The Journal of Law and Public Policy is….

Can The President Cancel Student Debt?

(Source) Student loan forgiveness has been a popular topic in the news lately.  This should not come as a surprise considering there are over 43 million student borrowers in the United States, each with an average debt size of $39,351. As the current total student loan debt in the United States tops $1.7 trillion, President Biden has called for cancelling $10,000 federal student loan debt for every borrower. In fact, in April 2021, President Biden even tasked the Departments of Education and Justice with drafting a memo on whether he has the legal authority to cancel student debt. However, since this memo has not yet been released to the public, the answer remains unclear. This article will broadly explore arguments regarding the President’s legal authority to cancel federal student loan debt.  To start, the Biden administration has actually already cancelled nearly $10 billion in federal student loan debt as of late 2021. However, this relief was only available to borrowers with disabilities and to victims of college fraud. The legal basis for cancelling the federal student loan debt of borrowers with total and permanent disabilities is the Higher Education Act of 1965, while the Department of Education’s “Borrower Defense to Loan Repayment” regulation [read more]

Crime and Profits? The Story of the Most Profitable Punishment in American History

(Source) In 2015, Volkswagen admitted to engineering and rigging devices used on their diesel vehicles to skirt compliance with emissions testing and knowingly fouled the air by producing cars that were far out of compliance with emissions standards. Volkswagen’s befouling plot released 46,000 tons of nitrogen oxides, linked to an estimated 100+ deaths from the increased pollution. The repercussions for Volkswagen included pleading guilty to three criminal convictions resulting in a court-ordered criminal fine of $2.8 billion. The criminal fine was the largest ever imposed by the U.S. on an automaker. However, the criminal charges originated from the company’s acts of deceit and conspiracy against the U.S.; the charges did not stem from enforcement of the Clean Air Act (CAA) against polluters who knowingly violate it. The Act exempted “mobile source violators,” i.e., carmakers, from criminal culpability for emissions violations. In addition, thirteen executives and employees of the company and its subsidiaries faced criminal charges, with several receiving prison sentences. In the end, the company has had to pay more than $34 billion in fines and settlements, including the costs for buybacks and modifications of their rigged diesel cars. However, arguably, the most significant sanction against Volkswagen has been the [read more]

We’re Abandoning our Afghan Allies

(Source) For the past twenty years, the U.S. military worked in Afghanistan and relied on the assistance of Afghan allies who supported them. Time and time again, Afghans saved American lives in Afghanistan in their joint efforts to oppose the Taliban.  Now that the United States has left Afghanistan and the Taliban has taken over the country, the Taliban has been systematically tracking down Afghans who have any connection to the United States, along with their extended families. This includes anyone who worked for the U.S. military in Afghanistan, like translators and guides, anyone who worked for the previous Afghanistan government that partnered with the United States, and people who worked for American nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). These Afghan allies are now in danger because of their association with the United States.  The U.S. evacuated some Afghans at risk while they were pulling out the military, but many of our allies were left behind and are stuck in danger. The Taliban has already killed many people who opposed them, and it does not appear as though they will stop anytime soon. Many Afghans are in hiding or fleeing to other countries. The United States has an obligation to protect our Afghan [read more]

20 Years On: Why Congress Should Repeal the Post 9/11 AUMFs

(Source) I. Introduction Three days after the September 11 attacks, the 107th Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force (“2001 AUMF”). Section 2 of the 2001 AUMF authorized the President of the United States (“President”) to “use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United Stated by such nations, organizations or persons.” This sixty-word broad authorization served as a blank check for the U.S. to conduct military operations in Afghanistan. The counterpart of the 2001 AUMF was the 2002 AUMF, which authorized military force against Iraq. While the initial focus of the 2002 AUMF was to address the threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s regime, the U.S. used it for the “dual purposes of helping to establish a stable, democratic Iraq and of addressing terrorist threats emanating from Iraq.” For example, President Obama used the 2002 AUMF to conduct the counter-ISIS military campaign in 2014. Similarly, in January 2020, after invoking both the Article II powers and the 2002 AUMF, President [read more]

The State of New York Should Pass a Right to Counsel in Eviction Proceedings

(Source) The start of the COVID-19 pandemic brought heightened attention to a common occurrence in the United States: evictions. On September 4, 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced a moratorium on evictions across the nation in an effort to curtail the rapid spread of the virus.  The agency’s rationale for promulgating this order is that evictions increase the spread of the virus by raising the risk of homelessness.  Homeless individuals are more likely to move into congregate settings, such as homeless shelters, which places them at an increased risk of contracting and spreading the virus that causes COVID-19.  Evictions also make it more difficult for State and local governments to implement stay-at-home orders and make it difficult for individuals who become ill to self-isolate.   The spread of COVID-19 is not the only detriment resulting from evictions.  Evictions break up families, impair careers, and marginalize Black and Brown communities.  Evictions are associated with higher rates of stress and depression, addiction, suicide, parental abuse, and other mental health conditions.  Evictions cause an increase in the risk of homelessness, and elevate long-term residential instability.  In some cases, evictions result in a (modest) decrease in earnings as well as credit access.  [read more]

Light and Dark: Dazzled Americans Seek Illumination

(Source) The constant march of technology has often created the need for new and sometimes even strange legislation and regulations, which come after the technology has been introduced. The large, well developed regulatory system often allows for great manufacturer freedom with reasonable restraints to avoid public harm. In the case of headlights, the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 (FMVSS 108) governs a complicated laundry list of requirements relating to lighting and illumination.  Today the current regulation for headlights dictates that headlights operate with two types of beams, high and low. While a driver could flash their beams, have them automatically cycle between on and off, along with disabling them manually, the American driver is unable to do much more than that. The current regulations governing headlights has failed to be updated despite concerted efforts by large manufacturers, with recent attempts to allow more advanced lights being stuck in limbo. In contrast, drivers in other countries including Germany, England, and Japan can enjoy massive benefits with greater illumination offered that does not impede others.  Current illumination systems rely on a ruling that is antiquated and defines beams by luminescence and discreet modes offered. Rather than wrap, avoid, or target [read more]

Socioeconomic Status and its Implication on Criminal Justice: Bail Reform

(Source) In January 2020, New York began implementing legislation aimed at reforming bail practices for those awaiting trial. The reform was aimed at reducing jail populations and allowing individuals who cannot afford bail to await their trial date outside of jail. The initial iteration of the reform applied to almost all misdemeanor and nonviolent felony defendants (“exempt crimes”). Further, the reform required judges to consider each defendant’s “individual financial circumstances,” “ability to post bail without posing undue hardship,” and “ability to obtain a secured, unsecured, or partially secured bond.” Under this new requirement, courts essentially could not impose cash bails for many defendants. In the City of New York alone, nearly 84% of all defendants arraigned in 2019 would not have been subject to cash bail under the reform.  The reform was immediately met with staunch opposition by both citizens of New York and Republican state officials . The backlash and criticism against the initial reform led to a fundamental overhaul and in early April 2020, the New York state legislature amended the reform. The amended reform added more crimes to the list of non-exempt crimes, thus allowing cash bails to be set for a larger range of crimes. The [read more]

Seize and Desist: How the FCC Can Stop Robocallers

(Source) Spam callers have averted the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) to evolve their operations and overwhelm Americans with billions of spam calls. These spam calls can use fraud, blackmail, and lies to solicit information and payment from vulnerable Americans. In fact, a February 2021 Business Insider survey found that 46% of Americans receive daily spam calls. When spam calls are this prevalent, there are questions of how robocallers can subvert the TCPA to target vulnerable Americans. Although spam calls target both rich and poor targets at similar rates, a particular concern arises when money is stolen from poor Americans, as these individuals have fewer legal resources to recuperate their money. Further, 85% of older Americans are targeted as compared to 66% of their younger counterparts, which is especially troubling since these individuals often do not have the technical literacy to understand that spam calls are in fact illegitimate attempts to scam them of their money.  The process by which robocallers reach American consumers typically works as follows: First, a company seeking to sell an item reaches out to a robocalling company and forms a contract with the robocalling company. A robocaller then uses a gateway carrier to connect with [read more]

Legal Injustice: How Abusers Use The Law To Further Target Their Victims

(Source) Domestic violence, also known as intimate partner violence, is a pervasive issue in society. One in four women in the United States have experienced physical violence from an intimate partner. Globally, about one third of women have experienced physical violence at the hands of an intimate partner. While women are more likely to be the victim of interpersonal violence, men can be victimized, too. In particular, LGBT individuals are even more likely to be victims of interpersonal violence.  Imagine you are the victim of domestic violence. Say one night a particularly vicious incident happened and you decide it is time to end this relationship. For many women, their first step is to call a domestic violence hotline to learn about next steps, connect with resources and/or to plan how to safely leave their abuser.  Many women will end up going to family court to file a restraining order, called an Order of Protection in New York state. An Order of Protection has many benefits beyond ordering an abuser to stay away from their victims. It can require an abuser to leave a shared home, surrender their firearms, and return important documents they may have taken from their victims, like [read more]

Free From Charge: Revamping the Public Charge Rule

(Source) The Biden administration must confront a plethora of immigration issues following the immense number of restrictions the Trump administration placed on immigrant applicants. These “land mines” of Trump-era anti-immigrant policies are rooted deep- “buried under layer after layer of bureaucratic actions and then [can] essentially devastate the system in untold ways that aren’t discovered until policies are applied in particular cases.” One land mine worth addressing is the controversial “Public Charge” Rule.  In 1882, Congress first implemented the “Public Charge” Rule as a relatively vague statute that allowed the U.S. government to deny a visa to anyone who “is likely at any time to become a public charge.” The Public Charge Rule was designed to prevent noncitizens from entering and remaining in the country if they are likely to require some undesignated degree of public assistance. Laws frequently identify self-sufficiency of noncitizen applicants as a compelling government interest and cite it as justification for this exclusion rule. This Rule is also meant to remove the incentive for illegal immigration provided by the availability of public benefits. However, the 1882 federal law did not provide a set definition of what a “public charge” is, nor did it provide any specific guidelines to [read more]
1 2 3 4 21