As you may have heard, it’s been a bit of a trying time around UC recently. From a foot and a half of snow on Friday last week, to further disruptions on Monday, it has been a challenging few weeks. Despite all of this, the students produced great blog posts last week, which I’ll cover here. Eventually, I’ll catch up to the work they somehow managed to produce this week, much to their credit. Last week’s posts feature a variety of both historic and contemporary legal issues. On with the review!
Kei continues to inform us all about early U.S. policies pertaining to Indian Removal and “Elimination,” including covering efforts to not only kill Native Americans, but also to do destroy entire cultures.
Kelly F. and Troy both use past Supreme Court cases to explore presidential power, while Chelsea continues to explain important cases that helped solidify the Court’s power of judicial review. Kelly F. writes about the powers the Constitution grants to the president, and talks about how these are limited by design but have grown through application. Troy discusses the Obama-era immigration and federalism case, Arizona v. U.S., and the likelihood of states returning to stricter immigration laws similar to what Arizona had tried to enforce. Chelsea, in her post, focuses on Cohen v. Virginia and the question of the Supreme Court’s exercise of judicial review over state criminal cases.
Ryan and Annelis both write about the current status of DACA in light of the March 5th deadline initially set by the President and subsequent developments. Ryan’s post for the week explains what DACA is, the president’s plans for changing immigration, and the current status of DACA in light of the March 5th deadline and recent action by the Supreme Court. Annelis, in her post, discusses the Supreme Court’s denial of the Trump administration’s request to weigh in on his rescinding of DACA, which effectively delays action past the initially set March 5, 2018 deadline for the program to expire.
Tyena and Brad both explore the various legal challenges faced by multiple local actors whenever migrants, documented or otherwise, find themselves in the U.S. legal system. Tyena addresses the complexities that arise whenever immigrants who are non-citizens find themselves in U.S. courts as they need to navigate both criminal (or civil) law, as well as immigration law, which requires effective counsel knowledgeable about all relevant areas of law. Brad writes about the role of local law enforcement in enforcing (or not) federal immigration laws, getting into the contrasting approaches taken by California and Texas.
Tim, in his post, explains the federal agencies and authorities responsible for enforcing federal drug laws.
Kelly S. discusses the issue of what crimes should be punished by the death penalty, and looks at one specific instance of the Supreme Court overriding a state’s decision to impose capital punishment.
Sung and Hermina close us out for this last week with two posts addressing currently contentious political issues: guns and gerrymandering. Sung writes about the 2nd Amendment, and Supreme Court cases pertaining to the right to bear arms, in light of the recent shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, FL. Hermina, in her post, discusses gerrymandering and the increased number of cases that we have seen recently on these topics, including the Supreme Court’s decision to not review the state court decisions regarding election districts in Pennsylvania.
UC is off to a much deserved Spring Break next week (even if no one bothered to tell the weather). I’ll be back soon with a round-up of the posts the students made for this week, and we will all collectively be back the week after that with time for reflection on recent events and on their posts (it will be blog audit week when we get come back).