F A L L 2 0 2 0 | V O L U M E I I I | I S S U E X X X V | E S T . 1 9 9 1 PRE-LAW REVIEW BOSTON UNIVERSITY’S UNDERGRADUATE LAW JOURNAL R E V I E W P R E - L A W DE EDITIONE [ABOUT THE PUBLICATION] The Boston University Pre-Law Review is a student-run law journal, open to all Boston University undergraduates. Founded in 1991, the Pre-Law Review has continued to foster awareness and provide commentary on major issues facing the law and the legal profession through its publication.The Pre-Law Review is published once per semester and features a wide range of topics, as our authors are given the freedom to write about anything as long as it pertains to the law. All of our contributors and staff are undergraduates, many of whom will be applying to law school. However, the Pre-Law Review staff spans a variety of majors, schools, and class years, as no specific academic or experiential requirements are necessary to work on the Pre-Law Review. All that is expected of members is an interest in learning more about the law and a commitment to furthering the publication’s objectives by contributing one article per semester or assisting in the other aspects of the publication. PRESIDENT HYEI IN YOO COLLEGE OF ARTS & SCIENCES ‘21 VICE PRESIDENT TING WEI LI COLLEGE OF ARTS & SCIENCES ‘22 SECRETARY YASHICA KATARIA COLLEGE OF ARTS & SCIENCES ‘23 TREASURER ALIAH ZAHARAN QUESTROM SCHOOL OF BUSINESS ‘21 MARKETING OFFICER SABRINA SCHNURR COLLEGE OF ARTS & SCIENCES ‘21 SENIOR COPY EDITOR KAITLYN DESOUZA COLLEGE OF ARTS & SCIENCES ‘23 SENIOR CONTENT EDITOR CARTER FARNSWORTH COLLEGE OF ARTS & SCIENCES ‘21 ACADEMIC ADVISORS EDWARD STERN ASSISTANT DEAN OF PRE-LAW ADVISING RITA CALLAHAN-RALSTON PRE-LAW ACADEMIC ADVISOR E X E C U T I V E B O A R D E D I T O R I A L S T A F F EDITORS-IN-CHIEF HYEI IN YOO TING WEI LI COPY EDITORS KAITLYN DESOUZA (SENIOR) YASHICA KATARIA JORDAN LEE REBECCA KIELAR DREW DOWNING BELLA FONG JANKI BHATT CONTENT EDITORS CARTER FARNSWORTH (SENIOR) ARIANNA ALMONTE LEA KAPUR AYANNA MERRITT MADELINE HUMPHREY CHARLES MOORE LAYOUT EDITORS TING WEI LI (SENIOR) FRANCESCA PADILLA KATHERINE MERRIMAN YIRAN YU I N D E X C A P I T U M [ T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S ] EVICTIONS DURING COVID-19 IN MASSACHUSETTS ANDREW DICKEY (CAS ‘20) AMERICA: IS IT A DEMOCRACY NO MORE? YASHICA KATARIA (CAS ‘23) TX HB25, COVID-19, & THE 2020 ELECTION NICHOLAS DIPAOLO (CAS ‘22) THE CONSEQUENTIAL RULING OF DHS V. THURAISSIGIAM JOHNSON PEOW (CAS ‘24) THE 2020 U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: PROLONGED & PENDING FRANCESCA PADILLA (CAS ‘21) WHAT EFFECT DO HUMAN RIGHTS & THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY HAVE ON THE FATE OF UIGHURS? ALANNA HOFFMAN (CAS ‘24) A CLOSER LOOK INTO HOW SOCIAL MEDIA IS REGULATED: WHAT A LACK OF REGULATION MEANS FOR AMERICANS? JENNIFER RUDDMAN (COM ‘21) DACA V. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY LEVENT SEVER (CAS ‘22) COPYRIGHT PROTECTIONS FOR SOFTWARE INTERFACES MATTHEW NADEAU (ENG ‘22) 6 7 8 10 11 12 14 16 18 THE POLITICS & ETHICS OF STEM CELL REGULATION ALEXIS RINDNER (CAS ‘22) THE EMERGING REGULATION OF AI IN PERSONAL DATA JOEL SHAPIRO (CAS ‘24) UNDERSTANDING TITLE IX MARINA SYLVESTRI (COM ‘20) PROMISES MADE, PROMISES KEPT: SUPREME COURT FAVORS CREEK NATION LINCOLN SON CURRIE (COM ‘23) MOTIONS FOR CHANGE OF VENUE IN CASES OF POLICE BRUTALITY CAMILLE OFULUE (CAS ‘24) CLIMATE CHANGE & JULIANA V. THE UNITED STATES DELANEY SWANN (CAS ‘21) NAD V. NETFLIX: VIDEO CAPTIONS FOR THE DEAF COMMUNITY LUTECE DEKKER (CAS / SED ‘22) THE IMPACT OF MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP V. COLORADO CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION MADELINE HUMPHREY (CAS ‘22) THE NEXUS OF POLITICS & PANDEMIC: I.C.E. POLICIES ON INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS YIRAN YU (CAS ‘23) HOW MOSAIC THEORY HAS BEEN INTERPRETED BY THE S.J.C. IN COMMONWEALTH V. MORA (2020) MAXWELL JAMES (QST ‘22) THE IMPACT OF IDEOLOGY OF THE SUPREME COURT ON ROE V. WADE HANNAH ZOBAIR (CAS ‘23) AN ANALYSIS OF DRONABINOL SCHEDULING MACKENZIE LUBY (CAS ‘22) SECTION 232 OF THE TRADE EXPANSION ACT OF 1962: A REGULATORY LOOPHOLE? REBECCA KIELAR (CAS ‘23) TRUMP’S ATTEMPTED TIKTOK BAN: POLITICS OR SECURITY? ANNA JENSEN (PARDEE ‘23) 20 21 22 24 26 28 30 31 32 34 36 38 40 42 6 P R E L A W R E V I E W B O S T O N U N I V E R S I T Y P R E L A W R E V I E W B O S T O N U N I V E R S I T Y 7 E V I C T I O N S D U R I N G C OV I D-1 9 I N M A S SAC H U S E T T S C O V I D - 1 9 B Y A N D R E W D I C K E Y ( C A S ‘ 2 0 ) We have no real idea of the level of destruction that the coronavirus pan- demic has brought to our lives, wheth- er personally, economically, or cultur- ally. The reason we cannot determine the extent of the damage is because it ripples throughout our communities and lives, creating effects that have an ever-increasing impact on our lives. The virus necessitated the lockdown, which in turn caused unemployment, which brought on financial strain for many families. As a result, thousands of families in Massachusetts lack the fi- nancial resources to pay rent. 1 Massa- chusetts Governor Charlie Baker had created a moratorium that did pro- vide the large protections that tenant advocate groups recommended, but that moratorium expired on October 17th 2020. 2 At the expiration of the moratorium, there was a split between Governor Baker and 90 members of the legislature regarding what should happen next. Baker unveiled a 171 million dollar aid plan for tenants and landlords, while legislators sponsored H.5018. 3 This bill would extend the previous moratorium for either a year or until the COVID-19 state of emer- gency was lifted. 4 Both these plans attempt to tackle the economic issues presented by the coronavirus differ- ently, but the Massachusetts govern- ment has not made considerations for particular groups that are especially impacted by the COVID-19 pandem- ic. Currently, H.5018 is still under consideration in the Massachusetts legislature, but even with its passage, certain groups in Massachusetts may not be adequately protected. 5 As Massachusetts begins to add jobs back to the economy, an important dichotomy in the recovery emerges. Service industries have been slower to recover than others, and these are primarily worked by minority groups that are already overrepresented in Massachusetts’s COVID-19 statistics in terms of cases and deaths. 6 The disproportionate effects of the pan- demic on these minority communities are compounded with rent inequality that existed before the pandemic. In predominantly minority communi- ties such as Dorchester, Roxbury, and East-Boston, tenants paid a higher share of their income to rent than ten- ants in wealthier neighborhoods did. 7 As the economy recovers and even the 12-month moratorium expires, these minority groups will still struggle with their disproportionately high rents. Another group that would suffer under the moratorium would be small scale landlords. H.5018 contains a fund for these landlords, but landlords worry that no money has been assigned to this fund, and may never be. 8 Governor Baker’s 171 million dollar aid plan is designed to alleviate these problems, however tenant groups say it may not be enough. 9 It only assigns $65 million to the Residence Assis- tance for Families in Transition (or RAFT), which allows tenants to make direct payments to their landlords. Housing advocates believe that 200 million dollars to RAFT would be ade- quate to alleviate the financial issues for both tenants and small scale land- lords. 10 These advocates worry that Governor Baker’s plan may not be sufficient to fully support Massachu- setts’s tenants, and should only be a first step. 11 Governor Baker has made no indication that he is pursuing more funding, even though his stated goal is to allow tenants to remain in their homes. 12 Housing advocates and Governor Baker both agree that the eviction crisis created by the corona- virus pandemic must be addressed, but have arrived at a crossroads when it comes to what exactly should be done. However, as the pandemic puts more and more financial strain on al- ready struggling citizens, finding an appropriate solution is paramount. SOURCES 1. Benfer, Emily A. “A Tidal Wave of Evictions Is Forming. It’s Not Too Late to Stop It - The Boston Globe.” Boston- Globe.com. The Boston Globe, September 24, 2020. 2. Greenberg, Zoe. “A ‘Debt Crisis’ among Renters Mounts in Massachusetts - The Boston Globe.” BostonGlobe.com. The Boston Globe, October 13, 2020. 3. Healy, Beth. “Gov. Baker Announces $171 Million Plan To Head Off Evictions - Less Than Advocates Wanted.” Gov. Baker Announces $171 Million Plan To Head Off Evictions - Less Than Advocates Wanted | WBUR News. WBUR, Oc- tober 12, 2020. 4. An Act to guarantee housing stability during the COVID-19 emergency and recovery. Bill, Malegislature.gov § (2020). https://malegislature.gov/Bills/191/H5018. 5. Ibid. 6. Edelman, Larry. “Massachusetts Unemployment Rate Fell to 9.6 Percent Last Month as Employers Added Nearly 37,000 Jobs - The Boston Globe.” BostonGlobe.com. The Boston Globe, October 16, 2020; COVID-19 Inequities Task Force, B. “Racial Data on Boston Resident COVID-19 Cases.” Boston.gov, April 9, 2020. 7. Thompson, Isaiah. “In Massachusetts, An Uneven Im- pactFrom Rising Rents.” News. GBH, July 12, 2019. 8. Logan, Tim. “As Eviction Ban Continues, Small Landlords Feel the Squeeze - The Boston Globe.” BostonGlobe.com. The Boston Globe, July 27, 2020. 9. Healy, Beth. “Gov. Baker Announces $171 Million Plan To Head Off Evictions - Less Than Advocates Wanted.” 10. Ibid 11. Ibid. 12. Associated Press. “Mass. Ban on Pandemic Evictions, Foreclosures Ending.” NBC Boston. NBC10 Boston, Oc- tober 17, 2020. Freedom of speech, liberty, and justice for all – we continue to hear and say these phrases, but have they started to lose their significance? Since the 2016 Presidential election, the question of whether the United States of America is a democracy or not has been brought to the forefront. With the 2020 election right around the corner, this question is more imperative than ever before. A large issue is that representation has decreased in several ways. Despite in- creasing population growth, the limit on the number of members in the House of Representatives has stayed the same. Additionally, two of the last three U.S. presidents elected failed to win the popular vote. 1 Furthermore, gerryman- dering, the redrawing of districts to fa- vor one political party over the other remains a common practice in many states. 2 This combination of factors doesn’t particularly incite faith in de- mocracy among the American public. Voter suppression has been a hot top- ic surrounding the 2020 election, with increasing uncertainty regarding the validity of mail-in ballots that are being used more frequently due to the pan- demic. Over the years, stricter ID vot- er laws have been put in place which disproportionately affect Black and His- panic citizens. 3 Voter purging, a pro- cess by which “officials scrub names from the voter rolls ostensibly to ensure people don’t vote twice and that people who have died or moved get removed from the rolls,” is a valid process, but a deeply concerning issue arises when eligible voters are removed from these rolls. 4 This occurrence has been on the rise throughout recent years. 5 Voting issues aren’t the only ones cur- rently plaguing the people. The passing of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg led to the current president Donald Trump appointing Judge Amy Coney Barrett before the 2020 elec- tion, deeply shifting what the American people thought they knew. Was the United States of America ever intend- ed to be a democracy? When the U.S. was founded, limits were placed on the public’s influence on government, since their views could only create change through representatives. 6 Throughout the 19th century, egalitarian views be- came increasingly popular, with citizens starting to recognize that they should be more involved in decision making. 7 This eventually led to senators being di- rectly chosen by the people instead of by state legislatures by the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913. The United States of America was intended to be a demo- cratic republic, not a democracy alone. Although there has been an ongoing discussion for decades about equal representation in the United States of America, that has been put into ques- tion. Though it is near impossible to have a perfect democracy, many con- tinue to question the validity of the la- bels around us and how countries have moved away from the label of “democ- racy” that was given to them in earli- er years. The United States of America may be a democratic republic by name, but has it lost its democratic nature? SOURCES 1. Foodman, Julia. “A History of Third Party and Indepen- dent Presidential Candidates.” FairVote, July 16, 2019. https://www.fairvote.org/a_history_of_independent_presi- dential_candidates. 2. Ibid. 3. Rao, Ankita, Kim Kelly, Pat Dillon, and Zak Bennett. “Is America a Democracy? If so, Why Does It Deny Millions the Vote?” The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, November 7, 2019. https://www.theguardian.com/us- news/2019/nov/07/is-america-a-democracy-if-so-why- does-it-deny-millions-the-vote. 4. Ibid. 5. Ibid. 6. “Origins and Development.” U.S. Senate: Origins and Development, April 13, 2020. https://www.senate.gov/ artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Origins_Develop- ment.htm. 7. Mounk, Yascha. “America Is Not a Democracy.” The At- lantic. Atlantic Media Company, January 31, 2018. https:// www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/03/ameri- ca-is-not-a-democracy/550931/. 8. Ibid. AM E R I C A: I S I T A D E M O C R A C Y N O M O R E? C O N S T I T U T I O N B Y Y A S H I C A K A T A R I A ( C A S ‘ 2 3 ) 8 P R E L A W R E V I E W B O S T O N U N I V E R S I T Y P R E L A W R E V I E W B O S T O N U N I V E R S I T Y 9 In a vote largely divided along parti- san lines, the Texas Legislature passed House Bill 25 (TX HB25) to eliminate the 100-year-old voting practice of straight-ticket voting. 1 Outlawed in 41 states 2 , straight-ticketing voting allows voters to simultaneously cast their votes for all candidates belong- ing to one party (the voter’s preferred party) without reviewing the entire ballot. With notoriously lengthy bal- lots that can sometimes “list as many as 95 races in a single county,” 3 it is no wonder that nearly 64% of the to- tal votes in 2016 were casted utilizing straight-ticket ballots. 4 On one hand, proponents of HB25 believe the elimination of straight-tick- et voting will lead to a more engaged and educated electorate, arguing that voters should independently learn more about each proposal and can- didate rather than solely relying on their party affiliation. Furthermore, the elimination of straight-ticket voting will necessitate voter examination of each race, incentivizing better-quali- fied candidates to run, as the races will become more competitive. On the other hand, those against HB25 insist that the bill will cause longer waiting times at polling stations and will burden Texan voters, particularly voters in African American and His- panic communities. After the outbreak of COVID-19, those opposed to the bill would evolve their argument to also encompass concerns of safety hazards emerging from longer lines and increased exposure rates. 5 Nevertheless, Governor Greg Abbott signed HB25 into law on June 1st, 2017, and the law went into effect on September 1st, 2020. 6 As a result, the Texas Democratic Party (TDP) filed a lawsuit in March 2020 against the Texas Secretary of State, the institution responsible for administering elec- tions in Texas, and challenged the law as unconstitutional and in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which prohibits voting prac- tices that discriminate on the basis of race. 7 The suit was dismissed on June 24, 2020 for “lack of standing,” meaning that the plaintiff was not able to demonstrate harm from the law and was not the correct party to be appearing in court; TDP did not file an appeal. 8 On August 12, 2020, the Texas Alli- ance for Retired Americans were add- ed to a revamped version of the law- suit, claiming that the enforcement of HB25 would have a “disproportionate effect on the African-American and Hispanic populations,” 9 as minorities were more likely to “have less flexible job schedules” 10 and “lack access to child care assistance.” 11 Similar to the TDP , the plaintiff contended that the longer lines would prompt mar- ginalized communities to “leave poll- ing-place lines” 12 and “avoid voting altogether,” 13 violating the Fourteenth (equal protection under the law) and Fifteenth (citizens cannot be denied the right to vote on the basis of race) Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. In addition, the new plaintiff reassert- ed that Texan voters could be further exposed to COVID-19 by waiting in longer lines without a straight-tick- et voting option, which expedites the process. 14 With Governor Abbott moving the start date of early voting from Octo- ber 19th 15 to October 13th because of the COVID-19 pandemic, 16 U.S. District Court Judge Marina Garcia Marmolejo of the Southern District of Texas ruled in favor of the Texas Alli- ance for Retired Americans, only 18 days before the start of early voting. In her ruling, Judge Marmolejo cited COVID-19 concerns related to in-per- son voting. She also adjudicated that the Republican-backed law would “impose a discriminatory burden” 17 on African American and Hispanic voters by diminishing opportunities for these voters to participate in the polit- ical process. 18 Moreover, Judge Mar- molejo found that the elimination of a 100-year-old voting practice in the middle of a pandemic had the poten- tial to further confuse voters during an already confusing time. A three-judge panel from the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reaffirmed the district court’s decision on September 30th, 2020. 19 The decision from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Tex- as is consistent with the precedent set by the U.S. Supreme Court in Repub- lican National Committee v. Demo- cratic National Committee, preclud- ing the amendments of voting laws on the eve of an election. 20 T X H B25, C OV I D-19, & T H E 2 02 0 E L E C T I O N E L E C T I O N S B Y N I C H O L A S D I P A O L O ( C A S ‘ 2 2 ) SOURCES 1. Ingram, Keith. “Election Advisory No. 2020-29.” New Law: HB 25 (2017) Elimination of Straight-Party Voting. Of- fice of Secretary of State for the State of Texas, September 17, 2020. https://www.sos.texas.gov/elections/laws/advi- sory2020-29.shtml. 2. “Straight Ticket Voting States.” National Conference of State Legislators, March 25, 2020. https://www.ncsl.org/ research/elections-and-campaigns/straight-ticket-voting. aspx. 3. Tex. All. for Retired Ams. v. Hughs, Civil Action USDC No. 5:20-CV-128, (S.D. Tex., Sep. 25, 2020). https://casetext. com/case/tex-all-for-retired-ams-v-hughs 4. Samuels, Alex. “Bill to Abolish ‘One-Punch’ Voting Ap- proved in Texas House.” The Texas Tribune. May 6, 2017. https://www.texastribune.org/2017/05/05/bill-would- abolish-one-punch-voting-approved-texas-house/. 5. Tex. All. for Retired Ams. v. Hughs, Case 20-40643, (5th Cir., Sep. 30, 2020). http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opin- ions/pub/20/20-40643-CV0.pdf 6. Samuels, Alex. “Bill to Abolish ‘One-Punch’ Voting Ap- proved in Texas House.” The Texas Tribune. May 6, 2017. https://www.texastribune.org/2017/05/05/bill-would- abolish-one-punch-voting-approved-texas-house/. 7. Tex. All. for Retired Ams. v. Hughs, Case 20-40643, (5th Cir., Sep. 30, 2020). http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opin- ions/pub/20/20-40643-CV0.pdf 8. Ibid. 9. Tex. All. for Retired Ams. v. Hughs, Civil Action USDC No. 5:20-CV-128, (S.D. Tex., Laredo Division, Aug. 12, 2020). https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/up- loads/2020/09/Straight-party-voting-lawsuit.pdf 10. Ibid. 11. Ibid. 12. Tex. All. for Retired Ams. v. Hughs, Civil Action USDC No. 5:20-CV-128, (S.D. Tex., Sep. 25, 2020). https://case- text.com/case/tex-all-for-retired-ams-v-hughs 13. Ibid. 14. Tex. All. for Retired Ams. v. Hughs, Civil Action USDC No. 5:20-CV-128, (S.D. Tex., Laredo Division, Aug. 12, 2020).https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/up- loads/2020/09/Straight-party-voting-lawsuit.pdf 15. “Important 2020 Election Dates.” Office of the Secre- tary of State for the State of Texas. https://www.sos.state. tx.us/elections/voter/important-election-dates.shtml#2020 16. Abbott, Greg. “Proclamation by the Governor of the State of Texas.” Disaster Proclamation under Section 418.014 of the Texas Government Code. Office of the Governor for the State of Texas. October 1, 2020. https:// gov.texas.gov/uploads/files/press/PROC_COVID-19_ Nov_3_general_election_IMAGE_10-01-2020.pdf 17. Tex. All. for Retired Ams. v. Hughs, Civil Action USDC No. 5:20-CV-128, (S.D. Tex., Sep. 25, 2020). https://case- text.com/case/tex-all-for-retired-ams-v-hughs 18. Ibid. 19. Tex. All. for Retired Ams. v. Hughs, Case 20-40643, (5th Cir., Sep. 30, 2020) http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/ opinions/pub/20/20-40643-CV0.pdf 20. Ibid. 10 P R E L A W R E V I E W B O S T O N U N I V E R S I T Y P R E L A W R E V I E W B O S T O N U N I V E R S I T Y 11 In 2017, a Sri Lankan man named Vi- jayakumar Thuraissigiam crossed the southern border of the United States (US) without proper documentation or inspection. 1 After Customs and Bor- der Protection officers arrested him and placed him in expedited removal proceedings, he indicated a fear of persecution in Sri Lanka. 2 An asylum officer determined he had not estab- lished a credible fear of persecution, which was affirmed by a supervisor and an immigration judge. 3 Thuraissi- giam promptly filed a habeas corpus petition in federal district court, argu- ing that the asylum officer’s expedited removal order violated his constitu- tional rights. 4 After a back and forth battle between the Southern California District Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Ap- peals, the US Supreme Court heard arguments on whether the Due Pro- cess Clause and the Suspension Clause had been violated in the case of Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam. 5 On June 25, 2020 in a 7-2 majority decision, the High Court reversed the decision, remand- ed this decision to the Ninth Circuit Court, and asserted that the Depart- ment of Homeland Security (DHS) had not violated the Due Process Clause or the Suspension Clause. 6 This ruling significantly impacts both current and future immigrants to the US because it calls to question an immigrant’s op- portunity to appear in court under a writ of habeas corpus. The Due Process Clause states that no person shall be “deprived of life, lib- erty, or property, without due process of law,” which requires, at the mini- mum: (1) notice; and (2) an opportu- nity to be heard in an impartial tribu- nal. 7 This Clause is not limited to US citizens; it also extends to aliens and asylum seekers. 8 In Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, the Supreme Court claimed that the decisions of executive officers “[were] due process of law” and that judicial oversight was not necessary. 9 Howev- er, this might not be considered due process of law because Thuraissigiam did not have a hearing on his right to remain in the US prior to filing a ha- beas corpus petition. 10 Further concern lies in the potential overexertion of power by one branch of government. The Supreme Court’s assertion that the DHS did not violate the Suspension Clause sets a new precedent that expeditious remov- al and unlawful detainment are not the same. 11 Justice Sonia Sotomayer dissented from the majority opinion, warning that this ruling may affect the Judicial Branch’s ability to check the Executive Branch and “perform its constitutional authority to safeguard individual liberty”. 12 With reduced or eliminated court involvement, both current and potential immigrants to the US might not be able to appeal to a court in response to an asylum offi- cer’s decision to expeditiously remove them from the country. 13 Gerald Neu- man, a Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, worries that the Supreme Court’s decision “threatens the liberty and safety of citizens and immigrants alike”. 14 Due to the checks and balances sys- tem already in place, Congress has the opportunity to draft and pass new laws as a response to the Supreme Court’s decision. Whether or not Congress decides to exercise such authority is up to them. SOURCES 1. United States Department of Homeland Security v. Thu- raissigiam, 917 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2019). 2. Ibid. 3. Ibid. 4. Ibid. 5. Ibid. 6. Ibid. 7. U.S. Const. Amend. V, § 4; Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950). 8. Ibid. 9. United States Department of Homeland Security v. Thu- raissigiam, 917 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2019). 10. Ibid. 11. Ibid. 12. Ibid. 13. Ibid. 14. Neuman, Gerald. “The Supreme Court’s Attack on Habeas Corpus in DHS v. Thuraissigiam.” Just Security, August 25, 2020. https://www.justsecurity.org/72104/the- supreme-courts-attack-on-habeas-corpus-in-dhs-v-thurais- sigiam/. T H E C O N S E Q U E N T I AL R U L I N G O F D H S V. T H U R AI S S I G I AM C O N S T I T U T I O N B Y J O H N S O N P E O W ( C A S ‘ 2 4 ) T H E 2 02 0 U. S. P R E S I D E N T I AL E L E C T I O N : P R O L O N G E D & P E N D I N G E L E C T I O N S B Y F R A N C E S C A P A D I L L A ( C A S ‘ 2 1 ) Normally, United States elections are concluded within twenty-four hours, but the 2020 election was an exception. The COVID-19 pandemic was one contributor to the lengthening of the election process. State legislatures extended their ballot rules to account for shelter-in-place orders and personal preferences. This increased the number of Americans who chose to vote by mail or by absentee versus in per- son. Thus, people casted their ballots ear- lier to make sure they arrived at the polling offices on or before November 3rd. 1 However, a less obvious contributor to a prolonged election season was the presi- dential incumbent himself, Donald Trump. At a White House news conference on September 23, 2020, President Trump was asked if he would agree to a peaceful transfer of power. He replied, “Well, we’re going to have to see what happens.” 2 Concerned with the validity of mail-in vot- ing, President Trump stated that if the elec- tion declared former Vice President Joe Biden as the winner, he would be skepti- cal of the results. As pivotal swing states were called in favor of Biden, resulting in Biden’s win on November 7th, President Trump immediately filed lawsuits against these states for voter fraud. Although many courts have dismissed the lawsuits, President Trump may not back down, even when he appeals his way to the top. 3 He may try to find a way to take back the White House unconventionally through state legislatures. In the 1876 election, the two presiden- tial candidates, Rutherford B. Hayes and Samuel Tilden, both refused to concede. 4 However, neither candidate was an in- cumbent. In this election year, incumbent Donald Trump could continue to refuse concession, thus changing the climate of the electoral proceedings for his own personal gain. The peaceful transfer of power from one president to another, excluding the 1876 election, has always been an unwritten norm; it is not explicitly addressed in the Constitution. 5 If President Trump does not win his lawsuits against the swing states, he may have another op- tion to defeat Biden. According to Article II, state legislatures can appoint electors, which make up the electoral college, by any manner they wish. 6 Using political connections and party loyalty, President Trump can go to Republican state legisla- tors and persuade them to appoint elec- tors who agree that the election has been rigged. The electors would represent the outcome of what President Trump thinks would have happened if the ballots were legal and untampered with. 7 This election outcome would likely differ from the results of the formal Election Commission since many mail-in ballots would no longer count, and Democrats voted by mail-in ballots at a far higher rate than Republicans did. 8 With the hypo- thetical existence of two slates of electors, Congress would have to decide which slate would most accurately represent the votes of the American people. Congress was given this power in 1877 by the Elec- toral Count Act, which was used to prevent a repeat of the election between Hayes and Tilden. 9 However, if the new Congress remains split, meaning the Senate has a different majority than the House, there is no law in place to resolve a tie-break- er. This election is still not finalized, and Americans may not know the results until the inauguration on January 20, 2021. SOURCES 1. Parks, Miles. “New Poll: Americans Overwhelmingly Support Voting By Mail Amid Pandemic.” NPR. April 28, 2020. https:// www.npr.org/2020/04/28/847383460/new-poll-ameri- cans-overwhelmingly-support-mail-voting-amid-pandemic. 2. Itkowitz, Colby, Felicia Sonmez, John Wagner, and Emily Guskin. “Trump Says He’ll ‘see What Happens’ on Election Results; Biden Makes Appeal to Black Voters in N.C.” The Washington Post. September 23, 2020. https://www.washing- tonpost.com/elections/2020/09/23/trump-biden-supreme- court-live-updates/. 3. “Trump’s Election Legal Challenges: Where Do Things Stand?” The Guardian. November 19, 2020. https://www. theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/19/trump-election-re- sult-biden-legal-challenges. 4. Pruitt, Sarah. “How the 1876 Election Tested the Consti- tution and Effectively Ended Reconstruction.” History.com. January 21, 2020. https://www.history.com/news/reconstruc- tion-1876-election-rutherford-hayes. 5. Gellman, Barton. “The Election That Could Break America.” The Atlantic. September 23, 2020. https://www.theatlantic. com/magazine/archive/2020/11/what-if-trump-refuses-con- cede/616424/. 6. U.S. Const. art. II, § 1. 7. Gellman, Barton. “The Election That Could Break America.” The Atlantic. September 23, 2020. https://www.theatlantic. com/magazine/archive/2020/11/what-if-trump-refuses-con- cede/616424/. 8. Levitz, Eric. “How Democrats’ Reliance on Mail-In Vot- ing Could Help Trump.” Intelligencer. September 18, 2020. https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/09/how-democrats-re- liance-on-mail-in-voting-could-help-trump.html. 9. Land, Chris, and David Schultz. “The Unenforceability of the Electoral Count Acts Procedural Provisions.” Rutgers Jour- nal of Law & Public Policy 13, no. 4 (Fall 2016): 340-87. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2721210. 12 P R E L A W R E V I E W B O S T O N U N I V E R S I T Y P R E L A W R E V I E W B O S T O N U N I V E R S I T Y 13 W H AT E F F E C T D O H U M AN R I G H T S L AW S & T H E I N T E R NAT I O NAL C O M M U N I T Y H AV E O N T H E FAT E O F U I G H U R S? I N T E R N A T I O N A L B Y A L A N N A H O F F M A N ( C A S ‘ 2 4 ) Chinese intelligence records reveal that more than 1 million Uighurs have been imprisoned in “re-education camps” since 2017. 1 All of these— which are allegedly now constituted as concentration camps—reside with- in the northwestern Chinese province of Xinjiang. 2 While many people in the Western world are oblivious to the plight of Uighurs, there are approxi- mately 11 million members of the Muslim minority group within Xinjiang alone. 3 Forty-five percent of the re- gion’s citizens are Uighur and contin- ue to identify with the previous Soviet nation-state of East Turkestan, rather than the traditional Han-Chinese cul- ture. Thus, the divide resulted in an ethnonationalist cleavage within the state that has escalated political and territorial conflict. Restrictions on the civil liberties of the Uighur population began after a Ui- ghur militant group admitted respon- sibility for violent terrorist attacks in 2013 and 2014. 4 The first attack in 2013 sparked national outrage at the threat of detonating explosives among civilians within Tiananmen Square. The second attack along the Kun- ming railway station in 2014 caused thirty-five deaths and 143 casualties, prompting China’s leading legislative body, the National People’s Congress (NCP), to develop anti-terrorism liti- gation. 5 In 2015, the NCP enacted a counter-terrorism law called the Na- tional Security Act. 6 Adoption of the law granted the Chinese government the power to attain all private data from companies and citizens that en- croached on the subject of terrorism. It also enforced criminal punishment and fines on those who refused to comply. 7 As a result, in 2017, the Xinjiang government enacted a law forbidding male citizens from growing long beards and female citizens from wearing long burkas. 8 Chinese gov- ernment officials have since charged Uighurs with crimes such as attend- ing mosques and reading Islamic texts, leading to their detainment into camps. 9 Currently, the Chairman of the gov- ernment of Xinjiang, Shohrat Zakir, says they are inspired by the UN Gen- eral Assembly’s resolution on Global Terrorism Strategy regarding terror- ism prevention, specifically through the government’s free educational endowment. 10 He claims they gen- erously provide Uighurs with an en- vironment where they can learn “the country’s common language, legal knowledge, vocational skills, along with de-extremization education.” 11 Whereas Chinese officials assert the institution of Chinese anti-terrorist lit- igation is for the common good and national security of Chinese citizens, many Chinese detainees who fled the camp have described horrific condi- tions. They reported coercion to de- nounce Islam and pledge loyalty to the Chinese Communist Party, as well as constant sleep deprivation, inter- rogations, torture, surveillance, and even nonconsensual abortions and contraceptives unto Uighur women in order to permanently “purge the Mus- lim minority.” 12 In a July 2019 letter to the U.N. Hu- man Rights Council, twenty-two Euro- pean countries condemned the estab- lishment of the camps as a violation of human rights, and thirty-one coun- tries (including the U.S.) described the camps as a campaign of repression at the U.N. General Assembly. 13 As of June 2020, the Trump Administra- tion passed the Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act with the hope that imposing economic sanctions on China would discourage continued human rights violations on the Uighur popula- tion. 14 Despite the collaborative effort of a majority of the most influential democratic nation-states in the world to dismantle the internment camps, China has invested billions of dollars throughout 2019 and 2020 into the continual construction of now more than 380 documented camps. 15 This brings to light potential para- digm shifts in the application of law in foreign policy and international rela- tions. In the current, modern and glo- balized world, mass-scale war efforts would not be in the national interest of any unitary and rational state. With the rise of a bipolar power dynamic between the U.S. and China and the subsequent classification of the U.S. as a falling global hegemony, any small, attempted economic sanctions on China lack enough influence to shift their political ideology. At the time that the U.S. was fully becoming a global hegemon, the expansion of its sphere of influence was previously initiated through imperialism or military force (e.g., proxy wars or insurgency wars in the Middle East, etc.). It was mag- nified through American presence on international agencies, including the U.N., and the U.S.’s humanitar- ian initiatives like the Marshall Plan. Now, liberal institutions like the U.N. and international courts that enforce human rights laws are more vital than ever, but are also fraught with more political conflict than ever. China’s fo- cus on defining human rights is in the context of the collective, which focuses on the well-being of the masses with- in society, versus the U.S. believing in more individual human rights and lib- erties. Additionally, China’s growth in economic power makes other nations hesitate to create conflict by revealing these human rights abuses and de- manding solutions. Both the varying cultural philosophies and China’s in- creased influence over other nations heightens the instability within inter- national courts and organizations, as well as negatively impacting those organization’s legitimacy. However, as shown by the perpetual peace of modern democracies today, norms established through legal means offer a more influential and less harmful alternative to compliance with more authoritarian countries. Even without an unipolar overarching power to en- force compliance among competing states, human rights law disputes in international courts can potentially in- troduce social transgressions through the internalization of basic human rights practices. Recent cases such as the Chinese Communist Party’s dec- laration to sue the Australian Strate- gic Policy Institute (ASPI) for libel be- cause of their investigative papers on human rights violations in the Uighur camps, exemplify such a philosophy on the impact of international law on foreign relations. 16 Notable human rights law cases can bring internation- al attention to a human rights contro- versy, potentially having the ability to promote democratic ideology through constructivist means and internal in- fluence of normativity changes, rather than through the use of hard power and external force. SOURCES 1. Wood, Bryan. “What Is Happening with the Uighurs in China?” PBS. Public Broadcasting Service, October 7, 2019. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/features/uighurs/ (accessed October 19, 2020). 2. Maizland, Lindsay. “China’s Repression of Uighurs in Xinjiang.” Council on Foreign Relations. Council on For- eign Relations. (accessed October 19, 2020). https://www. cfr.org/backgrounder/chinas-repression-uighurs-xinjiang (accessed October 19, 2020). 3. Ibid 4. Gohel, Sajjan M. “The ‘Seventh Stage’ Of Terrorism in China.” Combating Terrorism Center at West Point, Novem- ber 16, 2017. https://ctc.usma.edu/the-seventh-stage-of- terrorism-in-china/. 5. Ibid 6. Xinhua News Agency. Anti-Terrorism Law of the People’s Republic of China. The State Council of the People’s Re- public of China, December 27, 2015. http://www.gov.cn/ xinwen/2015-12/28/content_5028407.htm (accessed Oc- tober 19, 2020). 7. China Law Translate. “Bilingual Counter-Terrorism Law.” China Law Translate. China Law Translate, August 14, 2019. https://www.chinalawtranslate.com/bilingual-count- er-terrorism-law/?lang=en. 8. Wood, Bryan. “What Is Happening with the Uighurs in China?” PBS. Public Broadcasting Service, October 7, 2019. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/features/uighurs/ (accessed October 19, 2020). 9. Ibid 10. Bo, Xiang, ed. “Full Transcript: Interview with Xin- jiang Government Chief on Counterterrorism, Vo- cational Education and Training in Xinjiang.” Xin- hua, October 16, 2018. http://www.xinhuanet.com/ english/2018-10/16/c_137535821.htm. 11. Ibid 12. Zenz, Adrian. “China’s Own Documents Show Poten- tially Genocidal Sterilization Plans in Xinjiang.” Foreign Pol- icy, July 1, 2020. https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/07/01/ china-documents-uighur-genocidal-sterilization-xinjiang/. 13. Wood, Bryan. What Is Happening with the Uighurs in China? https://www.pbs.org/newshour/features/uighurs/. 14. “Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act of 2020,” n.d. https://www.congress.gov/116/plaws/publ145/PLAW- 116publ145.pdf. 15. Buckley, Chris, and Austin Ramzy. “Night Images Re- veal Many New Detention Sites in China’s Xinjiang Region.” The New York Times. The New York Times, September 24, 2020. https://www.nytimes. com/2020/09/24/world/asia/china-muslims-xinjiang-de- tention.html. 16. Ibid 14 P R E L A W R E V I E W B O S T O N U N I V E R S I T Y P R E L A W R E V I E W B O S T O N U N I V E R S I T Y 15 A C L O S E R L O O K I N T O H OW S O C I AL M E D I A I S R E G U L AT E D: W H AT A L AC K O F R E G U L AT I O N M E AN S F O R AM E R I C AN S? T E C H N O L O G Y B Y J E N N I F E R R U D D M A N ( C O M ‘ 2 1 ) Earlier this ye