Written by Rachelle DeSantis and Calvin Cohen

In light of the recent decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, it has become increasingly apparent that the Supreme Court has become a political pawn in a now extremely polarized American government. Not so long ago, however, the Court had still been a well-regarded and highly respected institution of our American democracy. Justices served as nonpartisan actors who interpreted the meaning of the Constitution consistently through their respective judicial philosophies. Ideally, judicial decisions would serve as a check on the legislative and executive branches, promoting the separation of powers in our government. While the Constitution allows Congress to organize the judiciary, growing partisanship within the legislative branch has, in the authors’ view, influenced the Court’s operations.

Written by MJ Apfel

CS:GO is only one of many games to sell loot boxes, and an untold number of children have fallen victim to the addictive cycles associated with loot boxes. Research has since been published showing that the psychological stress incurred by those who purchased loot boxes is like the stress incurred by gambling. Currently, loot boxes are treated the same as any in-game purchase using real-world money. The courts have yet to determine whether loot boxes can be legally viewed as a sort of gambling, but it could be argued that the qualities of a loot box fit the federal definition of gambling. . This note will analyze whether loot boxes should be classified as gambling under current federal laws, examining the history and development of loot boxes, their rise in prevalence in the gaming industry, how the courts have answered questions adjacent to the issue of gambling, and potential solutions.

Written by Laura See

Election law has a tremendous influence on nearly every issue in the United States. Free and fair elections imply that everyone receives an equal vote, and therefore citizens should have their voices represented proportionally in local, state, and federal legislatures. This, however, is not what happens in practice, as voting rights have been regressing rapidly since the landmark court case Shaw v. Reno. While one person equals one vote in theory, the question becomes what is the definition of a person? Where is the line where one can legitimately deny the fundamental right to vote? Rucho v. Common Cause set a new precedent declaring partisan gerrymandering as justiciable. This paper explores the aftermath of a few key voting rights cases in North Carolina– one of the most prominent gerrymandered states. It discusses and assesses the potential looming effects and racial implications of Rucho.

Written by Sydney Gamble

This paper begins with the parallel stories of Dan Seeger and Elliot Welsh, and how the pencil marks they made on draft board forms led to their landmark Supreme Court cases during the Vietnam War. Both men were rejected conscientious objector status because their claims of conscience were declared insufficiently religious. Welsh v. United States, the latter of these cases and decided in 1970, established the “sincerity” test as a precedent for religious rights cases that followed. Later challenges to and extrapolations upon this test came from resistant draft boards and eager academics, from those worried about an artificial legal construction to those anticipating an artificial intelligence with its own conscientious objections to military service. Ultimately, this paper analyzes briefs and opinions, audio from oral arguments, and contemporary scholarship to explain how Welsh v. United States represents the future of religious rights adjudication, as the decision demonstrates a responsiveness to a societal gravitation away from organized religion and toward personalized spirituality.