On October 3rd, 2017, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments for the case Gill v. Whitford. This case arose from an appeal from a District Court ruling which found that the Republican controlled Wisconsin legislature’s congressional redistricting plan was drafted and enacted with the intent of systematically disadvantaging the voting strength of Democrats statewide and was thus an unconstitutional gerrymander.
In recent decades the United States has seen a rise in jurisprudence surrounding the gay community but it was not until the last five to ten years that there has been an exponential increase in cases surrounding transgender rights. The issue of transgender “bathroom rights” rose to the forefront of the media in March 2016 when the North Carolina General Assembly passed the “Public Facilities Privacy & Security Act” better known as “House Bill 2” or “HB2.”
This Tuesday, March 22, 2016, Apple will face off with the FBI in a court hearing over the locked iPhone seized after the San Bernardino terrorist attack. Privacy concerns took center stage in February when Apple challenged a court order compelling Apple to unlock the phone by creating software to bypass a security feature of the iOS 8 operating system. Apple’s CEO released a public letter harping on the importance of privacy and security and Apple sent their top attorney into a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee to discuss the danger of creating a backdoor into iPhones.
Justice Scalia once opined, “there is nothing new in the realization that the Constitution sometimes insulates the criminality of a few in order to protect the privacy of us all.” Society allows some criminal activity to occur because, in some instances, we value privacy more than we value safety or crime control. Until recently, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (“UAVs”) used to be a technology of tomorrow—a concept that once seemed completely farfetched, improbable, and even a bit eerie.
“What a man does not know and cannot find out is chance as to him, and is recognized as chance by the law.” Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Dillingham v. McLaughlin, 264 U.S. 370, 373 (1924).
As a Student-Intern in the Rutgers Domestic Violence Clinic, I have had the opportunity and pleasure of learning about the New Jersey Prevention of Domestic Act (the “Act”), the ways in which the Act is applied by the New Jersey Courts, and the consequences the Act has on litigants.
Sometimes a small decision demonstrates a large principle. That happened in late August when the Appellate Division released their unpublished decision of C.H.
The Rutgers Journal of Law and Public Policy was recently cited by the NEW JERSEY SUPREME COURT on page 41 of its opinion in Department of Children & Families v. E.D.-O., __ N.J. __ (2015). We are extremely proud of the hard work of our authors and staff, both past and present.
I. A Brief Introduction