of TikTok and WeChat were encouraging and should stem the tide of future government regulations of social media platforms. This article discusses how the decisions fit into the greater context of First Amendment jurisprudence and shows that government regulations of internet communication platforms is almost assuredly unconstitutional, whether the platform is foreign or domestic. Therefore, current and future proposals for state and federal regulations should be viewed with skepticism, as they would ultimately fail constitutional scrutiny

When Congress Passes the Buck: How Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine Exposed Flaws in Granting the President Sanctioning Powers

The United States (U.S.) Constitution provides few limitations on endowing the Executive Branch with powers to govern foreign trade, which was initially granted to the Legislature. In a world where global trade dominates, the power over foreign trade can be more important than the power over domestic matters. Leaving unrestrained trade authority to the Executive Branch may cause hazards for Americans and foreigners alike. Russia’s war in Ukraine demonstrates the flaws in permitting the Executive Branch to unilaterally sanction foreign states. This Article demonstrates how reactive Executive Branch policies infringed on the welfare and safety of American citizens and foreigners alike

Who Watches the Watchmen? Character and Fitness Panels and the Onerous Demands Imposed on Bar Applicants

This Article discusses the onerous requirements that state bars sometimes impose on bar applicants to prove good moral character despite the vague definition of the term and the apparently limitless amount of evidence that a character and fitness panel can rely on to deny or delay admission. We present recent examples of decisions that beg the question of whether state bars are really preventing the entry of the unethical into the profession or simply screening out applicants that panelists dislike. We also discuss at least one potential problem highlighted within the process by COVID-19. This Article argues that while most bar applicants pass the character and fitness portion of their bar application without problems, history shows that the potential for arbitrary decisions is so high that this potential should be eliminated. The changes we propose should come either voluntarily, as state bars appropriately adjust their rules to notify applicants of what conduct is truly prohibited, or via a ruling from the Supreme Court of the United States, which has already established some constitutional requirements for the process that have apparently been forgotten

The Alarming Legality of Security Manipulation Through Shareholder Proposals

Shareholder proposals attract attention from scholars in finance and economics because they present an opportunity to study both quasidemocratic decision-making at the corporate level and the impact of this decision-making on firm outcomes. These studies capture the effect of various proposals but rarely address whether regulations should allow many of them in the first place due to the possibility of stock price manipulation. Recent changes to shareholder proposal rules, adopted in September 2020, sought to address the potential for exploitation that some proposals create (but ultimately failed to do so). This Article shows the potential for apparently legal stock price manipulation if shareholder proposals remain relatively unregulated. We propose improvements to decrease this risk of stock price manipulation, which should help the government prosecute the offenders

The Implications of Marijuana Legalization on the Prevalence and Severity of Schizophrenia

The article discusses how regulation is vital to protect the small proportion of the population that will develop schizophrenia from marijuana use. Topics discussed include marijuana\u27s effects on a user\u27s psyche; triggers and symptoms of schizophrenia; and need to legalize marijuana for people who are at least twenty-five years old or who have been cleared by a psychologist

The Implications of Marijuana Legalization on the Prevalence and Severity of Schizophrenia

The article discusses how regulation is vital to protect the small proportion of the population that will develop schizophrenia from marijuana use. Topics discussed include marijuana\u27s effects on a user\u27s psyche; triggers and symptoms of schizophrenia; and need to legalize marijuana for people who are at least twenty-five years old or who have been cleared by a psychologist