northcarolinaprelawland-blog

[northcarolinaprelawland-blog]

Flight Risk: The Boeing 787 Whistleblower Case

By Elliona Bannerman, North Carolina Central University, Class of 2022

April 12, 2024

Currently, a case against Boeing International Aircraft Company and a Boeing quality engineer, Sam Salehpour, is taking place to discuss the safety concerns and assembly of the 787 Dreamliner aircraft [1]. He stated that he saw shortcuts being taken by Boeing during the creation of the 787 Dreamliner plane along with the 777 aircraft assembly to the Federal Aviation Association in January 2024 [1]. The purpose of this article is to discuss the history, overview, and upcoming legal battle for Boeing aircraft company.

There has been a history of safety problems faced by Boeing dates. In 2015, an auditor with the FAA came across a Boeing subcontractor falsifying certifications on several 777 aircraft that can result in short or fires [2]. In addition, tools were being left inside plane wings and improperly installed wires in 787s [2]. Boeing were made aware of these safety issues and agreed to fix them, but it was shown they failed to do so according to the FAA [2]. For various accounts of failing to comply with safety regulations, the records showed Boeing faced fines of up to ten of millions of dollars for each violation [2]. FAA officials gathered all the safety violations from Boeing together and negotiated a broader deal to address the systemic issues involving Boeing [2]. This resulted in heavy scrutiny over Boeing of crashes of their 787 Max jet, documents, and interviews that portrayed the aircraft company has problems regarding their safety known to federal regulators for years [2].

In the end, the FAA and Boeing signed a five-year settlement agreeing to pay $12 million and make significant changes to their internal safety systems and practices to ensure compliance

with regulations [2]. The settlement revealed cases of failure to correct certain fixes or problems that were happening on the aircraft [2]. Before this agreement was signed, employees at Boeing kept failing to insert “lock wires” into holes that are used to build planes, as it is stated by the FAA [2]. The company then agreed to provide “on-demand reports” to show documentation pertaining to Boeing’s work, but it was shown that Boeing portrayed some resistance to revealing that information [2].

Now in 2024, Boeing is facing another safety violation case where an engineer who is titled as a “whistleblower”, publicly revealed Boeing took “shortcuts” to meet their production goals [3]. He states the shortcuts to eagerly meet the production goals can shorten the life of the plane and potentially cause it to break apart mid-flight [3]. There has been a history of current and former employees of Boeing stating they express their concerns but are often retaliated against because of speaking up [3]. Boeing is trying to build their trust with aircraft and the public after a recent accident where the door panel on the side of the plane blew out midair from a 737 Max 8 in January of this year [3]. Boeing takes the position they strive to address all concerns and doesn’t promote retaliation offense against their employees [3]. This fallout for Boeing left CEO Dave Calhoun to step down before the end of the year and other executives being let go because of the matter reaching the top ranks in leadership [4].

The upcoming legal battle this aircraft company bears is a Senate hearing that calls CEO David Calhoun to testify about the company’s jetliners from an inquiry of safety violation from quality engineer, Sam Salehpour [5]. The hearing will be held April 17 to discuss the details of safety concerns involving the assembly of the 787 Dreamliner, as these problems can create “catastrophic risks to safety” to the company and public [5].

______________________________________________________________

[1] CBS News. (2024). FAA investigating Boeing whistleblower claims about 787dreamliner. Retrieved from https://www.cbsnews.com/news/boeing-787-dreamliner-whistleblower-faa-investigating/ [2] The Washington Post. (2019). Long before the max disasters, Boeing had a history offailing to fix safety problems. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/long-before-the-max-disasters-boeing-had-a-history-of-failing-to-fix-safety-problems/2019/06/26/b4f5f720-86ee-11e9-a870-b9c411dc4312_story.html [3] NPR. (2024). Another Boeing whistleblower says he faced retaliation for reporting shortcuts. Retrieved from

[4] CNN. (2024). Boeing somehow managed to get itself into even bigger trouble. Retrieved from https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/10/investing/boeing-safety-problems/index.html

[5] Spectrum News. (2024). Congress summons Boeing’s CEO to testify on its jetliner safety following new whistleblower charges. Retrieved from https://ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/transportation/2024/04/10/congress-summons-boeing-s-ceo-to-testify-on-its-jetliner-safety-following-new-whistleblower-charges

[northcarolinaprelawland-blog]

Cybercrime: A Growing Threat

By Elliona Bannerman, North Carolina Central University, Class of 2022

April 11, 2024

Cybercrime is engaging in criminal activity through a computer or another technological device [1]. Statistics show that the United States lost more than $4 billion to cybercrime within the year of 2020 [2]. Recently, there has been an ongoing trend of cyberattacks happening across the world, which relates to the purpose of this article to discuss the overview of cybercrime and its growing threat taking place. Due to cybercrime being a broad activity, there are categories of cybercrime that are common. There are: Attacks on individuals, on property, and on government [3].

Attacks on individuals refers to cybercrime through identity theft, cyberstalking, or credit card fault [3]. Attacks on property are viruses on computers/telephones, copyright infringement, or Distributed Denial-of-Service Attack (DDoS) [3]. Government attacks include hacking, cyberterrorism, or spreading propaganda [3]. The effects of cybercrime are that it impacts individuals and businesses that can potentially ruin their organization(s) and how they conduct their daily activities. Cybercrime first peaked during the 18th century with email scams and viruses, and has increased to businesses and governments being shut down due to ransomware attacks [3].

A case of cybercrime was shown in 1834, when thieves invaded the French telegraph system and were able to gain access to financial markets to steal data [4]. Current trends portray the increase of Artificial Intelligence advancement that allows hackers to experiment in social engineering and phishing, ransomware, spyware, and so forth [3]. Organizations that are most targeted are healthcare providers, small businesses, financial institutions, retail industry, and

government agencies [5]. The sudden rise in cyberattacks happened during the COVID-19 pandemic, when vulnerabilities in technology and lack of attention to security caused cyber criminals to gain access into weak enforcement of organizations to participate in illegal behavior [2]. The most aggressive tactic that is currently taking place is ransomware, by holding data and threatening to release it to the dark web unless the ransom is paid [3].

In April 2024, a recent case of cyberattack occurred when AT&T was a victim to a massive data breach [6]. Millions of AT&T customers were at a risk of their personal information being shared on the dark web, which were stolen by cyber hackers [6]. In total, an estimate of 7.6 million current and 65.4 million former AT&T customers have been affected [6].

The Federal Bureau of Investigations have incorporated legal and defensive forces to tackle the issue with cybercrime. They establish specific hubs to handle cyber threats that take place in government, industry, and academia environments [7]. The National Cyber Investigative Joint Task Force (NCIJTF) was formulated within the FBI with more than 30 co-located agencies of the Intelligence Community and law enforcement to handle cyberattacks from U.S. adversaries [7].

Some of the preventive methods consist of education of different cyberattacks, cyber risk management (involving everyone not just the IT department), strengthen security measures to update and relevant software, employ backup data systems, and so much more to effectively enforce and promote a digital connected world where we can accomplish confident, security and safety [4].

To conclude, with preventive measures and methods, we can limit and tackle the issue of cyber crimes. Legal frameworks and policies will help support the methods to decrease the attacks from cyber criminals and help bring those infiltrating institutions to justice for the digital crimes committed.

______________________________________________________________

[1] Merriam-Webster (1828). Cybercrime. Retrieved from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cybercrime [2] U.S. Department of State. (2024). Cybercrime. Retrieved from https://www.state.gov/cybercrime [3] Cisco. (2024). What is cybercrime. Retrieved from https://www.cisco.com/site/us/en/learn/topics/security/what-is-cybercrime.html#jump-anchor-2 [4] BlueVoyant. (2022). Cybercrime: History, global impact & protective measures. Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/mut795pf [5] REREM Data Security. (2024). Top 5 industries at high risk of cyberattacks in 2024. Retrieved fromhttps://www.linkedin.com/pulse/top-5-industries-high-risk-cyber-attacks-2024-rerem-data-security-7bslc/ [6] CBS News. (2024). What customers should know about AT&T’s massive data breach. Retrieved from https://www.cbsnews.com/news/att-data-breach-2024-cbs-news-explains/

[7] FBI. (2024). The cyber threat. Retrieved from https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/cyber

[northcarolinaprelawland-blog]

South Africa’s Prosecution of Israel on the International Stage

By Aaron Johnson, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Class of 2024

February 6, 2024

On December 29th, 2023, South Africa formally filed a complaint with the International Court of Justice (ICJ) pursuant to allegations that Israel’s behavior in the Gaza Strip constituted violations of the United Nation’s 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, or as cited in the filing, the “Genocide Convention”. This filing comes in the wake of the October 7th attacks carried out by Hamas against Israel and the subsequent conflict that has arisen in the Gaza Strip in response.

Conflict and War have been a longstanding constant in the region since the end of the Second World War, with the main driving factors being Israel’s right to exist in the Holy Land and the Palestinian people’s same right to that land and self-determination. Through years of conflict between the Israeli and Palestinian people, along with Arab neighbors, Israel has succeeded in successful control of much of the Holy Land, leaving a majority of the Palestinian people to live in the areas of the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights.

Gaza had been directly occupied by Israel from 1967-2005[1]. In 2006, Hamas were elected as the Palestinian Government in Gaza following the Israeli exit. Since Hamas’ rise to power, they have launched several rocket campaigns and forceful attacks earning them a widely recognizes distinction as a terrorist organization.

The current campaign in Gaza has largely been contextualized behind Israel receiving the largest attack on a Jewish population since the Holocaust, Israel’s right to defend herself, and the extreme number of Israeli hostages taken into the Gaza Strip on October 7th. However, Gaza is still a highly populated, relatively small area with massive amounts of civilians. A ground invasion and/or bombing campaign in such an area can be painstakingly hard to carry out in order to stop or limit the loss of civilian lives. This is exactly how a humanitarian crisis can begin in a war zone, and where large portions of the international community have widely condemned Israel for its response to October 7th in Gaza. Mass loss of civilian lives in Gaza is at the heart of South Africa’s filing with the ICJ.

The three main accusations leveled against Israel in the filing are as follows:

      C. Genocidal Acts Committed against the Palestinian People1;

      D. Expressions of Genocidal Intent against the Palestinian People by Israeli State                                                                            Officials and Others2;

      E. Recognition of Israel’s Genocidal Intent Against Palestinians3;

Under Genocidal Acts Committed against the Palestinian People, South Africa details a total 55,000 wounded Palestinian civilians, most of whom are women and children. They also describe massive bombing campaigns without targets, including the demolition of hospitals and schools, the killing of doctors and journalists, the mass arrest of civilians, and  forced expulsion from homes.

Under the Expressions of Genocidal Intent Against the Palestinian People by Israeli Officials and Others, South Africa cites sixteen different Israeli Ministers and Army officials for Genocidal statements and actions, including Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Herzog. The former is accused of statements quoting the destruction of Amalek from the Bible which asks the Israelites to kill men, women, and children alike. President Herzog is quoted as stating the “entire nation… is responsible” and civilians were “aware” and “involved”.

South Africa claims, through these acts, Israel has violated the Genocide Convention by:

Failing to prevent genocide;

Committing genocide;

Conspiring to commit genocide;

Direct and public incitement of genocide;

Attempting to commit genocide;

Complicity in genocide;

and has sought relief by pleading for Israel to immediately stop genocidal behaviors and/or behaviors that risk Palestinian lives, punishment for those who have committed genocidal acts, safe return for Gaza civilians to their homes, conservation of evidence in any potential investigation into genocidal acts, and assurances and guarantees that Genocide Convention be followed in accordance with its obligations.

On January 26th, 2024, the ICJ released a Summary Order based on South Africa’s complaint finding Israel may have violated certain Articles in the Genocide Convention. Upon awaiting the court’s final decision, Israel has been ordered to4:

Prevent and punish incitement to commit genocide;

Immediately enable humanitarian assistance and needed basic services;

Prevent the destruction and/or preserve all evidence of genocide in accordance with the Genocide Convention;

Prevent killing and/or causing mental and physical harm to civilians;

Prevent measures intending on preventing the birth of civilians;

Submit a report within one month of the order, detailing all measures taken to comply with the court’s order;

The glaring problem with both South Africa’s complaint and the summary order issued by the ICJ is in its credibility and jurisdiction. Although the ICJ is the highest Judicial Court in the United Nations, it has relatively low enforcement powers. In essence, the ICJ’s “police force” is the Security Council with China, Russia, the United States, the United Kingdom, and France as its permanent members. Such great ideological differences on the council make it almost impossible for prosecution and justice to take place.

The United States’ close relationship with Israel will ensure that Israel, if found guilty, would never be brought to justice. The same can be said for Vladimir Putin’s war crimes in Ukraine. The Security Council would never agree on the validity of an ICJ ruling. Only twice has the United Nations been able to prosecute genocide and war crimes, the aftermath of the Bosnian and Rwandan genocides respectively.

Since December 29th, the three western nations on the Security Council have all stated their opposition to South Africa’s complaint illustrating the effective dead-end this case will inevitably face. However, the case still serves as an opportunity for countries in opposition to Israel to highlight perceived violations of human rights and the rules of war on an international stage. For South Africa specifically, this can be extremely important. The country has long tried to shake the legacy of Apartheid internationally and propel itself into a leadership role on the African Continent. This complaint serves as both a genuine plea to the ICJ and an emphasis on the moral character that South Africa has acquired since the 90’s.

______________________________________________________________

1 Although Israel formally withdrew from Gaza, the United Nations, a vast majority of Governments, and Humanitarian Groups still view Israel as occupiers through there control of all of Gaza’s borders, seas, air space, and essential resources. This is where the term Gaza as an “open-air prison” stems from.

[1] Application Instituting Proceedings. https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20231228-app-01-00-en.pdf  pg. 30. Accessed 14 Jan. 2024.

[2] Application Instituting Proceedings. pg. 59

[3] Application Instituting Proceedings. pg. 67

[4] Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel). https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240126-sum-01-00-en.pdf Accessed 01 Feb. 2024.

[5] South Africa says Israel’s campaign in Gaza amounts to genocide. What can the UN do about it?. https://apnews.com/article/un-court-south-africa-israel-gaza-genocide 71be2ce7f09bfee05a7cae26689ee262. Accessed 11 Jan. 2024.

[6] South Africa files case at ICJ accusing Israel of ‘genocidal acts’ in Gaza. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/12/29/south-africa-files-case-at-icj-accusing-israel-of-genocidal-acts-in-gaza. Accessed 14 Jan. 2024.

[7] Israel must comply with key ICJ ruling ordering it do all in its power to prevent genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/01/israel-must-comply-with-key-icj-ruling-ordering-it-do-all-in-its-power-to-prevent-genocide-against-palestinians-in-gaza/. Accessed 01 Feb. 2024.

[northcarolinaprelawland-blog]

A Look Into Protesters Rights and The First Amendment

By Elliona Bannerman, North Carolina Central University, Class of 2022

December 29, 2023

The First Amendment of the constitution states Congress makes no law according to religion or prohibiting the free exercise [1]. This amendment protects the freedom of speech, press, assembly, and the right to petition the Government without fear of punishment [1]. Simply put, this amendment affords a citizen the right to exercise their freedom to voice their thoughts without Congress being able to make a law against it. This can be difficult as it relates to protesters which can end in rioting and as a result people end up killed, beatings, pepper spray, and so forth. This often leads into those protesting being charged and sentenced to jail time, which is the purpose of this article to take a closer look into cases of protester rights and see how the first amendment contributes to the case.

In 2016, the case, Doe v. McKesson, involved a protest led by DeRay Mckesson that was based around the Black Lives Matter platform [2]. During the protest, an attendee struck a police officer named John Doe who is a part of the Baton Rouge Police Department, with an object that caused severe injuries to the officer [2]. The officer sued McKesson, stating that he organized and led the protest, so he “should have known” that violence is likely to follow [2]. This is because the protest was conducted in front of the police department, blocking entry and access to the street, with McKesson directing the protest throughout [2]. A history is shown of McKesson protests across the country that often leads to violence that includes property damage [2]. The case was dismissed in 2017 by the District Court of Louisiana that held the First Amendment and the constitutional rule that protesters and leaders can’t be liable for the actions (violent or not) of a third party unless that intentional or personally “authorized” the violence [3].

The case then went through a series of appeals with the Fifth Circuit reversing the decision and which led towards the U.S. The Supreme Court heard the case, and they ruled to vacate the Fifth Circuit decision and direct it back to the Louisiana Supreme Court to address the case in relation to the state law [3]. The case is currently in review stage by the Supreme Court, which was filed by McKesson on October 5, 2023 [3]. This case is an example of the challenge of the First Amendment and Protesting, with how it is a complex case to decide whether an individual involved in a protest can be held accountable for their actions if it results in violence or rioting. In May 2020, there were various protests happening across the world due to the killing of George Floyd by the police, and some resulted in violence between law enforcement and citizens. Since then the uproar of protests has been increasing around the country with some being held accountable for their actions in the court of law. In the state of North Carolina, Governor Cooper introduced two bills into law that discusses anti-rioting which is titled Prevent Rioting and Civil Disorder bill [4]. This increases the punishments of rioting or inciting a riot by individuals that leads to damage to property,injury, or death [4].

Those who advocate for the new law acknowledge the constitutional right of the First Amendment, but they feel those who cause peaceful protests to turn into chaos, must be held accountable in the court of law [4]. While opponents of the law fear the bill can silence voices because of the possibility of losing your right to vote if they are charged by this bill which is considered a felony [4].

The American Civil Liberties Union has established on their website information for protesters to know to protect themselves according to the First Amendment and what steps to take for preparation [5]. However, the police and government are allowed to place certain restrictions on the speech rights according to their laws to ensure the safety of communities within that specific city and state.

______________________________________________________________

[1] White House Gov. (2023). The constitution. Retrieved from https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/our-government/the-constitution/#:~:text=The%20First%20Amendment%20provides%20that,the%20right%20to%20bear%20 arms. [2] US Courts. (2023). United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth circuit. Retrieved from https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/17/17-30864-CV4.pdf [3] ACLU. (2023). Retrieved from https://www.aclu.org/cases/doe-v-mckesson [4] ABC 11. (2023). Anti-rioting bill becomes law without Gov. Cooper’s signature. Retrieved from https://abc11.com/rioting-stiffer-penalties-for-rioters-gov-roy-cooper-anti-rioting-bill/129 75325/ [5] ACLU. (2023). Know your rights: Protesters’ rights. Retrieved from https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/protesters-rights

[northcarolinaprelawland-blog]

The Legal Framework of Expungement and Youth Offenders Records

By Elliona Bannerman, North Carolina Central University, Class of 2022

November 23, 2023

The purpose of the juvenile justice system is to create a difference between adults and youth who are involved with the justice system. This includes using terminology that differentiates from adults and children, like for example a criminal is typically used for adult offenders while juvenile is used for youth offenders. Youth offenders differ from adults because they are tried in juvenile court where they are able to focus on other alternatives of punishment for the youth who have committed the offense, whereas adults are more subject to incarceration punishment for their crimes. Once a youth offender is adjudicated then disposed to specific consequences of their offense, this starts a record of offenses that have been committed in their juvenile court. Typically, a youth offender's records are sealed due to them being a minor from the public but have limited access by the justice system professionals like prosecutors, magistrate, and so forth [1].

Legal framework has been made in the juvenile justice system to expunge or erase a youth offender's record completely once they reach the age of 18 so they do not have to face life-changing consequences once they achieve adulthood [1]. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, a youth offender record includes background information, police, district attorney, probation, and other criminal justice agencies documents that are used within the juvenile’s case [1]. Because this information is included this can prevent certain adulthood requirements that a young person may have to face like college applications, getting a job, joining the military, etc… That is why lawmakers are making a framework to the expungement of youth offenders records so they do not have to encounter collateral damage from their offenses they committed in their youth [1]. This can be quite challenging because all states have certain procedures that allow them to either seal or expunge records pertaining to specific cases [1]. In addition, the youth is oftentimes not notified whether they can or how to expunge their record [1].

The history of proceedings in the juvenile court is to protect and safeguard the youth that is entering the system, which is why the court process is closed to the public and the youth offender record is to remain confidential [2]. The record was sealed or expunged over time due to stigmatization revolving around the youth, but state legislatures started to emphasize punishment and retribution versus rehabilitation, which resulted in some states changing their confidential laws in juvenile court [2]. When this occurred 30 states in 1997 allowed or required juvenile court proceedings that involved violent offenses to be heard openly in an effort to take violent offenses committed by the youth seriously and deter the rapid youth delinquency that was happening throughout the 90s [2]. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention with the direction of the U.S. Department of Justice has implemented a program that eliminates barriers to reentry programs and recidivism reduction with emphasis on youth offenders [3]. The OJJDP is centered on the strengths, needs, and voices of youth and their families this can help with successful integrating programs that limit recidivism among youth offenders with the action of expungement of records [3]. The OJJDP’s framework consists of selecting a national training and technical assistance provider that supports the efforts to expunge youth records [3].

There are eligibility requirements for expunging and sealing a youth offender record as it relates to filing a petition with the juvenile court and the case specifics [4]. The concept of sealing and expungement differs in each state because some states look at sealing as being extremely harder to access [4]. While expungement is the physical deletion of the record from ever existing, which an individual can benefit more from [4]. A 2019 study showed that only 6.5% of youth offenders were eligible to receive expungement within the certain time of five years [3].

The idea of expungement is the erasing of records from the justice system. This is important for youth offenders as they reach adulthood because they will have a reduction of barriers that they can benefit from. Likewise, stigma is limited because their offense records will not be a determining factor for them to seek employment, for example. Legal framework has been set in place from in the past to recent times to limit the idea of recidivism in relation to expungement, with the “Ban the box” legislative that allows an individual record to not be held against them. Which is the reason the juvenile justice system was created to protect the youth and give them alternatives to leading a productive life without the involvement of the justice system.

______________________________________________________________

[1] Teigen, A. (2016). Automatically sealing or expunging juvenile records. Retrievedfrom https://www.ncsl.org/civil-and-criminal-justice/automatically-sealing-or expungingjuvenilerecords

[2] NAP (2001). The juvenile justice system. Retrieved from https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/9747/chapter/7#212 [3] OJJDP. (2023). Eliminating records barriers to youth success. Retrieved from https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/funding/fy2023/o-ojjdp-2023-171734 [4] Justia. (2023). Sealing juvenile criminal records and legal eligibility. Retrieved from https://www.justia.com/criminal/expungement-record-sealing/sealing-juvenile-records/

[northcarolinaprelawland-blog]

The Impact Of DNA Evidence Within The Criminal Justice System

By Elliona Bannerman, North Carolina Central University, Class of 2022

November 14, 2023

Deoxyribonucleic acid as known as DNA is a molecule that carries genetic or biological information that is developed and functioned in an organism [1]. The molecule links two strands together that creates a twisted ladder, more famously known as a double helix [1]. The U.S. criminal justice system first introduced the idea of DNA in 1986 in an effort to remove and identify suspects in a crime due to saliva, blood, hair, and other DNA evidence being left at the scene [2]. The use of DNA has helped bring more justice to the justice system in relation to innocent individuals who are imprisoned falsely for a crime they did not commit. This forensic tool has helped provide support for criminal justice professionals across the world to give more accuracy to catching the correct offender. 

The history of DNA dates back to England in 1986 when it was used to solve a crime where two young women were sexually assaulted and murdered [2]. Throughout the investigation, an individual had confessed to committing the crime but only one, which led the police to conduct a DNA testing to link the two scenes and to provide accuracy to implicate the correct suspect for both crimes [2]. The testing showed that the DNA for both crimes matched, and it was not the individual who confessed, this drove the initiation for the police to conduct a screening for the whole town [2]. Eventually, this led to the real offender being arrested and convicted for the crime against the two women. This started the evolution of DNA testing across criminal justice agencies in an effort to supply training and knowledge to testing of evidence that will implicate the correct individual for the crime committed. Oftentimes, this results in people going to prison or jail for a crime they did not commit due to being wrongfully accused and convicted. 

According to the Innocence Project (2023), 575 individuals who have been wrongfully imprisoned have been exonerated due to DNA testing that shows their innocence since 1989 [3]. In addition, approximately 34 people on death row have been exonerated due to DNA testing [3]. The creation of DNA was a valuable tool to use to show the right criminal for the set crime, but there are challenges to this tool, with most states not being able to use it because of the cost. The estimated cost for testing DNA can round up to $50,000, this can be because of multiple tests having to be run for a single piece of evidence and so on that can increase the overall price for the test [3]. Which is why it is important for forensic officials, crime scene technicians, and so forth to handle all evidence with care and follow the chain of custody to ensure it is not tampered to provide accurate results to catch the correct offender. 

Another aspect of DNA is CODIS which is known as the Combined DNA Index System is a database regulated by the FBI which allows local and state crime labs to share and compare DNA profiles electronically [3]. In other words, it links crimes together to see if they match to other crimes committed in different places and identifies a suspect.

There are a variety of wrongfully convicted cases which came as a result of DNA evidence that are famously and not as famous. A case that demonstrate the need of DNA testing is the “Exonerated 5”, more prominent known as “Central Park 5”, where five male teenagers were wrongfully convicted for the sexual assault and attack of a female jogging in the Central Park area of New York in 1989. The use of DNA evidence and testing was a major contribution to this case that eventually led to the overturn of the conviction and release of those five males from prison. 

With DNA being a complex creation into the justice system, the federal government has certain laws that show how DNA should be used in criminal justice capacity [4]. For instance, the Federal Bureau of Investigation is required to issue and revise the Quality Assurance and Proficiency Testing Standards for crime scene labs within the United States [4]. This ensures that standards, procedures, steps, and so forth are being administered to produce accurate and quality analyses pertaining to the DNA evidence [4]. Likewise, there are limitations to any aspect of techniques used in the criminal justice system which allows for further research to be conducted and more developments to be made to enhance DNA testing of evidence. It is stated by Liu and Rakoff (2023), three developments have been made to use DNA testing in the court system [5].

The first development looks at DNA profiling for identifying and determining individuals to a higher degree of probability that incorporates other forms of forensic science that can be used to determine more accurate results [5]. The second development consist of holding judges accountable to carefully analyze forensic evidence and whether it should be used in a jury trial due to the U.S. Supreme Court precedents [5]. The third looks at the publication of a National Academy of Science report that is examining the validity of different forensic tools and the impact on trial judges to provide an accurate verdict [5]. 

Overall, it is critical for criminal justice professionals to understand the impact of DNA testing within the justice system and how to increase knowledge of new techniques and tools that are being developed to enhance the use. The world is steadily advancing, especially with the creation of A.I. technology that can benefit and/or limit the method of DNA testing. 

______________________________________________________________

[1] NIH. (2023). Deoxyribonucleic acid. Retrevied from https://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/Deoxyribonucleic-Acid#:~:text=Deoxyribonucleic%20acid%20(abbreviated%20DNA)%20is,known%20as%20a%20double%20helix.

[2] NIJ. (2023). DNA evidence overview. Retrieved from https://nij.ojp.gov/nij-hosted-online-training-courses/what-every-first-responding-officer-should-know-about-dna/dna-evidence-overview#a9oxyp

[3] Innocence Project. (2023). DNA and wrongful conviction: Five facts you should know. Retrieved from https://nij.ojp.gov/nij-hosted-online-training-courses/what-every-first-responding-officer-should-know-about-dna/dna-evidence-overview#first-use-of-dna-in-court

[4] Congressional Research Service. (2022). The use of DNA by the criminal justice system and the federal role: Background, current law, and grants. Retrieved from https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R41800.pdf

[5] Liu, G., & Rakoff, J.S. (2023). Forensic science: A judicial perspective. PNAS, 120(41), 1-3. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2301838120

[northcarolinaprelawland-blog]

Exploring the World of Ghost Guns

By Elliona Bannerman, North Carolina Central University, Class of 2022

October 21, 2023

A ghost gun is an untraceable and unserialized firearm that is usually bought online and constructed at home [1]. They are sold through ghost gun kits, which include all the specific parts and the necessary tools to build these weapons are at home [1]. The reasons most used ghost guns are because they do not require a background check and can be purchased by anyone, this includes gun traffickers, citizens, domestic abusers, and so forth to use to their discretion [1]. Once the gun is assembled into the correct format it can look, feel, and function like a regular gun whether it is a handgun or an assault weapon, which makes it just as deadly [1]. The main idea of users buying ghost guns is the lack of federal regulation, especially to those who are legally prohibited from buying guns [1]. On October 16, 2023, the Supreme Court decided to allow the Biden office to continue the regulation of ghost guns as firearms under federal law [2]. This continued regulation allows reinforcement of the federal guidance of untraceable ghost-guns being sold within the United States.

The reinforcement came as a result of a Texas district court ruling being frozen that blocked the Biden administration from the regulating of ghost guns [3]. This case was brought in August 2023, when a group of manufacturers wanted to stop the federal regulation of ghost guns but the U.S. district Judge Reed O’Connor stepped in to block the regulations as applied by the manufacturers and was upheld by the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals [3]. The case was usual due to the Court already having applied a relevant legal standard to cases like this before, but the lower court in this case was openly relying on the arguments that the Court had oftentimes rejected [3]. The reason for this case being usual was the Court answering the same as they did with cases like this before, but Solicitor General Prelogar basically told the justices that the Court should hold off on making a decision to ensure the public safety of the American people [3].

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Explosives in 2022 modified their rules and regulations to identify the kits as firearms under the law, so the government could enforce and carefully track them [3]. The specific rule doesn’t ban the sale or possession of any ghost gun kit; it instead requires adherence with the federal laws that impose certain conditions on the commercial sale of firearms [3]. The case eventually led to a 5-4 ruling that sided with the President’s administration, having the regulation enforce of the ghost guns. Which leads to today's ruling being resumed and the federal court having rules and regulations over the sale of ghost guns.

The major difference between ghost guns and traditional guns is the legal action that is taken to purchase the guns. A majority of individuals who purchase ghost guns are prohibited from legally buying guns which can involve age requirement, criminal offenses, health concerns and so on. While those who purchase guns regularly have a better or likely chance to obtain the gun the “normal” way and not have to assemble the parts themselves. It is important for lawmakers, politicians, judges, lawyers, and other criminal justice professionals to understand the concept of ghost guns and how to increase awareness of laws and regulations that enforce the safety and compliance of purchasing firearms materials.

______________________________________________________________

[1] Brady. (2023). What are ghost guns. Retrieved from https://www.bradyunited.org/fact-sheets/what-are-ghost-guns

[2] Vogue, De Ariane. (2023). Supreme Court allows the Biden administration to continue fully enforcing ghost gun regulations. Retrieved from https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/16/politics/ghost-gun-regulations-enforcement-supreme-court/index.html

[3] Vogue, De Ariane. (2023). Alito pauses another ruling from Texas judge limiting Biden regulations of ghost guns. Retrieved from https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/05/politics/ghost-guns-supreme-court/index.html

Photo Credit: Guy Sie

[northcarolinaprelawland-blog]

It’s a Matter of Life, Death, and Education

By Kirsten Barrett, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Class of 2025

September 10, 2023

In March 2021, the Yale community was hit with tragedy after the passing of first-year student Rachael Shaw-Rosenbaum by suicide. However, grief would not be the only emotion brought forth by Shaw-Rosenbaum’s early passing. Shaw-Rosenbaum had been struggling with depression and suicidal thoughts in the second semester of her first year [1]. Due to Yale’s strict mental health policies, she was worried that she would be forced to withdraw from the school and lose her academic scholarships from the school [1]. Yale’s controversial mental health policies have always been a topic of critical discussion for previous and current Yale students due to their demanding nature [3]. People grew frustrated from hearing of students taking their lives because of their fear of being told to withdraw from their school due to mental health issues. Demands for Yale’s mental health policy began to arise as the non-profit group Elis for Rachael filed a complaint against Yale University alleging discrimination against students with mental health disabilities [6]. On August 25th, 2023, Yale University settled and agreed to soften its mental health policy to better support the demands of students [1].

Yale has had a quiet history of students having to weigh the decision of their life or education at the university. Dr. Alicia Floyd, one of the founders of Elis for Rachael, stated, “We discovered that there were just generations of Yalies who had had similar issues, who had kept quiet about it for decades and decades” [1]. In 2015, Luchang Wang, a sophomore math major, died by suicide after expressing that she “couldn’t bear the thought of having to leave for a full year or leaving and never being readmitted” [3]. Wang’s statement expresses one of the many issues with the school's strict policy. Although Yale’s original mental health policy cannot be found on the internet, it is said that it required students to withdraw without a guarantee of readmission and exclusion from campus [1]. The policy is also said to have stated that after a student withdraws from the school they will no longer have the health insurance provided by the school. This was a significant issue for Shaw-Rosenbaum as she did not come from a wealthy family, thus if she withdrew from the school she would also lose her health insurance [1]. Students withdrawing from Yale for mental health reasons knew all the risks and losses that came with the heavy decision. It meant losing their spot at one of the top schools country, friends, research, and plans for future career and educational goals. This was what sparked many debates about the school's reinstatement policies. Many students went through the school’s grueling application process only to have their opportunities stripped away from them due to mental health issues.

In August, Yale presented a new mental health policy that targeted and reversed many of the problems found in the old policy. The new policy addressed postponement, leaves of absence, medical leaves of absence, different types of withdrawals, campus access, finances, health coverage, and more. Newly admitted students are now able to ask or petition to postpone their acceptance by one year [2]. Students may also ask or petition to take a regular and medical leave of absence [2]. Students who wish to be reinstated may request to due while also submitting specific materials to the university [2]. In any circumstance, students who postpone, take a leave of absence, or withdraw will be viewed as a guest or visitor while they are present on campus [2]. For health coverage, it depends on if a student asks for a leave of absence or withdrawal [2]. If a student takes a leave of absence or a medical leave of absence then they have the option to enroll in the Yale Health Hospitalization/Specialty Coverage health insurance [2]. If a person withdraws from the school then they are not eligible for medical coverage or treatment through Yale Health [2].

Some may wonder if the complaint would have gone further in the legal process, would the non-profit group Elis for Rachael have a compelling case against the university? The complaint was that Yale University is discriminating against students with mental health disabilities. Universities have legal agreements with current students and applicants [4]. Thus, if students and applicants feel that the agreement has been dishonored, then they can file a complaint against the university [4]. One of these agreements is that the university cannot discriminate against students or applicants. According to the U.S. Department of Education, the “Office for Civil Rights (OCR) enforces several Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities that receive Federal funds from the Department of Education. These laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, disability, and on the basis of age” [5]. The Department of Education also specifies that these laws extend to all “colleges and universities” [5]. Because of the inclusion of disabilities as one of the traits a university cannot discriminate against, the complaint against Yale University would have been a legitimate case if the agreement was not settled.

______________________________________________________________

[1]  Barry, E., Hartocollis, A. (2023). At Yale, a Surge of Activism Forced Changes in Mental Health Policies. The New York Times. Retrieved from At Yale, a Surge of Activism Forced Changes in Mental Health Policies - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

[2] Bulletin of Yale University (2023). Yale College Programs of Study 2023-2024: J. Time Away and Return: Postponement, Leave of Absence, Medical Leave of Absence, and Withdrawal. Retrieved from J. Time Away and Return: Postponement, Leave of Absence, Medical Leave of Absence, and Withdrawal < Yale University

[3] Wan, W. (2022). “What if Yale finds out?”. Washington Post. Retrieved from Yale forces suicidal students to withdraw. Reapplying is daunting. - The Washington Post

[4] Li, J. Fight Corporations: Sue a University in Small Claims Court. DoNotPay. Retrieved from Suing a University in Small Claims Court [Step-by-Step Guide] (donotpay.com)

[5] Office for Civil Rights: Know Your Rights. U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from Know Your Rights (ed.gov)

[6] Elis For Rachael. (2023). Retrieved from Elis for Rachael: Yale Mental Health Policy Reform

[northcarolinaprelawland-blog]

Examining the Impact of School Punishment on Youth Development

By Elliona Bannerman, North Carolina Central University, Class of 2022

August 30, 2023

It is mostly known from society through history, television, and other modern day advantages of the common saying “That you are innocent until proven guilty”. This is oftentimes not the case for some individuals who are seen to be unfairly punished, whether they are innocent or not. In particular, for students who are subject to school suspensions with very little to no reason due to a variety of factors. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, approximately three million K-12 students are suspended each year [1]. Youth who met with suspensions or expulsions are protected under the 1975 Supreme Court Case, Goss v. Lopez, held the decision that students at a minimum should be given notice and afforded a hearing if they are facing suspension [2]. Youth in some states are not guaranteed by other legal protections like the right to witnesses or right to bring counsel because that specific state does not have it amended in their state law [3]. This includes Nevada, Virginia, and other states that do not have protections regarding other legal protections for students facing suspension [3]. This can then give schools the authority to handle these cases as they decide against students, which can prolong on for days, weeks, or years.

The term punishment was originally referred to as “corporal punishment”, which is the physical force aspect of disciplining a child as a means to cause pain or suffering [4]. It is stated by the World Health Organization, this punishment consists of mostly the physical component of punishment like hitting, kicking, shaking, etcetera [4]. In addition, this can also be referred to a non-physical component which includes humiliating, threatening, ridicule, and so on [4]. As the years went forth and the world started to advance with implementations of legislation that prohibits corporal punishment against minors due to child abuse and psychological concerns.

However, with certain advocacy groups, institutions, and other officials examining ways to stop corporal punishment against youth in school, the concept of corporal punishment is still legal in the United States but is more so focused on the suspension aspect than the physical aspect.

It is shown in this article, an increase in the numbers of school suspensions was reported since the COVID-19 pandemic [3]. This might be a result of schools not giving notice or informing the parents/guardians of students who faced expulsion or suspension [3]. This is due to many reasons, with the main reason being the lack of adequate counsel for students who are facing these punishments [3]. Which results in the student not being able to advocate for themselves against the alleged charges that have been brought before them. In juvenile cases, the court affords them a hearing called a disciplinary hearing to understand the overview of the juvenile’s case and supporting facts that determine whether the youth committed an offense [5]. During these procedures, the school administration should aim to be equal and fair in deciding what punishment should take place. There are instances where a punishment is decided in a fair and thoughtful manner, in other instances a youth becomes a victim of the authority of the school officials in making a decision.

In the state of Alabama, a case involving a 17-year-old student in their senior year was accused of bringing an illegal substance on school grounds and did attend a disciplinary hearing until two months later [3]. This came as a result of Alabama lawmakers rejecting legislation that would require school districts to give their students additional protection rights, like having a chance to review evidence in advance [3]. As with other states, legislation that rejects protection that provides opportunity for juveniles to advocate for themselves can limit equality and fairness of youth development.

Research has been shown that corporal punishment is associated with the impact on youth development as it relates to a positive or negative consequence [6]. Youth development is an important stage in life because it can determine how a youth will advance towards adulthood. The main factors a youth develops is learned through family and school. Corporal punishment can play a major role in the factor of a child's development if they experience mental health issues due to the negative impact of their development [6]. Other impacts include psychological issues, limited cognitive and conflict solving skills, risk of dropout, antisocial behavior, defying authority figures, and so on [4]. Some positive impacts on youth development are having a clear understanding of their behavior, identity, and other individual factors, setting boundaries, motivation to become better, along with others that can change a youth perspective on their reality.

______________________________________________________________

[1] NCES. (2014). Percentage of students receiving selected disciplinary in public elementary and secondary schools. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d17/tables/dt17_233.28.asp?referer=raceindicators

[2] Oyez. (2023). Goss v. Lopez. Retrieved from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1974/73-898

[3] NBC. (2023). Students in some states, unable to adequately defend themselves amid school disciplinary action. Retrieved from https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/expulsion-rights-suspension-students-state-law-school-punishment-rcna100438

[4] WHO. (2021). Corporal punishment and health. Retrieved from https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/corporal-punishment-and-health

[5] Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice. (2018). Rules and discipline. Retrieved from http://www.djj.state.ga.us/Policies/DJJPolicies/Chapter16/DJJ16.5DisciplinaryReportsandHearings.pdf

[6] Font, S.A., & Gershoff, E.T. (2016). Corporal punishment in the U.S. public schools: Prevalence, disparities in use, and status in state and federal policy. Social Policy Rep, 30(1), 1-37. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5766273/pdf/nihms862245.pdf

[northcarolinaprelawland-blog]

The Impact Of Child Labor

By Elliona Bannerman, North Carolina Central University, Class of 2022

August 9, 2023

Child labor laws were introduced during the 18th century as a means to use children as workers, farmers, servants, and so on to keep up with the demand that was increasing the workforce [1]. During this era, hard work was extremely valued for everyone and was passed onto children as well [1]. The labor that children mostly participated in at the start of the 18th century was agricultural and handicraft based in an effort to increase the economy within the United States [1]. Children mainly work on farms that were family-owned and as profit servants for others, children often began working at the age 10 to 14 [1]. Child labor eventually advanced in the 19th century with the introduction of the Industrial Revolution and the rise of mines and factories [1]. It is stated that 18% of American workers were under the age of 18 during the year of 1900 [1]. This was because children were able to get paid less, less likely to join with unions to strike, and be able to fit into small spaces to complete tasks [1]. Children were basically put to a “high standard” of putting work at the forefront and not contributing to society. Boys, who were orphans and 13, were oftentimes sent to trade apprenticeship while orphan girls were sent to complete domestic work [2]. Children were looked at as being cheap labor to keep fueling the economy within America and not becoming idle but productive. Throughout the Industrial Revolution, machines would be made to be simple, so a child could operate more so than well function men [2]. This allowed newspapers and articles to be printed to sought out children between the ages of 8 and 12 to work on cotton mills [2]. In New England, around 40% of children made up cotton mill employees within certain states [2].

            While children were looked at as being cheap labor, they mostly worked in harsh, unclean environments. The working conditions consisted of crowdedness, long hours, lack of safety codes, chemical hazards, and so forth that made adults as well as children prone to health issues [1]. Even migrants who came to the U.S. and were looking for any source of labor in the 1900s were subject to unsafe working conditions as a means to fill factory jobs that were considered lower level [1]. It was not until the invention of the National Child Labor Committee and other reformers fought to change the workforce for child labor [1]. Reformers that focused on education expressed the need for primary education in an effort to advance because children were frequently missing school and basic education concepts [1]. A majority of states modified laws to create minimum wage and school attendance stipulations, but it was usually loopholes within those laws that employers could seek out cheap labor from children [1]. Other social reform efforts that began in the 1900s included the use of photographs that depicted the unsafe working conditions that children were facing to the public [1].

            The state of reform gradually enforced when the Great Depression hit and led to the economic downfall in U.S. history [1]. Many Americans were without jobs and were tirelessly seeking employment, which made businesses look and revised child labor practices [1]. Many programs were spearheaded by President Franklin Roosevelt to have federal oversight of workplace conditions and efforts to remove children from the labor [1]. Standards were made to reduce or eliminate child labor, like the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 that helped set limitations on child labor [1].

Many reform laws were enacted to express the restriction of child labor. It was resisted by mostly southern states and child labor supporters due to the agricultural abundance that was taking place in the South, which led to the Supreme Court involvement [1]. The Supreme Court heard from supporters of child labor and authorized constitutional amendments for federal child labor legislation, which passed in 1924 [1].

In recent times, lawmakers in some states are creating proposals to ease child labor laws as it pertains to the current worker shortage [3]. They are seeking to support legislation that lets children work in unfit occupations, longer hours on school nights, and establishing roles of minors serving alcohol [3]. Lawmakers are looking to supply the shortage of workers through easing child labor laws in at least 10 states over 2 years [3]. Some of the laws were passed in those states, while others were vetoed or withdrawn [3]. Child labor organizations who are against these laws are stating these laws would do more harm than good and fulfilling work shortage should not depend on minors [3]. The lowering of child labor laws is becoming more prevalent today due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the struggle for employers to fill positions of employment [3]. The unemployment rate has decreased a lot since World War II, with a rate of 3.4% [3]. Other strategies have also been reviewed to fulfill the lack of labor along with the relaxation of child labor laws [3].

All in all, child labor laws have changed dramatically over the century and will continue to change as the world continues to evolve. A mass amount of legislation has been implemented to protect children who are entering the workforce as a means to understand the value of productivity, but also having safeguards that help benefit children.

______________________________________________________________

[1] History. (2022). Child labor. Retrieved from https://www.history.com/topics/industrial-revolution/child-labor

[2] U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2017). History of child labor in the United States. Retrieved from https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2017/article/history-of-child-labor-in-the-united-states-part-1.htm

[3] PBS. (2023). Some lawmakers propose loosening child labor laws to fill the worker shortage. Retrieved from https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/some-lawmakers-propose-loosening-child-labor-laws-to-fill-worker-shortage

[northcarolinaprelawland-blog]

Calls for a New Jus Cogens Norm: A Brief History of the Veil and the Western Legal Sphere

By Roksanna Keyvan, Wake Forest University Class of 2026

August 9, 2023

“A classroom does not have basic rights. A person has basic rights.”

-Hans-Jörg Melchinger, September 24, 2003

Calls for a New Jus Cogens Norm

In modern international law doctrine, the principle of ‘jus cogens’ asserts the existence of fundamental legal rights and norms that are universal and non-derogable. Holding superiority in international law, jus cogens emerges at the pinnacle of international law authority, introducing a highly protective form of Customary International Law (CIL) that overrides the provisions of all treaty law and other CIL. While the list of jus cogens peremptory norms are not exclusive, they are widely recognized as the basic rules of international humanitarian law, which include the right to self-determination and prohibitions against aggression, genocide, crimes against humanity, racial discrimination and apartheid, slavery, and torture.

Despite the recognition and legal significance of jus cogens in national and international law, the right to autonomy and freedom of expression continues to face challenges in certain countries. Manipulating their authoritative power, these nations implement laws that undermine the legitimacy of these fundamental rights. One legal regulation in particular, concerning the matter of appropriate public dress, is an issue which has been exacerbated by political agendas to lie perilously at the intersection of human rights and public morality, stirring controversies.

Islamic garb, often perceived as a matter of public policy rather than personal choice,  emerges not as a cultural difference, but a political commentary reflecting the political landscape of a country – whether secular, theocratic, or nationalist. Throughout the 20th century, political attitudes and legal codes regarding the veil oscillated, with the garb being both prohibited for Westernization and religiously imposed. In the early 2000s, the veil took on a new role among Western states, viewed as an affront to assimilation and a symbol of resistance to secularism. Throughout the 21st century, these perceptions have incurred bans and dress regulations that infringe upon the personal autonomy of Muslim women, marginalizing them.

These so-called veil bans fail to recognize Islam as a lived religion, presenting Muslim women with a difficult choice: sacrificing autonomy and dignity to participate in public life or facing exclusion from society to exercise basic rights. These imposed limitations contradict the stated aims of Western public policy and are both disproportionate and unjust when examined through the lens of a conventional reading of the privacy jurisprudence of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Defendants of these veil bans argue them to be essential for maintaining social neutrality and security. In European legal terms, the bans are seen as reinforcing social duties, which arise from the social nature of humankind, rather than duties to the state. Put simply, the argument identifies the veil as a symbol with potential to cause offense and distress to others in public spaces, not because the veil itself is offensive, but because of the social consequences of its imposed public display. Opponents to the bans, however, view these regulations as tools of control used by dominant powers; subordinating women to serve political agendas within the confines of a masculine colonial society.

Veil bans are not only unconstitutional and discriminatory on a national level, they also violate international law and the principle of jus cogens. While states have some flexibility in restricting the right to freedom of expression and dress on the basis of public morality, as specified in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), these limitations must adhere strictly to the test of proportionality and necessity. Veil bans often fail to achieve this balance, leading to the perpetuation of patriarchal and discriminatory practices founded on heteronormative interpretations of public morality. These compulsory dress codes predominantly target women, subjecting them to continuous marginalization at the discretion of the ruling regime’s ideology and undermining their autonomy and freedom of expression to reinforce discriminatory practices that preclude any chance of women achieving equality. Failing to promote genuine neutrality or security, the bans seem to achieve little more than the propagation of patriarchal marginalization and religious intolerance among Western states.

The continued foisting of legal limitations on Islamic garb raises questions about modern legal systems and societies, highlighting potential shortcomings within the scope of the jus cogens doctrine. Despite being touted as universally superior, the doctrine does not explicitly regard a prohibition of gender and sex discrimination among the list of recognized international legal norms, leading to systematic flaws. Some experts argue that the doctrine reflects a traditional, masculine perspective, which may hinder its ability to protect fundamental rights and interests adequately. If jus cogens is presented as a symbol of universality and superiority, poised for guarding and securing the most fundamental and highly-valued interests of international society, it should be revised to sufficiently do so.

The widespread acknowledgment of gender equality suggests its importance in modern society, but instances of gender discrimination persist as, often, gender rights are subordinated for the sake of furthering political and religious agendas. Jurists across the globe have “ample legal and moral justifications” to classify the prohibition of gender discrimination as a solidified peremptory norm, especially in the case of infringement on personal rights to autonomy. Critics may argue that concepts of gender equality are imposed and insufficiently universal, however the same can be argued of the currently recognized jus cogens norms which are regarded to compliment the agenda of a masculine lens. Opposing the integration of gender equality into jus cogens law, critics underscore the preclusion of preceding jus cogens norms, however the recognition of gender equality does not necessarily imply a threatened legitimacy for ‘masculine’ precedents.

Blanket bans on religious garbs are often excessive and do more harm than good for many Western states. These bans disproportionately affect individuals and communities, causing personal injury without significant communal benefits. To uphold international justice and protect women facing discrimination, gender equality must not be denied its rightful place as a jus cogens norm.

While the Islamic veil remains a highly controversial and closely-regulated garment, its role continues to shift in the perceptions of nations across the globe. The remainder of this article provides a comprehensive chronological overview of the legal journey of the veil throughout the 21st century, tracing its origins in French law to its current role as a garment that continues to be reclaimed and weaponized by Western powers in 2023.

The Veil and the Legal Sphere

1905: In 1905, following the French revolution, France passed a law separating church and state. This law is credited for sowing the seeds for laïcité, France’s principle of secularism.  In the 21st century, the law became the driving force behind anti-hijab policies in France and gave rise to an intensifying Western opposition to multiculturalism.

2003: On September 24, 2003, Germany’s federal court ruled in favor of permitting female teachers to wear Muslim headscarves at school. However, this ruling permitted German states to challenge the verdict with local laws. Subsequently, half of Germany’s regions would go on to ban teachers from wearing headscarves. One notable example of this is the Berlin Neutrality Act of 2005, which prohibited civil servants from wearing religious clothing and symbols.

2004: The French national assembly began debates regarding a bill to ban religious symbols, including Muslim headscarves, from schools. France was the first western state to officially propose a legal ban on overt signs of religious faith. Later that year, Belgium followed suit with a bill modeled after France’s proposed legislation, which was officially presented for discussion in the Belgium senate. On March 3, 2004, the French senate approved Law No. 2004-228, a bill prohibiting the wearing of conspicuous religious symbols in public schools. Public spaces, universities, and private schools were exempt from the secular government’s legal attempt to reassert religious neutrality.  On October 8, 2004, the Conseil d'Etat (French Supreme Court on Administrative Matters) upheld the constitutionality of Law No. 2004-228, stating that the restriction was proportionate to the general interest of upholding principles of secularism in public schools, despite its infringement on the “freedom of thought, conscience, and religion”. Throughout 2004, Muslims filed claims of discrimination in legal battles concerning the veil as a religious symbol.

2010: In a landmark move, Belgium passed the first European ban on wearing the burqa and niqab in public, gaining unanimous support (149-1) from the Home Affairs Committee of the Brussels Federal Parliament. The implementation of the ban was delayed due to political instability. Shortly after, France proposed its own ban, receiving overwhelming approval from the French Assembly and Senate, and finally from the Constitutional Council on October 7, 2010. The ban would take effect the following year. Meanwhile, in Canada, the Québec legislature introduced Bill 94, aiming to ban state employees and public service recipients from wearing face-covering garments like the “niqab,” but the bill did not pass to a vote.

2011: In April, France made history by becoming the first European country to implement a ban on face coverings. Although the law did not explicitly reference the veil, it stipulated that no one could wear any clothing meant to conceal the face in public spaces. Face veils were prohibited everywhere except for private residences, religious spaces, and private cars while traveling. Following suit, Belgium also enforced a law banning full-face veils in July. Both laws faced criticism for infringing on personal autonomy and specifically targeting Muslim women, with the underlying implications of the legal frameworks indicating that being a pious Muslim might conflict with being considered a good citizen in these countries.

2013: In September, the Parti Québécois proposed Bill 60, also known as the Québec Charter of Values. Inspired by the Berlin Neutrality Act, this law aimed to prohibit all government employees in Québec from wearing “overt and conspicuous” religious symbols. Despite the federal governments of both Germany and Canada constitutionally recognizing freedom of religion as a fundamental right and ratifying international agreements upholding religious freedom and non-discrimination, these bills placed Muslim women in the public sector in a difficult position, forcing them to choose between their faith and their livelihoods. The Québec Charter of Values did not advance to a vote.

2014: In 2014, The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) upheld France’s ban on the burqa. The plaintiff argued the ban to be “inhumane and degrading”, and a policy that violated the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention for Human Rights, including the right of respect for family and private life, freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and freedom of speech and discriminatory.  However, the ECHR ruled in favor of the French government, stating that the ban aimed to preserve a certain idea of "living together" and was a legitimate goal. Since the ban applied to all face-covering in public spaces, rather than specifically targeting the veil, it was considered in-line with European commitments to free speech and freedom of religion. Prior to this case, the ECHR had also upheld French bans on headscarves in educational settings and regulations requiring the removal of scarves, veils, and turbans for security checks.

2015: The Dutch cabinet approved a proposal for a partial ban on face-covering Islamic veils in specific public places, including public transport, public education, healthcare institutions, and government buildings. The ban was framed as a security measure and did not prohibit head coverings on the street, although it had been previously considered for review by the cabinet. The Dutch parliament would go on to approve this legislation in November 2016. Additionally, in 2015, Germany's Federal Constitutional Court ruled that a law similar to Berlin’s Neutrality Act violated the right to religious freedom, overturning its previous rulings. This was the first time that Germany’s top court ruled an all-out ban on Muslim headscarves in the public sector to be unconstitutional.

2016: Former United Kingdom Prime Minister David Cameron expressed support for institutions with “sensible rules” on full-face veils. Stating that he believed in the personal autonomy of civilians, he ruled out a full public ban. Later that year, French Prime Minister Manuel Valls defended municipal bans on body covering burkini swimwear for Muslim women. Following the implementation of a partial ban in the Netherlands in November, German Chancellor Angela Merkel endorsed a partial ban on the burqa and niqab, declaring them inappropriate and a threat to the integrity and precedence of German law. Burhan Kesici of Germany’s Islamic Council, criticized Merkel’s decision, fearing the implementation of such a ban could “lead to women feeling more excluded from society.”  By the end of 2016, similar partial bans were also implemented in Belgium, Bulgaria and the Swiss canton of Tessin. 

2017: In January, Austria’s ruling coalition agreed to prohibit full-face veils like the burqa and the niqab in courts and schools, and further investigated the possibility of banning headscarves for women employed in public services. In Germany, Berlin’s Labor Court found the Berlin Neutrality Act unconstitutional, but considered it a one-off circumstance. This was the second time that Germany’s top court ruled all-out bans on Muslim headscarves in the public sector to be unconstitutional. In March, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in Luxembourg ruled that employers could prohibit staff from wearing visible religious symbols, as long as it was part of an indiscriminate general policy banning all religious and political symbols for the sake of projecting a neutral image. The underlying implications of the rulings raised concerns, as the assumption for European states since 2002 had been that “religious symbols could not be banned from the workplace on anything other than safety grounds.” The March ruling also contradicted a previous 2013 decision from the ECHA that permitted crosses to be worn in the workplace and considered their prohibition an infringement of worker rights. The ECJ failed to distinguish between freedom of religion and non-discrimination following the 2017 ruling.

2018: The Danish parliament voted to ban garments that cover the face, including Islamic veils. German courts continued to uphold Berlin’s Neutrality Law, despite previous conflicting rulings.

In October the United Nations Human Rights Committee issued two landmark decisions against France. The committee found that France violated human rights made explicit under the ICCPR by imposing fines on women wearing the niqab, arguing that such bans marginalized women and hindered their access to public services. Ruling the ban to be inadequately justified, the committee identified the law as disproportionate to the claimed objectives of French policy. The case was the first of its kind to be considered by the Committee.

2020: Germany’s Federal Labor Court declared the blanket ban on teachers wearing headscarves in schools under the Berlin Neutrality Law as unconstitutional, acknowledging that it discriminated against women based on their religion. Despite previous compensation for plaintiffs, lawmakers had faced increasing pressure to overturn the controversial Neutrality Act. This ruling set new precedents for addressing religion-based discrimination in Europe. In Belgium, that same year, the Constitutional Court upheld the justification for banning headscarves for students in higher education.

2021: Switzerland conducted a plebiscite, resulting in the approval of a ban on face coverings in public, including the burka or niqab worn by Muslim women. The Swiss government had initially opposed the ban, stating that the state was not responsible for dictating dress. In France, the Senate voted to amend the 2010 law to include a prohibition on girls under 18 from wearing any ‘conspicuous religious sign’ or any item of clothing that implied female inferiority. This amendment raised concerns, as it contradicted international human rights standards, particularly in regards to the liberty of parents and legal guardians to ensure religious and moral education according to their own convictions. The amendment was part of an “anti-separatism” bill, which also included two other amendments—one banning religious symbols from extracurricular school activities and the other banning burkinis from public pools.

2022:  French lawmakers proposed a hijab ban in competitive sports, with the French Senate voting 160-143 in favor of banning the wearing of “ostensible religious symbols” in sports competitions. Proponents of the ban argued that veils posed safety risks to athletes and propagated the development of Islamism in sports. Critics of the bill condemned it as “gendered Islamophobia” and deemed it contradictory to the principle of maintaining neutrality in sports. In June, France’s top administrative court ruled against allowing body-covering “burkini” swimwear in public pools for religious reasons, stating that the attire violated the secular principles of government neutrality towards religion.

2023: In March, Germany complied with the rulings of the Constitutional Court, putting an end to a discriminatory practice established in 2005 by the Berlin Neutrality Act. In an official letter to school directors, religious symbols were permitted to be worn by teachers, with restrictions only able to be imposed in specific cases of security threats. In June, France’s highest administrative court upheld a 2022 proposition, ruling that the French Football Federation had the right to ban headscarves in competitions despite the potential limitation on freedom of expression. The Conseil d'Etat deemed the ban to be both “suitable and proportionate,” leaving an uncertain future for Muslim participants of the 2024 Summer Olympics, which will be hosted in Paris.

[northcarolinaprelawland-blog]

“The Wildcat Way”: Northwestern University Athletic Program Rocked by Hazing Allegations

By Kirsten Barrett, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Class of 2025

August 9, 2023

At Northwestern University (NU), Patrick Fitzgerald was once only viewed as one of the greatest athletes and coaches to represent the school. But, after various former and current football players alleged experiencing hazing and racism under Fitzgerald’s head coach tenure, the opinion of Fitzgerald is skewed. After serving seventeen years as the head football coach at Northwestern University, the university fired Patrick Fitzgerald in July 2023 [8]. His firing comes just three days after two lawsuits were filed because of hazing allegations. Fitzgerald and the football program are not the only coach and athletic teams involved in the hazing lawsuits. On July 17th, 2023, fifteen former Northwestern University student-athletes from the football, softball, and baseball programs filed a civil lawsuit against the university over alleged hazing and abuse [7]. A week later, a former volleyball player filed an additional lawsuit against the university, alleging that university officials did not correctly address a hazing incident from two years ago [2]. Allegedly there are various hazing and abuse allegations from inside the NU baseball, softball, volleyball, cheerleading, and football programs altogether. As of July 2023, there have been firings from two head coach positions as well.

Although two of the lawsuits filed by former Northwestern football players are anonymous, the third lawsuit was filed by former NU quarterback Lloyd Yates (2015-17) and is the first with a named plaintiff [1]. His lawsuit consists of a 52-page complaint that alleges hazing by teammates [1]. These acts include sexual abuse and racially charged comments to players of color from coaches. When the university conducted an investigation, they found allegations from eleven former and current student-athletes of forced participation, nudity, and sexualized acts of a degrading nature [1]. It was also alleged that head football coach Pat Fitzgerald enabled a culture of racism on the team. Players of color were forced to cut their hair and behave differently to follow the “Wildcat Way” [1]. The phrases “Wildcat Way” and “good, clean American fun” were meant to describe how coaches wanted players to look and act [4]. If a player did not follow this mantra, coaches would threaten their athletic scholarships [4]. These traumatic experiences on the football team have had long-lasting impacts on players. Ramon Diaz Jr. is a Latino offensive lineman who was active on the team from 2005 to 2008 [4]. After graduating from Northwestern, he would have flashbacks and nightmares of things that happened in the locker room [4]. He was later diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, and his time on the football team was a significant factor in that diagnosis [4].

A former NU volleyball player anonymously filed an additional lawsuit against the university. She is claiming she experienced targeted mistreatment after reporting misconduct from her coaches [2]. She also alleges that university officials inadequately addressed a hazing incident from two years ago [2]. In March 2021, she was assigned to run “suicides” as a punishment for breaking the team’s covid guidelines [2]. “Suicides” is a running drill that involves a person running as fast as they can across a certain distance and then turning around to sprint back to their original starting point [6]. The team captain picked her punishment, and head coach Shane Davis instructed her to run them the following day [2]. After her injury, the university investigated and determined that hazing occurred within the program [2]. Although the team served a one-game cancellation, no coaches or players received punishments [2]. She alleges that she was singled out and not allowed to travel with the team or play a game during the investigation in December 2022 [2]. She also claims that she forcibly wrote an apology letter to trainers without being given an actual reason [2]. She is seeking $50,000 in damages and a jury trial [2].

If a person experiences hazing or suffers injuries from hazing there are three legal routes a person can take. The first route is an intentional tort, which is when the offender purposely harms the victim [5]. Intentional torts include battery, assault, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, fraud, defamation, invasion of privacy, trespassing, and stealing [5]. With an intentional tort, victims can collect the damages for medical expenses, lost wages, pain and suffering caused by the hazing, and the possibility to recover punitive damages [5]. The second option is filing a lawsuit for negligence [5]. Filing a lawsuit based on the failure to suitably act or care in doing something. In specifics to hazing, one does not have to be involved with the hazing to be found guilty [5]. If a person knew the hazing was occurring but did nothing to stop it, they can be found negligent [5]. Lastly, a person can file a civil suit against the organization or school [5]. If a person suffers an injury during a hazing incident, they can sue the organization or school involved [5]. As mentioned previously, the lawsuits filed by former Northwestern athletes are civil. They are suing Northwestern University because that is where the hazing happened. Although the naming of specific individuals like head coaches, university presidents, vice presidents, and more appear in these lawsuits, they are not individually potentially experiencing charges. Because these individuals were sued in their official titles, the university would be liable for damages and paying restitution [7].

______________________________________________________________

[1] Seligman, A., Householder M., Lage, L. (2023). Lawsuits filed by ex-volleyball player and former football player against Northwestern University. Retrieved from https://apnews.com/article/northwestern-football-hazing-lawsuit-crump-d9dc046172f2a7248e2b30bb77ca9375

[2] Franklin, J. (2023). A former Northwestern volleyball player is suing the university over alleged hazing. Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/2023/07/24/1189846350/northwestern-hazing-volleyball-lawsuit-football

[3] Zucker, J. (2023). Former Northwestern Volleyball Player: HC Shane Davis Enabled Hazing, Racism Culture. Retrieved from https://bleacherreport.com/articles/10083733-former-northwestern-volleyball-player-hc-shane-davis-enabled-hazing-racism-culture

[4] Markus, N., Brown, A., Reynolds, C. (2023). Former NU players describe racist environment in football program. Retrieved from https://dailynorthwestern.com/2023/07/10/sports/former-nu-players-describe-racist-environment-in-football-program/

[5] Maggiano, Digirolamo, & Lizzi P.C. (2015). Can You Sue For Hazing Injuries? Retrieved from https://www.maggianolaw.com/blog/can-sue-hazing-injuries/

[6] Sayer, A. (2023). The Suicides Exercise Running Drill, Explained + 6 Tips To Do It Right. Retrieved from https://marathonhandbook.com/suicides-exercise/

[7] Gold, D., Locker, B. (2023). Northwestern faces multiple lawsuits in aftermath of hazing allegations. Retrieved from https://www.insidenu.com/2023/7/19/23799823/northwestern-faces-multiple-lawsuits-in-aftermath-of-hazing-allegations

[8] Jones, D. (2023). Northwestern football coach Pat Fitzgerald is fired following hazing investigation. Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/2023/07/11/1186971916/northwestern-university-football-hazing-pat-fitzgerald-fired

[northcarolinaprelawland-blog]

“Officially Dead”: Syrian Cross-Border Humanitarian Aid Faces An Uncertain Future

By Roksanna Keyvan, Wake Forest University Class of 2026

July 25, 2023

Russia's Deputy United Nations Ambassador Dmitry Polyanskiy has pronounced Security Council efforts to extend the mandate for UN cross-border humanitarian aid deliveries to Syria “Officially dead.”  Polyanskiy’s declaration followed a recent announcement by Bassam Sabbagh, Syria's Ambassador to the UN, granting permission for limited humanitarian assistance to northwestern Syria under the condition of full cooperation with the Syrian government. With the failure to renew the resolution that had secured cross-border aid deliveries since 2014, diplomats now acknowledge the Assad regime’s offer as the ‘de facto reality’. This power shift raises concerns about the regime's control over aid distribution and the potential ramifications for the vulnerable population in Syria. The integrity of humanitarian action faces an uncertain future amidst this intensifying crisis.

Obstruction of Sovereignty or Justice?

The Security Council has faced a difficult political arena surrounding the resolution authorizing the UN to deliver cross-border humanitarian aid without Syrian government consent. Although countries like Britain, France, and the United States have tended to advocate for longer renewals, both China and Russia, an ally of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, have argued for fewer border crossings and shorter mandates, pushing for aid to be delivered ‘cross-line’ from Syrian government-controlled territories to rebel-held areas. 

In justification of its cross-line stance the Assad Regime claims that UN cross-border mechanisms are anachronistic and infringe on Syria's sovereignty and territorial integrity. This viewpoint has garnered political support from China and Russia, who have used their veto power to systematically undermine and dismantle the 2014 resolution, eliminating three of the original four border crossings since 2020. However, leading international jurists are in disagreement with Syria and its allies, arguing for closer consideration of International Humanitarian Law.  Contending that there is a legitimate legal basis for the provision of humanitarian aid to those in need, these jurists argue that cross-border aid “cannot be regarded as unlawful intervention.”

Sabbagh's recent declaration that the Syrian Arab Red Crescent (SARC) and Red Cross would coordinate aid distribution has sparked skepticism among Syrian aid groups and international jurists. Over the past 12 years, the regime has systematically instrumentalized humanitarian assistance, impeding, redirecting, stealing, contaminating, and weaponizing aid to suppress its opponents. These organizations are seen as extensions of the Assad regime, furthering the regime’s track record of obstructing aid delivery to champion the Syrian government’s own political agenda. In response, international actors have called on the UN to uphold International Humanitarian Law to ensure the impartiality and effectiveness of humanitarian operations in northwestern Syria.

An Uncertain Future

The regime's offer poses significant challenges that undermine its viability. Under the UN mandate, border crossings were closely monitored to ensure that aid was used appropriately. “Without UN monitoring, control of this critical lifeline has been handed to the man responsible for the Syrian people's suffering,” states British UN Ambassador Barbara Woodward. Entrusting the Red Cross and SARC with aid delivery opens the door for the regime to exploit "risk assessments" and impede cooperative efforts with governing entities in the northwest, deliberately prolonging and obstructing humanitarian assistance. Moreover, the involvement of the Red Cross and SARC introduces security concerns, as few Syrians are willing to cooperate with a regime-controlled effort.

Figures reveal an urgent need for sustained and uninterrupted aid access.  90% of Northwestern Syria’s population of 4.5 million rely heavily on humanitarian assistance for survival. In February, a series of devastating earthquakes further exacerbated the crisis, but the Syrian government offered minimal and noncommittal support. Since July 2021, the Assad regime has only permitted 152 trucks to supply cross-line aid, a figure vastly overshadowed by the 24,000 trucks that have delivered cross-border aid during the same period. Considering these figures and the Assad regime’s obdurate track record, the recently proposed alternative of cross-line aid delivery coordinated from Damascus appears inadequate in addressing the profound humanitarian challenge. With a substantial percentage of the population experiencing food insecurity, mental health crises, and displacement; the current reality, where the effectiveness of cross-border mechanisms is undermined by the tightening grip of the Assad regime, risks plunging the region into a full-blown humanitarian catastrophe.

Amidst this unpredictable landscape, international humanitarian actors urge donor countries to resist the politicization of humanitarian access and explore alternative strategies for aid delivery.

[northcarolinaprelawland-blog]

Counting Casualties: The Nexus Between International Humanitarian Law and Protecting Human Rights

By Roksanna Keyvan, Wake Forest University Class of 2026

July 18, 2023

In a milestone report, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) has recognized casualty recording as a cornerstone principle between human rights and international law. The OHCHR, emphasizing the need for member states to uphold legal obligations regarding comprehensive and individualized casualty recording, advocates for greater international recognition and protection of these rights. Elevating the stakes for political cooperation among member states, this policy development would eliminate legal ambiguities among existing precedents, establishing a standardized international legal obligation that would require every party involved in armed conflicts, whether international or non-international, to accurately record all civilian and military casualties.

 Ample jurisprudence from international and regional human rights bodies, including the United Human Rights Committee (HRC), the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IAC), has recognized and established fundamental rights pertaining to the identification and acknowledgement of those dead in armed conflict or situations of widespread human rights violations. These rights impose associated humanitarian duties and obligations, such as mandates for thorough investigations by states, that are backed by international law, as evidenced by Rio Negro Massacres v. Guatemala and the Minnesota Protocol.

Discrepancies in individual interpretations of these provisions in international law have correlated to negligence among member states. Examples such as Cyprus v. Turkey, where Turkish authorities neglected to search for or bury the dead and wounded, and Sri Lanka, where the government failed to undertake efforts to locate deceased civilians or combatants, highlight deficiencies in current interpretations of policy frameworks. While some of these duties are explicitly articulated in international law, others are implicitly derived from corresponding human rights, resulting in limited awareness of legal requirements and insufficient fulfillment of humanitarian responsibilities. By documenting figures of violence, casualty recording holds states accountable for their actions, obligating them to their non-derogable duties.

In 2020, the United Nations Human Rights Council introduced landmark resolutions that formally acknowledged the significance of casualty recording on the international stage. The resolution on Human Rights in Myanmar, for instance, strengthened the legitimacy of casualty recording by recognizing it as a vital component of victims’ and survivors’ right to an effective remedy.  The Prevention of Genocide resolution went further to affirm its legal relevance as a safeguard for universally recognized human rights and responsibilities enshrined in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the 1999 Declaration on Human Rights Defenders. These resolutions prove casualty recording to be an essential legal asset through which human right principles, such as the right to life, truth, justice, and accountability, can be effectively upheld.

Casualty records are more than mere numbers; they bear witness to lives ravaged by conflict and violence. In Croatia, these records compelled the international community to take action through a concerted effort, leading to the signing of the Sarajevo Armistice. Similarly, in South Sudan, casualty figures exposed cases of extrajudicial execution, triggering humanitarian investigations into alleged violations. In Syria, the absence of casualty records had profound implications for inheritance and custody rights, severely constraining freedom of movement for women and children. Globally, casualty records have been instrumental in curbing weapon-use, resulting in concrete reductions in hostile activities. By shedding light on gross human rights violations, particularly those rooted in gender and violence, these figures provide victims with a voice and establish a solid legal foundation for pursuing justice.

The OHCHR upholds that international cooperation to develop standardized approaches to casualty recording promises to enhance the work of policy-makers, human rights advocates, and humanitarian actors worldwide. By embracing comprehensive casualty recording methodology, international policy can make significant headway in protecting the rights of children in armed conflict, advancing the Women, Peace and Security agenda, and fulfilling Goal 16 of the Sustainable Development Goals, a global objective centered on promoting peace, justice, and strong institutions.

The OHCHR has presented member states with a transformative opportunity to redefine international standards and strategies to better mitigate harm, ensure accountability, uphold international humanitarian law, and safeguard the rights of afflicted victims. This renewed prerogative positions casualty recording at the intersection of international humanitarian law and human rights, signifying a significant step towards revolutionizing the basis of informed policy-making and standardizing international legal approaches to casualties and conflicts.

[northcarolinaprelawland-blog]

Does the First Amendment Protect Discrimination?

By Kirsten Barrett, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Class of 2025

July 17, 2023

When Justice Sonia Sotomayor was asked about 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis at oral argument in December 2022, she stated: “[this is] the first time in the Court’s history…[that] a commercial business open to the public, serving the public, that it could refuse to serve a customer based on race, sex, religion, or sexual orientation” [4]. The case of 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis concerns a Colorado web designer named Lorie Smith, who sought an injunction to prevent the state of Colorado from forcing her to create websites that celebrate same-sex weddings [5]. On June 20th, 2023, the US Supreme Court conservative majority ruled that the constitutional right to free speech allows certain businesses to refuse to provide services for same-sex weddings [1]. 

Lorie Smith is a Denver-area web designer and sole owner of her company 303 Creative LLC. Her company services include marketing, graphic designing, and website designing. Smith wanted to start selling custom web designs for weddings. However, because Smith identifies as an evangelical Christian, she believes that “marriage should be reserved to unions between one man and one woman” [5]. She highlights her faith on the company website, stating “As a Christian who believes that God gave me the creative gifts that are expressed through this business…I am selective about the messages that I create or promote - while I will serve anyone I am always careful to avoid communicating ideas or messages, or promoting events, products, services, or organizations, that are inconsistent with my religious beliefs'' [2]. The website also expresses that what separates them from their competition is their belief “that a deeply personal relationship with [their] clients is essential to providing services that exceed [their] expectations'' [2]. Thus, Smith believes that the combination of her religious beliefs and company values would conflict with her ability to provide service to customers of a sexual orientation that does not align with her ideology. Ultimately this would result in Smith discriminating against potential clients that are a part of the LGBTQIA+ community.

Because Smith operates in Colorado, discriminating against customers of specific sexual orientations goes against Colorado's anti-discrimination act. The Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA) guarantees equal access to public accommodations, housing, and employment regardless of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation (including transgender status), marital status, family status, religion, national origin, or ancestry [3]. Colorado law considers a place of public accommodation as any place of business engaged in any sales to the public and any place offering services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to the public, including but not limited to any business offering wholesale or retail sales to the public [6]. Under the CADA, Smith’s business was a place of public accommodation, so it was unlawful to withhold her business from people because of their sexual orientation [6]. Smith understood this, and on September 20th, 2016, Smith and her attorneys, Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), filed their first case against the defendant Aubrey Elenis, Director of the Colorado Civil Rights Division, at the United States District Court in Colorado [6]. In this case, Smith and ADF asked the court to prohibit the state anti-discrimination act so she could only provide her wedding website design services to straight couples [4]. Smith and ADF alleged that the CADA violated her free speech clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution [6]. The court stated that the because the Banned-Speech Provision is content-based, it regulates speech on topics like disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, and ancestry—while leaving unregulated speech on various other topics not listed in CADA [6]. Because Smith wanted to state her position against same-sex marriage on her website, it would go against the Banned-Speech Provision [6]. Thus, Smith lost this first case against Elenis and was still required to abide by the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act.

On October 19th, 2016, the defendants argued a case dismissal because Smith had received no actual inquiries for services and is only a theory as to what may happen if it occurs, thus Smith has suffered no injury [7]. The defense provided support from a previous statement from the Supreme Court that a “theory of standing, which relies on a highly attenuated chain of possibilities, does not satisfy the requirement that threatened injury must be certainly impending” [7]. In Smith’s first case against Elenis, she never mentioned an inquiry from a customer that wanted her to design a website to celebrate their same-sex wedding [4]. When Smith’s attorneys, ADF, first responded in November 2016, they did not mention the inquiry but decided to refute the defense’s claims. ADF stated that Smith did not need to have received an inquiry to challenge the CADA [4]. It was not until February 2017 that ADF included the inquiry of a man named “Stewart” and argued its relevance to the case [4]. Stewart is only addressed by his first name because that was the only name provided on the case filing [4]. Although his name, phone number, email address, and website were on the inquiry form, he says he never sent the form and was married to a woman when it was sent [4]. Stewart, who is a web designer himself, stated that “it didn’t make sense to him…why [he] would seek to hire someone who has never built a wedding website…to build his wedding website” [4]. Ultimately, Stewart remained puzzled stating “I'm married, I have a child-I’m not really sure where that came from? But somebody’s using false information in a Supreme Court filing document” [4]. Thus, in September 2017, the federal court ruled the case dismissed because the evidence presented did not allow the court to “determine the imminent likelihood that anyone much less a same-sex couple, [would] request [Smith’s] services” [4]. Although the validity of the inquiry from “Stewart” has not been officially confirmed, it raised the question of how the use of fictitious information determines the ruling of a Supreme Court case.

When 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis reached the Supreme Court, the Colorado court rejected Smith’s proposals twice. However, the Justices ruled 6-3 in favor of Smith to overturn the lower court's rulings and exempt her from the CADA [1]. The Justices held that the First Amendment prohibits Colorado from forcing a website designer to create expressive designs speaking messages with which the designer disagrees [5]. When giving his opinion of the Court, conservative Justice Gorsuch stated that the Court acknowledged that Smith’s planned wedding website qualifies as “pure speech” protected by the First Amendment [5]. He also stated that the First Amendment’s protections belong to all, including speakers whose motives others may find misinformed or offensive [5]. Justice Sotomayor presented her dissenting opinion describing the case ruling as “heartbreaking” [5]. She expresses her opposition to the ruling stating, “The business argues, and a majority of the Court agrees…that because the business offers services that are customized and expressive, the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment shields the business from a generally applicable law that prohibits discrimination in the sale of publicly available goods and services. That is wrong. Profoundly wrong” [5]. She further explains her opinion by arguing that the law in question targets conduct, not speech, for regulation, and the act of discrimination has never constituted protected expression under the First Amendment. Our Constitution contains no right to refuse service to a disfavored group [5]. The divided opinions provided by the Supreme Court Justices display the different interpretations of the case and how they are affected by polarizing political influence.

______________________________________________________________

[1] Chung, A. (2023). US Supreme Court deals blow to LGBT rights in web designer case. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-rule-web-designer-with-anti-gay-marriage-stance-2023-06-30/

[2] Smith, L. (2023). 303 Creative: What separates us from the rest?. Retrieved from https://303creative.com/

[3] One Colorado (2023). Discrimination: Public Accommodations. Retrieved from https://one-colorado.org/lgbtq-resources/anti-discrimination-laws-colorado/

[4] Gira Grant, M. (2023). The Mysterious Case of the Fake Gay Marriage Website, the Real Straight Man, and the Supreme Court. Retrieved from https://newrepublic.com/article/173987/mysterious-case-fake-gay-marriage-website-real-straight-man-supreme-court

[5] 303 Creative LLC et. al. v. Elenis et. al. (2023). Retrieved from https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-476_c185.pdf

[6] 303 Creative LLC et. al. v. Elenis (2023) Retrieved from https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cod.165816/gov.uscourts.cod.165816.1.0.pdf

[7] 303 Creative LLC et. al. v. Elenis Retrieved from (2023) https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cod.165816/gov.uscourts.cod.165816.37.0.pdf

[Image] Supreme Court of the United States (2022). Justices. Retrieved from https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/justices.aspx

[northcarolinaprelawland-blog]

The 'Rocket Docket': Unraveling Camp Lejeune's Legal Journey

By Roksanna Keyvan, Wake Forest University Class of 2026

July 13, 2023

In August 2022, Congress set the stage for what could become one of the largest mass torts in history with the signing of the Camp Lejeune Justice Act of 2022. Known as the ‘Rocket Docket’, a North Carolina federal court has seen over 900 lawsuits filed against the U.S. government since the law's enactment. As of June 24, 2023, the total number of administrative claims has surpassed 70,000, marking a significant legal milestone.

The Camp Lejeune Justice Act grants individuals exposed to contaminated water at Camp Lejeune, a North Carolina Marine base, the right to seek compensation and pursue legal action against the government, as sufficient scientific and medical evidence has supported presumptions that exposures to these chemicals from 1953 to 1987 significantly increased the risks for cancers, birth defects, and other health-related problems in residents. Studies reveal that contaminants concentrated in the water, including Tetrachloroethylene (PCE), Trichloroethylene (TCE), Vinyl chloride (VC), Benzene, Dichloroethylene (DCE), and Lead, correlated to the development of Adult leukemia, Aplastic anemia and other myelodysplastic syndromes, Bladder cancer, Kidney cancer, Liver cancer, Multiple myeloma, Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and Parkinson’s disease.

Shocking the court during the initial hearing, U.S. District Court Judge James Denver expressed concern about the length of time it would take to process each individual Camp Lejeune case without consolidation or support from a multidistrict litigation, arguing that the length of the process could rival the duration of the Roman empire. Presently, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina has only four judges assigned to handle these cases, leading to a significant increase in the court's civil caseload. Court Clerk Peter Moore Jr. confirmed that the number of civil cases has tripled since the beginning of the year.

Despite efforts by judges to expedite the litigation, the history of Camp Lejeune is a vast and significant one that has affected the lives of over a million individuals. This article provides a chronological overview of the legal journey of Camp Lejeune, tracing its inception in 1941 to its present state as a prominent class action lawsuit in 2023.

A Brief History of Camp Lejeune and its Grounds for Dispute

1941-42: Construction commenced for Camp Lejeune, a vast military training facility spanning 156,000 acres in Jacksonville, North Carolina in 1941. The sheer expanse of this Marine Corps installation, with over 6,900 buildings and 450 miles of roads, solidified its status as one of the country's largest bases. Bordering the Atlantic Ocean and the New River, the marine base was officially established in 1942. 

1952: In 1952, Tarawa Terrace, the first major water treatment facility at Camp Lejeune, became operational, supplying clean water to the base's residents. Over the following decade, the water at Tarawa Terrace would gradually become polluted with high concentrations of harmful chemicals. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry’s data reports November 1957 as the official date of contamination for water processed through the Tarawa Terrace treatment and distribution system.   

1953: In 1953, the second major water treatment facility, Hadnot Point, began its operations, distributing water contaminated with toxic concentrations as early as August 1953. This date marks the official start of the eligibility period for compensation, as recognized by the Camp Lejeune Justice Act of 2022.  By 1957, both major water treatment facilities would be dangerously contaminated with toxic chemicals, endangering the health of the residents.

1972: In 1972, the Holcomb Boulevard Water System commenced operations, providing water to various areas in Camp Lejeune. While generally deemed safe, its proximity to the contaminated water source at Hadnot Point increased the potential risk of exposure to toxic chemicals for residents in the vicinity. In the same year, the Environmental Protection Agency passed the Safe Drinking Water Act, mandating early water testing procedures.

1980-1984: During the period of 1980-1984, the Marine Corps and Navy were directed by the federal government to investigate the water supply at Camp Lejeune. Extensive testing was conducted at all eight water treatment facilities, revealing traces of contaminants specifically in the Tarawa Terrace and Hadnot Point areas. This discovery prompted further scrutiny and measures to address the issue of toxic chemical exposure in the camp's water supply.

1985-1987: By 1985, the federal government had closed the contaminated wells at Camp Lejeune. However, contaminants were not completely removed until 1987 due to the intricate and time-consuming removal process involved. As a result, December 31, 1987, is recognized as the end date for eligibility under the Camp Lejeune Justice Act of 2022. Also in 1987, the Safe Drinking Water Act incorporated new standards for volatile organic compounds, supplementing the existing regulations outlined in the Federal Register.

1999: In 1990, the CDC officially declared PCP as the leading cause of injury, death, and congenital disability linked to Camp Lejeune. Shockingly, former residents were not informed about the water contamination until 1999, a staggering 17 years after the Marine Corps initially discovered the presence of dangerous chemicals. This lack of notification became a significant point of contention for plaintiffs, as the government failed to provide a valid reason for the delayed disclosure, exacerbating the grievances of affected families. While the defense argued that environmental scientists and engineers did not recognize the contaminants in the early 1980s, plaintiff lawyers assert that the Navy likely knew of the associated risks and should have taken action, rather than knowingly exposing hundreds of thousands to contaminated drinking water. The absence of established drinking water standards remains a contentious issue in ongoing court cases.

2009-2010: In 2009, Laura Jones, wife of a former marine stationed at Camp Lejeune from 1980 to 1983, filed the first lawsuit against the United States government regarding the water contamination. Jones claimed that her exposure to contaminated drinking water resulted in her diagnosis of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. In a significant development, the court rejected the government's request to dismiss the case in 2010, exempting it from the discretionary function exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act’s waiver of sovereign immunity and subjecting the case to federal jurisdiction.

2012: In 2012, President Obama signed the “Honoring America’s Veterans and Caring for Camp Lejeune Families Act of 2012” into law granting health care benefits from the United States Department of Veterans Affairs to service members who served at Camp Lejeune  Provided that certain eligibility requirements were met, the act allowed for family members of veterans to be reimbursed for health care costs through the Camp Lejeune Family Member Program.

2014: In 2014, initial compensation claims related to Camp Lejeune were denied due to a Supreme Court decision. The court ruled 7-2 that North Carolina's 10-year statute of limitations takes precedence over the Federal Superfund law. This meant that individuals exposed to pollution at Camp Lejeune would be barred from filing lawsuits once the statute of limitations expired, regardless of when they became aware of their pollution exposure.

2017: In January 2017, the Department of Veterans Affairs implemented a rule acknowledging the link between diseases and exposure to water contaminants at Camp Lejeune. This rule established a presumption of service connection, allowing affected veterans to seek compensation. However, despite the availability of a $2.2 billion fund, legal challenges resulted in numerous eligible veterans being denied compensation, creating hurdles in the process.

2021: In 2021, a bill known as the Camp Lejeune Justice Act of 2021 aimed to close legal loopholes to ensure fair compensation for Camp Lejeune service members and their families. The bill imposed stringent eligibility criteria, such as specific service dates and evidence of causal links between health conditions and contaminated water. The bill stalled in committee without further progress.

2022:  The Camp Lejeune Justice Act of 2022, a revised version of the previous year's bill, was signed into law by President Joe Biden in August. It underwent a successful journey through the U.S. House of Representatives from January to March 2022, and then through the Senate by June 2022.

2023: As the legal battle unfolds, 2023 marks a pivotal year for those affected water contamination at Camp Lejeune. Despite a governmental allocation of $22 billion for settlements, the mounting number of over 70,000 administrative claims signals that the widespread impact and urgency of the issue may exceed budget funds. While legal hurdles persist, plaintiffs' lawyers remain steadfast, exerting pressure on the government while also fostering a cooperative approach to reach a just resolution. The pursuit of a water contamination settlement continues to drive hope and justice for the affected individuals and their families.

[northcarolinaprelawland-blog]

“Stop the Boats”: Human Trafficking Mitigation or Human Rights Violation?

By Roksanna Keyvan, Wake Forest University Class of 2026

July 4, 2023

Recent litigation by the United Kingdom’s Court of Appeal has deemed the government’s plan to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda unlawful. Legal and public backlash to the Illegal Migration Bill delivers a critical blow to British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s pledge to cripple the human trafficking business model and “get a grip on illegal migration”. The verdict establishes a groundbreaking political precedent for upholding the equality rights of asylum seekers.

“Stop the Boats”: The Bill

The proposed policy creates a statutory obligation to remove immigrants arriving on ‘small boats’ by “unsafe and illegal routes.” PM Sunak, defending policy aims to “tackle the abuse of [the] modern slavery system” and dismantle smuggler operations, argues it would guarantee the safe return of victims to their home countries or designated ‘safe’ third countries, like Rwanda.  Government policy, however, lacks a clear strategy outlining robust identification procedures or comprehensive support services for victims.

Migrant asylum claims would be processed in Rwanda, according to a memorandum of understanding between the UK and Rwandan government's last year.  However, the 2021 United Nation’s Universal Periodic Review revealed significant international criticism for Rwanda’s failure to protect marginalized groups, with widespread reports of custodial torture, ill-treatment and fatality raising concerns regarding the potential exploitation of these vulnerable individuals.

The countries from which asylum seekers originate are often dangerous, unstable, or inaccessible. These conditions, in the words of Costello,  present legal, ethical, and practical challenges that render it impossible to repatriate these migrants without violating human rights. This controversial initiative to redefine national legal approaches to immigration may threaten to unravel the fundamental values of the asylum system. Cathryn Costello, Professor of Law at the University of Oxford, notes that the legislation aims to expand state detention powers while limiting judicial oversight, potentially undermining the democratic principles enshrined in the British constitution. 

Backing policy claims, Home Secretary Suella Braverman offered hardline rhetoric, arguing the existing asylum system to incentivize “mass flows of economic migration into Europe, lining the pockets of people smugglers.” A research study in the journal of Ethnic and Racial Studies, however, attributes the prevalence of the ‘smuggler business model’ to the lack of ‘safe and legal routes’ for asylum travel to the UK, a caveat intended to be explicitly addressed by the Bill.

“Extortionate”: Basis for Litigation

The Bill empowers the Home Secretary to bypass standard examination of asylum claims, contradicting the European Convention on Human Rights, which mandates Member States of the Council of Europe to secure equal rights for all individuals within their jurisdiction, including migrants. Costello highlights that by relocating migrants to Rwanda prior to assessing their claims, the UK sidelines domestic legal protections and subjects asylum seekers to potential extortion and exploitation. This policy would violate the European Convention, leading to severe human rights violations and potential legal challenges in the European Court for both the claimants and the UK.

Caption: Excerpt from the European Convention on Human Rights, highlighting the obligations of Member States (European Convention on Human Rights).

Critics label the Bill as an act of authoritarian legalism, a tool for dismantling democratic protections and safeguards for human rights. Costello emphasizes that the absence of a provision mandating human rights compliance in the legislation raises more concern than its actual content. Such a provision has been a standard feature in all British statutes since the Human Rights Act of 1998. Extending beyond a legal means to curb irregular migration, the Bill encroaches upon British constitutional law and disregards human rights.

Caption: Excerpt from Human Rights Act of 1998 outlining the need for legislation to be compatible with Human Rights (Human Rights Act of 1998).

Verdict: A Ripple Effect

The split two-to-one ruling determined that Rwanda could not be considered a safe third country for migrants, citing concerns of ill-treatment and refoulement stemming from “serious deficiencies” within its asylum system. The judges determined that a policy of deporting asylum seekers to a ‘safe’ third country was not inherently illegal.  Despite this opportunity to reassess national policy, the government intends to challenge the verdict in the UK Supreme Court.

Caption: Excerpt from the verdict by the Court of Appeal (UK Court of Appeal)

Yolande Makolo, spokeswoman for the Rwandan government, expressed continued support for the partnership, emphasizing Rwanda’s reputation as “one of the safest countries in the world” recognized for its “exemplary treatment of refugees.”  Human rights organizations and asylum seekers from several countries, including Syria, Iraq and Iran, continuously challenge the verisimilitude of these claims, questioning Rwanda’s capacity to provide adequate asylum support. 

The landmark ruling establishes a pivotal international precedent which, as refugee law expert David Cantor suggests, will “send a ripple effect” through discussions on offshore processing policies of asylum seekers.  Moving forward, it is crucial for future approaches to migrant policy to address the legal shortcomings highlighted by the Rwanda plan and adopt a more rigorous evaluation of the country's safety and the effectiveness of its asylum procedures.