BY: MEGAN GUZMAN

Image Credits: Fizkes on stock.adobe.com.

Introduction

For nearly fifty years, Roe v. Wade recognized abortion as a constitutional right grounded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections of privacy and personal autonomy. Its ruling made abortion a nationally protected option for women, limiting states’ ability to impose severe restrictions. However, that framework fundamentally changed in 2022, when Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization overturned Roe and eliminated federal constitutional protection for abortion, returning regulatory authority to the states. This shift enabled an outright abortion ban, prioritizing fetal life over a pregnant woman’s autonomy. Without federal protection offered under Roe v. Wade, states quickly implemented various restrictions, creating a fractured landscape of healthcare access.

Today, a woman’s health and survival are heavily dependent on where she lives. The 2024 case Zurawski v Texas illustrates how post-Roe state bans have endangered women’s lives and revealed the failures of a decentralized abortion policy. The case underscores the urgent need for federal protections to ensure women’s health care and safety do not rely on state boundaries.

The Evolution of the Law

In the 1960s, the rubella epidemics led physicians like Dr. Alan Guttmacher to argue that abortion should be a private medical decision between doctor and patient. A pivotal shift came in 1971, when Sarah Weddington argued before the Supreme Court that true liberty includes the right to end an unwanted pregnancy. The court focused on biological facts and privacy, ruling in Roe v. Wade that abortion was a fundamental right. Following the decision, maternal mortality declined significantly: illegal abortions had previously caused roughly 17% of pregnancy-related deaths, whereas today only 0.2% of abortion patients require hospitalization.

Decades later, Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) challenged restrictions like mandatory waiting periods. The Court reaffirmed the right to choose before fetal viability but introduced a standard allowing regulation as long as it did not place an “undue burden” on access. For nearly three decades, Casey defined abortion rights.

However, that era ended in 2022 when Dobbs v. Jackson overturned Roe. The direct challenge began with Mississippi’s 15-week ban, which explicitly targeted Roe and Casey. Justice Alito delivered the majority opinion, arguing that the Constitution does not protect reproductive privacy because unenumerated rights must be “deeply rooted” in American history. Dobbs became the first decision to remove a fundamental constitutional right.

After Dobbs, nearly half the states immediately banned or severely restricted abortion. Several southern and midwestern states adopted six-week bans, which effectively function as absolute bans since many do not know they are pregnant by then. With over 12 states fully banning abortion, a massive geographic inequality has emerged, disproportionately affecting impoverished women. In simple terms, where a woman lives now determines whether she has access to healthcare, forcing millions into unequal and dangerous circumstances.

Case Study: Zurawski v. Texas (2024)

The 2024 case Zurawski v. Texas best illustrates the devastating failure of this decentralized policy. The lawsuit was brought by women who were denied care for severe pregnancy complications because Texas laws were dangerously vague. Under current law, doctors face life in prison and loss of licensure for performing a prohibited abortion. Although the Texas Supreme Court eventually ruled that the plaintiffs lacked standing, the plaintiffs’ stories still reveal the truth. The decision maintains that Texas law already permits abortions for life-threatening conditions, yet medical providers in the state remain paralyzed by fear of prosecution.

Plaintiffs’ stories illustrate the human cost of legal uncertainty. Amanda Zurawski was 17 weeks pregnant when she was diagnosed with Preterm Premature Rupture of Membranes and cervical dilation. Although doctors knew a miscarriage was inevitable, they refused to abort the fetus while a fetal heartbeat existed. She developed septic shock, lost her baby, and may now be infertile. Her experience is exactly the kind of case the law should have protected, but did not. Ashley Brandt, pregnant with twins, was forced to travel out of state to abort one fetus with acrania to save the healthy twin. Samantha Casiano’s baby had anencephaly and no viable brain. Texas doctors refused to provide an abortion, forcing her to carry the pregnancy for nine months. The baby died four hours after birth in her father’s arms. Dr. Austin Dennard, an OB-GYN, learned that her own fetus had anencephaly. She knew continuing the pregnancy endangered her life, yet Texas laws forced her to seek care out of state. Dr. Damla Karsan, who treats high-risk pregnancies, testified that conditions like PPROM and severe fetal abnormalities often require abortion to protect the patient. However, Texas’s laws and severe penalties created fear among physicians, leading them to avoid providing standard medical care.

The Texas Supreme Court ruled that the patients lacked standing because their injuries were caused by doctors’ refusals, not directly by the Attorney General or Medical Board. However, Dr. Karsan did have standing because she intended to provide medically necessary abortions and had received threatening letters from Attorney General Ken Paxton himself, warning that she and the hospital could face criminal prosecution and civil penalties. Ultimately, the court overturned the injunction, saying that judges can’t broaden abortion access beyond what the Texas legislature has written. The mothers lost.

Consequences

Abortion access is not only a health issue but also an economic one. Restrictive states lose more than $64 billion in workforce participation and productivity. When accounting for all types of abortion restrictions, the toll exceeds $133 billion. Furthermore, the fear of imprisonment, loss of their medical licenses, and enormous fines for providing care they believe is essential causes doctors to hesitate. This fear leads to delayed treatment, worsening complications, and preventable medical emergencies. Lastly, borders now dictate healthcare access.

Healthcare is no longer available for all, but only to those lucky enough to live in a pro-choice state. Wealthier women can travel, poor women cannot. Low-income women and young women face disproportionate harm: women who cannot travel are forced to continue dangerous or nonviable pregnancies, resulting in immense trauma for both the mother and her family. This creates a legal gray zone, where life-threatening pregnancies collide with restrictive laws, and not even doctors know what is allowed.

The Planned Parenthood Action Fund contends that Dobbs was only the beginning of a wider campaign to eliminate abortion nationwide. Advocates have sent thousands of postcards to senators urging the protection of reproductive healthcare. Public opinion has even shifted: 59% of Americans support legal abortion in all or most cases. Grassroots activism, state-level protections, and proposed legislation aim to restore the rights established by Roe v. Wade. The upcoming case Medina v. Planned Parenthood (2025) signals continued legal battles over reproductive autonomy.

Ultimately, Zurawski v. Texas illustrates the failures of decentralized abortion policy and the dangers women face when legal exceptions exist only on paper. The case exposes systemic inequality, medical uncertainty, and the profound human cost of restrictive laws. It shows that without federal protection, women’s lives and rights remain at risk. Restoring national abortion equality is not simply a matter of law. It is essential for public health, bodily autonomy, economic stability, and basic human dignity. Today, young women possess fewer federal rights than their grandmothers did, a regression that places millions at risk.

This article was edited by Avery Pereira and Nika Tarkian.

BY: MEGHNA SEKARAN

Image Credits: Tada Images on stock.adobe.com.

Introduction

Artificial intelligence (AI) has become a staple in modern hiring. From resume parsing to video interview analysis, employers find themselves increasingly relying upon algorithms to manage vast applicant pools. Yet, as these systems become more widespread, so too do concerns about bias. Over the past decade, studies, lawsuits, and regulatory actions reveal that AI-driven hiring tools are not immune to the same discriminatory practices that the Civil Rights Act aimed to eliminate over a half-century ago. That being said, we now find ourselves in the same position, seeking to understand how these algorithms and their bias are shaping equal employment law.

AI Hiring Algorithms

Services like Workday, Workable, and Hirevue aim to streamline resources for hiring through their algorithms based on machine learning (ML) and natural language processing (NLP). These tools use predefined criteria to scan resumes for keywords, conduct video interviews through facial and speech analysis, and eventually rank candidates based on predicted performance. The goal is to make recruiters’ lives easier. With thousands of applicants to a single position – and companies like Goldman Sachs and Google receiving millions of applications annually – it is only natural that companies are seeking ways to make their internal processes more efficient. To date, over 90% of US employers use some form of automated system based in ML or NLP to filter or rank applications.

These algorithms are not without their faults, and have been found to have significant biases, likely originating from their training database. AI bias, in the context of studies and lawsuits, refers to system unfairness in algorithmic decision-making. IBM, a leader in machine learning and AI, defines AI bias as the reproduction of human prejudices embedded in training data or coding decisions. Training data imbalances, like overrepresentation of certain demographics, namely white men, skews predictions. Proxy variables, such as zip codes or vocabulary, indirectly encode race or gender, and past discrimination embedded in datasets perpetuates exclusion and past discrimination embedded in datasets perpetuates exclusion. Several audit reports and studies from researchers in Hong Kong confirm that AI can replicate and amplify discrimination.

A Nature study in 2023, found that algorithmic hiring tools often perpetuate gender and racial disparities, particularly when trained from biased historical data. A notable training dataset with biases is reddit, an online public forum, infamous for its radical users. Because the users tend to post opinions which are not mainstream and tend to swing hard right or left, this influences the patterns the AI models build in their evaluation and outputs, generating significant biases. For example if the AI model is trained on reddit threads which are xenophobic in nature, a hiring algorithm would reflect those tendencies, disproportionately impacting immigrant workers. Ultimately, in hiring these biases manifest as unequal access to jobs and promotions, but there is potential for mitigation when designed responsibly and with care.

Equal Employment Opportunity Law

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) was created by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to enforce laws against workplace discrimination. Through statutes like the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 and the American Disabilities Act of 1990, the EEOC’s purview has grown and evolved. Today, the EEOC investigates complaints, issues guidance, and litigates cases involving race, sex, age, disability, and other protected characteristics.

Before AI, the EEOC handled traditional hiring discrimination cases such as employers refusing to hire women for certain roles or excluding older workers. The precedents established through older cases now inform how the agency approaches algorithmic bias in hiring decisions. Over the past few years, the EEOC has taken steps, issuing technical guidance on AI use. In 2022, they addressed concerns regarding the applicability of the ADA, warning that AI tools may unlawfully exclude individuals with disabilities if they fail to provide reasonable accommodations. The EEOC also applied Title VII in 2023, clarifying that if an AI tool results in a selection rate below 80% for a protected group compared to others, it may constitute disparate impact discrimination, setting standards for both developers and companies. Most important of the guidance, the employers remain liable for the use of vendor-provided hiring algorithms and outsourcing does not absolve responsibility. While this has encouraged attitudes to shift towards compliance, companies continue to use algorithms as they see fit, lobbying for less restrictive legislation to counter EEOC guidance. They also face little opposition in their goals as enforcement is restricted with the current state of the EEOC.

Federal and State Law

Federal law broadly prohibits discrimination but does not specifically target the use of AI in employer settings. States have begun to fill this gap, with Illinois taking the lead with the Artificial Intelligence Video Interview Act (2020). This bill requires employers to notify applicants when AI is used, explain how it works, obtain consent, and delete all videos upon request, maintaining applicant privacy. Maryland requires consent for facial recognition in interviews, however does not stipulate the depth to which information should be given prior to obtaining consent. New York City took a more progressive approach, requiring bias audits for automated employment decision tools, requiring disclosure of selection rates across race and gender categories. This mandate has been met with controversy with only a small proportion of companies, with the Wall Street Journal describing the several failures and loopholes. This leaves it up to the EEOC and individuals to hold companies accountable for their hiring practices.

Current Cases

Two landmark cases illustrate the legal challenges of AI hiring bias:

EEOC v. iTutorGroup, Inc. demonstrates the EEOC taking charge in this effort against discriminatory hiring practices that are being reinforced by hiring algorithms. In 2023, the EEOC sued iTutorGroup for programming its software to automatically reject female applicants aged 55 and above and male applicants aged 60 and above, resulting in over 200 applicants being excluded. iTutorGroup agreed to pay $365,000 and to adopt anti-discrimination policies and training. This was the EEOC’s first AI-related hiring discrimination settlement, involving a clear cut case of age discrimination, explicitly shown in the hiring algorithms. It demonstrated that existing civil rights laws apply directly to AI tools, which set a strong precedent for future cases and signaled the EEOC’s intent to aggressively pursue algorithmic bias cases.

In 2024, the first major class action challenging AI hiring platforms arrived with Mobley v. Workday, Inc., and it remains in progress today. The case began with Derek Mobley, a job applicant over 40, submitting more than 100 applications to employers through Workday’s AI-powered applicant screening system. Everytime, he faced rejection. Mobley alleged that Workday’s tools systematically disadvantaged older, disabled, and minority applicants. He claimed that there were violations of Title VII, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Acts. A key issue within the class action is whether Workday, as a software provider, could be held liable as an “agent” of employers. But, in 2024, the court ruled that while Workday was not an “employment agency,” it could be liable under agency theory, allowing claims to proceed. In May 2025, a federal judge allowed the case to move forward as a nationwide class action, opening the door for potentially thousands of applicants over the age of 40 to join the lawsuit. Should the case outcome favor Mobley, it will establish a precedent where AI vendors themselves can be held accountable for discriminatory outcomes, not just the employers who use their tools. This will expand liability beyond traditional boundaries, forcing vendors to reconsider their current operations.

Together, these two cases illustrate the two fronts of AI discrimination litigation: intentional exclusion and disparate impact. These cases are not just legal milestones, they’re bellwethers for how courts, regulators, and employers will navigate AI bias in hiring. If Mobley succeeds, it will reshape the responsibilities of tech vendors in employment law, an area currently left untouched, while iTutorGroup already proves that the EEOC is, in fact, willing to enforce discrimination protections against algorithmic systems.

Moving Forward

Employers are taking measures to reduce risks, given the tumultuous regulatory environment.Some companies are taking on voluntary bias audits, like the ones required in New York City, to manage liability before it becomes a greater issue. Vendor contracts for hiring algorithms include indemnity clauses to hold vendors accountable for discriminatory outcomes. This is a measure that should be encouraged for employers, by ensuring vendor accountability, training datasets for algorithms can be modified to lessen the impact of historical discrimination. Studies on proxy variables and analyses on datasets can be used to change algorithmic design, but this effort needs to come from the vendors.

Companies are also combining AI screening with recruiter judgement to balance efficiency and fairness. Human oversight may come with its own biases but it also increases transparency, with alternative evaluation formats like human review having multiple rounds to counterbalance one rounds’ discrimination. The EEOC recommends proactive disclosure, reasonable accommodations, and regular monitoring of AI systems, and it would be wise for companies to follow this recommendation to minimize future liability and protect their work environments.

Current Events Restricting EEOC Power

As with all government institutions, political developments complicate existing processes, and the recent election is no different. In May 2025, President Trump removed EEOC Commissioners Charlotte Burrows and Jocelyn Samuels, leaving the agency without a quorum. Without a quorum, the EEOC cannot issue new decisions, slowing enforcement, nor can they progress in their discrimination cases. Legal challengers to the president’s actions argue that the commissioners cannot be removed before their terms expire. What is happening in the EEOC is also felt in the other federal labor agency, the National Labor Relations Board which protects private sector employees’ rights to unionize and their labor rights. Several board members have also faced removal, slowing down changes to labor policy and efforts to protect employees across the country.

Simultaneously, executive orders targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs have shifted agency priorities toward scrutinizing DEI initiatives rather than expanding protection. These actions by the executive raise concerns that enforcement of AI-related discrimination may weaken, even as cases multiply. With the judicial branch also shifting to align with the executive, there are also concerns that precedents which are already established may be overturned and cases like Mobley’s may not be successful.

Conclusion

The story of AI in hiring is not just about algorithms – it is about power, accountability, and the work in progress that is equal opportunity. The iTutorGroup settlement showed that discrimination coded into software is still discrimination under the law and the Mobley class action now tests the boundaries of liability in the digital workplace.

Despite all the uncertainties, what is clear is that the bias in the machine is never neutral. Each dataset carries history, reflecting feelings and events of the past, and that carries into the choices made by hiring algorithms. Every rejection letter has consequences for real people and the EEOC, despite political turbulence, is still the frontline, protecting the right to equal opportunity. But, its ability to act depends on whether society believes civil rights should evolve alongside technology, and who the priority is - the everyday worker or corporate America.

Employers face a choice, whether it is to treat hiring algorithms as a shortcut to efficiency or as a tool which demands vigilance and transparency. Regulators need to adapt the decades-old statutes to a world where discrimination can be hidden in lines of code, and job-seekers need to remember that this is their fight too. AI has already reshaped hiring. The question is how the law will adapt.

This article was edited by Talia Pollock and Nika Tarkian.

BY: GABY LAZO

Image Credits: Evgenia Parajanian on stock.adobe.com.

Although immigration detention is legally classified as a civil process, it increasingly functions as an extension of law enforcement rather than a temporary administrative measure. Individuals held in detention include asylum seekers, long-term residents, and people with no criminal history. Despite this civil classification, detention has expanded into a network of more than 200 facilities, many of which operate under the same restrictive and punitive conditions typically associated with criminal incarceration.

Detention has become a central enforcement strategy within federal immigration policy, used to ensure court appearance, conduct background checks, and facilitate removal. But the way detention is used today doesn’t just reflect administrative needs; it reflects deeper political and financial choices. The gap between what detention is supposed to be and what it has become exposes serious problems in the way people are treated and the basic protections they should receive.

A significant portion of immigration detention is operated by private prison corporations, most notably GEO Group and CoreCivic. These companies hold federal contracts that pay a fixed per-diem rate for each detained person, meaning they are paid a set amount of money for every day someone is held in custody, regardless of the quality of care. Even if detention numbers drop, these contracts guarantee payment as long as beds are available.

These financial arrangements shape the system in ways that go far beyond daily operations. In addition to per-diem payments, some facilities operate under minimum bed guarantee contracts that require U.S Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to pay for a minimum number of beds regardless of whether they are occupied. These guarantees ensure a revenue stream for private facilities even when detention numbers decline, turning detention into a system where money, not actual need, drives decisions about how many people are held.

Immigration researcher Austin Kocher reports that the number of individuals detained by ICE reached 59,380 people as of August 10, 2025, the highest detained population in recent years. This increase happened alongside a major surge in federal funding for detention expansion, much of it directed to ICE and private companies, highlighting how government investment and private profit continue to drive the system’s growth.

ICE relies on the Performance-Based National Detention Standards (PBNDS) to regulate conditions, medical care, food services, segregation, and the process for reporting problems. However, these standards are nonbinding, meaning facilities face few consequences for failing to comply.

Because these standards carry no real enforcement power, problems inside detention centers show up repeatedly across studies and inspections. Medical research has repeatedly identified systemic deficiencies linked to the nonbinding nature of PBNDS. A 2021 health review published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found inconsistencies in medical care across detention facilities, describing the system as “ill-prepared” to meet basic healthcare needs and documenting failures in chronic disease management, mental health services, and emergency response protocols.

Similarly, there have been repeated cases where inadequate staffing, delayed care, and inconsistent follow-up resulted in preventable harm. Because PBNDS standards are not legally enforceable, these problems persist across facilities and are rarely corrected through inspections or audits.

Oversight of immigration detention is fragmented, with responsibilities divided between ICE, DHS’s Office of Inspector General (OIG), private auditors, and local authorities. Investigations tend to occur after deaths, suicides, or major reports of abuse, not in ways that prevent harm. DHS OIG has documented numerous failures in ICE inspections, including facilities that passed audits despite unsafe conditions, improper segregation practices, medical neglect, or violations of PBNDS. This allows systemic issues to continue for years without correction.

These oversight gaps have very real consequences for the people inside these facilities. Medical neglect remains one of the clearest failures of oversight. A Senate investigation into federal immigration custody found repeated delays in emergency care, inadequate mental health services, and failures to follow basic clinical guidelines. ICE’s published detention numbers exclude individuals held through the U.S. Marshals Service on immigration-related federal charges, meaning that public ICE data undercounts the true number of individuals detained. This lack of transparent data makes it difficult for the public, researchers, or policymakers to fully assess systemwide conditions or demand accountability.

Because immigration detention is civil, people do not receive government-appointed attorneys, meaning most have to file grievances, seek medical care, or report abuse entirely on their own. According to the American Immigration Council, only 14 percent of detained immigrants are able to access legal representation, making it even harder for people to challenge unsafe conditions or protect their rights.

These structural failures show up clearly in the day-to-day experiences of people held in detention centers. People held in ICE detention consistently describe medical environments where serious symptoms are overlooked, care is delayed, and invasive procedures are performed without meaningful consent. At the privately owned Irwin County Detention Center, women reported being taken to gynecologists for minor issues and returning having undergone procedures they did not understand, including hysterectomies, injections, and surgeries they were never properly informed about.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, formerly detained individuals described conditions where testing was inconsistent, infected people were left in dorms with the general population, and requests for medical help often went unanswered. Many explained that they avoided reporting symptoms because they feared being placed in isolation, which many associated with punishment rather than treatment. Others said staff provided almost no protective equipment, leaving sick individuals to care for themselves.

These problems inside the medical units mirror the broader environment people described in detention. Conditions inside many immigration detention centers are physically degrading. People report rooms with mold spreading across the walls and ceiling vents, along with showers and bathrooms that remain dilapidated and unrepaired despite repeated complaints. Food conditions are also unsafe. People in multiple facilities reported being served undercooked chicken, moldy bread, and fruit that had visibly spoiled.

Individuals held at the privately operated Imperial Regional Detention Facility described dormitories with thick brown dirt coating the air vents, visible particles of dust floating through the air, and walls and showers left moldy and unrepaired for long periods of time. One person reported that “on the AC vent itself, all of them, it’s brown… there’s an accumulation of dirt - dirt, dirt, dirt. They haven’t cleaned this since I don’t know when,” explaining that the filthy ventilation caused respiratory problems and frequent bloody noses for many people in custody.

Basic hygiene supplies are often rationed in detention centers. Individuals reported going days without soap, shampoo, or clean clothes, and several women explained they had to tear pieces of fabric to use as pads when menstrual products ran out.

Beyond the physical environment, the emotional and psychological impact of detention is severe. Inspections at one California facility found nooses made from bedsheets hanging in more than a dozen cells, and individuals reported that officers mocked people who had attempted suicide, calling them “failures” instead of responding with mental health support.

Sexual abuse has also been documented in immigration detention. In one 2021 case, a pregnant woman who attempted suicide later miscarried, was taken to the hospital, and then was returned to solitary confinement while she was still bleeding. She was kept without clothes, without proper medical care, and without mental-health support.

Reports collected by Senator Jon Ossoff reveal that abuse inside U.S. immigration detention centers is both widespread and severe. Interviews with detained individuals and their attorneys describe guards beating people for minor infractions, such as a man at the El Paso Service Processing Center who was slammed to the ground, handcuffed, and dragged outside simply for stepping out of line in the dining hall, leaving him with wrist injuries. Other ICE facilities reported multiple 911 calls related to sexual assaults or threats of sexual violence, including at Adelanto ICE Processing Center, where detainees said staff ignored or retaliated against people who reported abuse. Individuals held in Customs and Border Protection-operated sites also described being forced into “stress positions” for laughing or talking, a punishment that left some with lasting physical pain.

Pregnant women in immigration detention faced especially dangerous conditions. Ossoff’s team documented cases where women bled for days before staff agreed to take them to a hospital, and one woman who miscarried was reportedly left alone in a room for over 24 hours without water or medical assistance. Even children inside immigration detention were subjected to harmful treatment. One U.S. citizen child with severe medical issues was hospitalized three times while in custody, and when she began vomiting blood, a guard allegedly told her mother to “just give the girl a cracker.” Another child recovering from brain surgery was denied basic follow-up care, and a four-year-old undergoing cancer treatment was deported without any chance to consult her doctor.

Immigration detention in the United States is shaped by policies that prioritize contracts, funding, and whatever is easiest administratively, not what is safe or humane for the people inside. These structures, including profit-driven agreements, weak oversight, and standards that are not enforceable, influence what happens inside facilities every day, from medical neglect to unsafe living conditions and harmful isolation practices. Because immigration detention is a civil system, the federal government is still responsible under due process protections to ensure humane treatment, adequate medical care, and safe conditions. But the current oversight system falls short in meeting those responsibilities. Facilities continue operating with serious problems for years, and people in custody are left to navigate them without protection.

Improving immigration detention conditions requires addressing the policies that allow these harms to continue. Without stronger accountability measures, legally enforceable standards, and a reconsideration of contracts that profit from detention, the same dangerous and unjust conditions are likely to persist, raising concerns about legal responsibilities and basic human rights.

This article was edited by Liliana Triviski and Alana Khona.

BY: ANANYA SHRESTHA

Image Credits: Chatchawan on stock.adobe.com.

Introduction

In 2022, the Florida state legislature passed what would come to be known as its “Don’t Say Gay” bill. Florida HB 1557 quickly became the topic of national conversation and controversy after its signing into law by Governor Ron DeSantis, as it banned classroom instruction on any topics relating to sexual orientation and gender identity in schools for kids below third grade. It also had additional provisions for older grades, as well as requiring schools to inform parents of any and all information regarding their students, including mental health services and screenings. This bill was quickly followed by HB 1069 the following year, better known as the “Don’t Say They” bill, which gained similar notoriety for prohibiting schools and instructors from referring to students with their preferred pronouns and limiting gender inclusive language, limiting the scope of reproductive health instruction, and opening the door for book bans. These attacks on LGBTQ+ rights drew challenges by civil rights attorneys, and in 2024, a group of attorneys who had sued the state over the bill settled; the state clarified that LGBTQ+ topics could be discussed between students and teachers as long as there was no classroom instruction, and that books that incidentally had gay people in them were not counted in the aforementioned bans.

While the settlement was a win that helped clarify vague and potentially dangerous language, the bills remain to this day, and they continue to harm marginalized students in the state and influence similar bills across the country. According to Human Rights Watch, these bills harm LGBTQ+ students’ ability to learn and feel safe at school–the inability for students to be referred to as their preferred name or pronouns has led to noticeable declines in mental health, the inability for teachers to talk about topics surrounding gender or sexuality has led to an incomplete education, with queer and trans histories erased from school curriculum, and the creation of queerphobic laws has led to increased bullying and harassment between students.

At the same time, dominant voices in the media continue to attack queer and trans students and teachers, both feeding off each other to attack queer and trans youth. This is best exemplified by the rise of popular X (formerly Twitter) creator, Libs of TikTok (LTT). Libs of TikTok started anonymously in 2021 as a right-wing account spreading conspiracies about COVID-19 and the 2020 election, but quickly rebranded to an account dedicated to going after LGBTQ+ rights and pro-LGBTQ+ voices, especially fueling a long-established moral panic about queer and trans people as pedophiles. LTT–which in 2022 was revealed to be run by Chaya Raichik–quickly became a leading voice in right-wing media, with Raichik’s popularity earning her appearances on Tucker Carlson and LTT’s posts influencing policies like Florida’s Don’t Say Gay or Trans bills. On LTT, Raichik often posts videos of pro-LGBTQ+ educators, healthcare professionals, athletes, and politicians to her loyal following, often with commentary that fuels queerphobic sentiments. Raichik’s platform has not just propelled homophobic and transphobic views, but has had direct material harm: LTT’s posts have not just been the direct cause of doxxing and harassment campaigns, but multiple bomb threats at hospitals, schools, and pride/drag events across the country were linked to the account. Despite this, Raichik has only been rewarded for her work; in 2024, she was appointed to Oklahoma’s Department of Education’s Library Media Advisory Committee, despite never working in education prior.

There is a clear line emerging here: both through the media and culture and through educational institutions, queer and trans students are being attacked, stripped of the right to self-determination and privacy, unable to feel safe or supported, and unable to learn properly in schools.

Nationwide Trends

While Florida’s Don’t Say Gay or Trans bills are some of the earliest and most infamous pieces of anti-LGBTQ+ legislation in recent years, they are not the only ones, and they signal a trend that is being followed across the country. Though these laws attack both gay and transgender youth, there has been a recent focus on attacking specifically trans rights.

According to the Trans Legislation Tracker, the number of anti-trans bills in the country has risen dramatically in recent years. In 2022, 174 anti-trans bills were considered or passed; as of the most recent data, in 2025, there have been 1012 anti-trans bills considered or passed across 49 states. Of these bills, 124 have already passed, with still 506 being considered. Education is the largest category of anti-trans legislation, with 277 bills introduced this year alone–it is students and educators who are most attacked by these bills across every state. While transgender issues are the focus of state legislatures, all LGBTQ+ identities continue to be attacked across the country. Anti-LGBTQ+ policies in education manifest in a variety of ways–the most common being trans school sports bans, school facilities bans, forced outing, and curriculum censorship. Furthermore, the 2024-2025 school year saw more than 6,000 book bans across all levels of government, from local school districts to national policies. There was a persistent focus on banning books with LGBTQ+ themes by conflating discussion of queer or trans identities with sexually explicit content.

Across the country, state and local governments continue to roll back the hard-fought progress made in recent decades towards queer and trans rights. Schools have become one of the primary battlegrounds for anti-LGBTQ+ advocates to attack queer and transgender people, and it is not without consequence.

Effects on Students and Educators

The rise of policies attacking LGBTQ+ rights in schools is actively making the lives of queer and transgender youth worse, having undue effects on mental health and truancy. Queer and transgender students who attended schools with at least one anti-LGBTQ+ policy reported higher rates of physical and verbal harassment, unwanted sexual contact, and discipline for fighting back. They are also more likely to leave school than students who attend schools with no queerphobic policies. Furthermore, higher rates of school anti-LGBTQ+ policies were linked to higher rates of depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation. Students are not only affected by school policies, but larger state-wide policies. A 2024 study by the National Institute of Health found that queer and trans youth living in states with more protective policies reported more inclusive school strategies, greater safety, and fewer instances of bullying, which in turn were positively associated with youth mental health. There is a strong indirect link between state LGBTQ+ policy and the mental health of queer and trans youth. Another study also found that chosen name usage for transgender youth led to a decrease in depressive symptoms, suicidal ideation, and suicidal behavior. Ultimately, institutionalized anti-LGBTQ+ power has led to increased bullying and an increasingly hostile environment that contributes to worsening mental health outcomes and puts queer and transgender students in danger.

In February 2024, it became more apparent than ever how anti-LGBTQ+ state policies were directly impacting queer and trans youth. Nex Benedict was a nonbinary Oklahoma high school student who passed away after a bullying incident, and an altercation had landed them in the hospital the day before; their death was ruled a suicide despite signs of trauma from the fight. Benedict’s family claims that the bullying they’d experienced was nothing new and that it had started in earnest after Oklahoma’s governor passed a law requiring public school students to use bathrooms that matched their sex assigned at birth. It hadn’t helped that a teacher at their school had been forced to resign after being posted on the Libs of TikTok account and facing a subsequent harassment campaign in 2022. Nex Benedict’s story is just one devastating account of how hostile queerphobic policies have life-or-death consequences for queer and transgender youth, and how the acceleration of these policies will end in tragedy without pushback.

Large Scale Implications

On top of the harm done to LGBTQ+ individuals, state policies attacking queer and transgender youth in schools will have large-scale impacts on queer rights and civil rights in general.

After decades of progress for queer rights, including marriage and adoption rights, protection against discrimination, increased access to healthcare, and increased visibility and representation, these attacks on LGBTQ+ youth signal a worrying backslide. Rollbacks aren’t just happening in schools, but in every aspect of public life; schools are simply the most targeted by lawmakers. This marks a continuation of historical precedent that used children and the rhetoric of gay people as dangerous to children to discriminate against the community. Ultimately, the rise in anti-LGBTQ+ policies in schools will only translate to anti-LGBTQ+ policies in other facets of public life–like the current rise of policies targeting healthcare access for gender-affirming care, access to accurate IDs, bathroom usage, and free speech.

These policies also have larger implications for civil rights as a whole. With increasing bans on books, preferred pronoun or name usage, and discussions on gender or sexuality in classrooms, the First Amendment right to free speech is slowly but surely being eroded under the guise of protecting children. This begs the question of where we can draw the line of free speech, and increasingly, freedom of religion, as many school policies allow for parents to object to certain matters being taught in schools if those topics go against their religious beliefs. There is a growing tension between free speech and freedom of religion, and states are leaning more and more towards freedom of religion by allowing parents to dictate what is being taught to all students due to their religion.

In 2024, the Biden administration issued a Title IX Final Rule that amended the law to expand the definition of sex-based discrimination to include sexual orientation and gender identity and to protect transgender students, amongst other things. In January of 2025, a federal district court struck down these changes in State of Tennessee v. Cardona. The court argued that the precedent established in Bostock v. Clayton County that protected transgender workers under Title VII did not translate to this case, and that sex discrimination did not include gender identity under Title IX. The court also found the provisions requiring that institutions and teachers respect pronoun usage unconstitutional and against free speech. While this is a federal case, the district courts’ overturning of protections for transgender students specifically is in line with many state policies and cases that continue to erode protection from discrimination for LGBTQ+ students. Furthermore, it signals to many that, unlike in the past, it is becoming harder and harder to fight against discriminatory state and federal policies through the courts.

Of course, advocates continue to fight against local, state, and federal policies aimed at making the lives of LGBTQ+ students harder; groups like the ACLU have multiple ongoing cases fighting for queer and trans students’ rights across the country. Despite hostile state and local policy and an increasingly hostile media landscape, it is clear that the fight to protect queer and transgender students across the country has not stopped.

This article was edited by Maggie McHugh and Afreen Ahmad.

BY: BELLA BURTIN

Image Credits: Neal on stock.adobe.com.

The role of the United States federal government in higher education policy has expanded exponentially in the last century. Although traditional interpretations of the Constitution delegate education matters to state and local governments, President Andrew Johnson established the first Department of Education in 1867 to collect information on schools nationwide. Fears that this department might encroach on local schools led to its demotion to an Office of Education the next year. The Office of Education held limited power and influence until Cold War pressures in the 1950s led to an expansion of federal education funding and the establishment of federal student loans for higher education through the National Defense Education Act.

Lyndon B. Johnson’s “War on Poverty” and Great Society Programs further increased this spending with the creation of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which administered over a billion dollars in grants towards lower-income school districts, and the Higher Education Act, which built the modern framework for federal aid by establishing need-based grants and partnerships with institutions. Following the Civil Rights Movement, more legislation was passed to ensure equal access to education for minority groups. These developments culminated with the passage of the Department of Education Organization Act in 1979, marking the beginning of the Department of Education known today. While legislation from the past several decades has expanded federal responsibility to promote equity, access, and institutional accountability in higher education, the Trump Administration significantly departed from this approach by attacking “DEI” initiatives on college campuses and reshaping accreditation oversight, ultimately creating vulnerability in student-loan and grant programs.

The Department of Education (DoED) has reportedly been deemed controversial since its inception under the Carter Administration in 1980, with his successor, Ronald Reagan, stating in his campaign that he would eliminate the department upon entering the White House. The two main opinions on the DoED are that it plays a crucial part in protecting civil rights in education or that it is a waste of taxpayer dollars on “unnecessary bureaucracy” that should be left to local governments. There are several misconceptions about what the DoED actually does.

The Department of Education was initially created to unify education-related activities within the federal government, like the aforementioned legislature, but it relies heavily on congressional approval and mandates for K-12 schools. Its main job is to provide extra funding to public schools to address disparities for low-income students and children with disabilities. The department also funds and distributes Pell Grants and the Federal Student Loan Program, while regulating how those funds can be used. Regulation of funding for higher education and K-12 public schools can be used to ensure that these institutions are complying with federal policy, covered mainly by their Office of Civil Rights, which works to ensure that funding recipients are following federal civil rights laws. The last job of the Department of Education is to research education-related statistics in the United States. Controversy surrounding the Department of Education stems from the exclusion of the topic of education from the Constitution, making strict constitutional constructionists believe the federal government is overstepping the rights of the states by its contributions and regulations.

Despite its controversy, experts in education policy claim dismantling the DoED would require congressional approval, since the agency was created by statute in 1979. Trump’s March 20th, 2025 executive order (EO), Improving Education Outcomes by Empowering Parents, States, and Communities, did not formally abolish the department but directed the Secretary of Education to take all steps “permitted by law” to facilitate its closure and transfer many of its functions to states or other federal agencies. citing low student achievement and low departmental efficiency as the main reasons. Furthermore, Section 2(b) of the EO clearly states: “the Secretary of Education shall ensure that the allocation of any Federal Department of Education funds is subject to rigorous compliance with Federal law and Administration policy, including the requirement that any program or activity receiving Federal assistance terminate illegal discrimination obscured under the label `diversity, equity, and inclusion´or similar terms and programs promoting gender ideology.”

A pillar of Donald Trump’s campaign was ending DEI-based programs, and on January 21, 2025, the executive order Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity was issued; marked specifically in this order is a plan to uncover and report “DEI programs or principles” in “state and local Bar and Medical associations” along with “institutions of higher education with endowments over one billion dollars.” Section 5 states that “all institutions of higher education that receive Federal grants or participate in the Federal student loan assistance program” will receive guidance from the Attorney General and Secretary of Education to follow Students For Fair Admissions, Inc. v President and Fellows of Harvard College. This 2023 Supreme Court ruling found that Harvard’s and UNC’s race-conscious admissions programs violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, overturning affirmative action. The order also directs agencies to outline “potential civil compliance investigations,” a process that allows federal officials to examine admissions practices and DEI policies for possible violations of “anti-discrimination” law, placing large universities at a substantial risk of review.

Further executive orders in February and April of 2025 extended this charge against DEI. On February 5, 2025, the executive order Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports instructed federal agencies to ensure that any educational institution receiving federal funds complies with a definition of sex based solely on biological sex assigned at birth. The EO states that institutions allowing biological males to participate in women’s sports may be found in violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, risking their access to federal funding. The order directs the Department of Education and the Department of Justice to initiate enforcement measures against noncompliant institutions.

On April 23, 2025, the administration also issued the executive order White House Initiative to Promote Excellence and Innovation at Historically Black Colleges and Universities, which revokes President Biden’s 2021 HBCU initiative and required the termination of the Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Minority Serving Institutions Advisory Council. The order establishes a new federal framework to support HBCUs focused on institutional capacity, preparation for the workforce, and private-sector partnerships, removing references to “equity” or “DEI” and relocating the initiative outside of the Department of Education.

Another April 2025 executive order, Reforming Accreditation to Strengthen Higher Education, restructures the accreditation system for colleges and universities. Higher learning accreditation in the United States has long been managed by private, nongovernmental accrediting agencies that are recognized by the DoED. Institutions must be accredited by a federally recognized accreditor to participate in federal student-aid and grant programs. The 2025 order allows the Department of Education to suspend or withdraw recognition of any accrediting agency that is found to enforce what the administration deems “unlawful discrimination.” This EO individually targets The American Bar Association’s (ABA) Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar (The Council), which is the sole accrediting body of Juris Doctor programs in the country. The reasoning being that the ABA’s accrediting body specifically encouraged “diversity and inclusion” in law schools “with respect to gender, race, and ethnicity.”

While programs and initiatives geared towards many gender and ethnic minorities are coming under fire, one group did receive added protection with Trump’s January executive order, Additional Measures to Combat Anti-Semitism. This order comes as a result of nationwide protests against the Gaza War beginning in October 2023. Section 3 addresses antisemitism on college campuses by directing the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights to review and report on all pending complaints of antisemitic harassment or discrimination at institutions of higher education filed after October 7, 2023. The order also led to a Justice Department task force to coordinate federal investigations into antisemitic activity on campuses and expand the government’s ability to impose punishments, including the potential withholding of federal funds, against institutions accused of having violated Title VI obligations to protect Jewish students.

The aforementioned executive orders work to enhance the leverage of the federal government by ensuring university compliance with the ideology of the current administration through grants and loans. 2025 data pulled from the Department of Education shows that 56% of full-time degree or certificate-seeking undergraduate students received federal grants. The January executive orders Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity and Additional Measures to Combat Anti-Semitism coupled with the April 2025 order Reforming Accreditation to Strengthen Higher Education may directly affect individual student access to federal funding. If a university’s accrediting body loses federal recognition for maintaining DEI-related criteria, students at that institution risk losing access to federal grants, loans, and work-study programs, even if the institution itself is in compliance with the administration’s policy. Universities themselves may also be targeted for upholding DEI-based programs or failing to properly address reports of anti-semitism on campus.

Columbia University is one of the highest profile examples of an institution at risk of losing accreditation. In June 2025, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights formally notified Columbia’s regional accreditor, the Middle States Commission on Higher Education (MSCHE), that a federal investigation found the university in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act for acting with “deliberate indifference” to harassment against Jewish students. In response to federal pressure, MSCHE issued a formal warning that Columbia’s accreditation could be jeopardized, though the university remains accredited while it works to demonstrate compliance. At the same time, the federal government froze over $1 billion in funding. Shortly after, Columbia reached an agreement with the Department of Education to reinstate access to federal loans that included a $221 million payment and commitments to address discrimination concerns, citing the creation of a jewish community liaison in their office of University Life. Columbia University’s accreditation status will be officially determined in March 2026.

The DoED’s Office for Civil Rights also began investigations into Georgetown University, Emory University, New York University, Yale University, and forty-one other institutions in March 2025. These universities allegedly violated Title VI for their partnership with “The PhD. Project,” a “nonprofit that helps students from underrepresented groups earn doctoral degrees in business.” This organization had a specific focus on benefitting Native American, Black, and Latino students, with the Trump Administration assessing this approach as exclusionary. In response, The PhD project has opened its application to students of all races.

The threat of losing accreditation or recognition of accrediting bodies is not novel under the second Trump Administration. Former United States Secretary of Education, John B. King, Jr., withdrew recognition of the Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools (ACICS) under the Obama Administration in December 2016 after concluding that it had failed to adequately monitor institutional quality and protect students. ACICS filed an appeal to maintain its accreditation, but ultimately lost it in August 2022 under the Biden administration. This determination followed years of documented oversight failures, most notably ACICS’s continued accreditation of Corinthian Colleges, a large for-profit education chain that was found to be defrauding its students by a federal court in 2015. Once this recognition was lost, universities previously accredited by ACICS were given 18 months to be accredited by a recognized body before losing access to federal programs.

A comparison of these scenarios shows that while oversight of universities and accrediting bodies is both necessary and well established in U.S. higher education policy, a critical distinction separates past accreditation enforcement from the current approach. Prior actions against accrediting bodies, such as the withdrawal of recognition from ACICS, were grounded in documented, long-term failures to enforce academic and consumer-protection standards. By contrast, the federal pressure placed on Columbia University reflects a more direct and ideologically charged intervention, in which accreditation risk is coupled with immediate funding freezes tied to contested interpretations of institutional compliance with civil-rights obligations. Rather than allowing accrediting bodies to independently assess compliance through established review processes, the current administration has used its authority to accelerate consequences. This shift raises concerns about the erosion of the traditional buffer that accreditation has provided between federal political priorities and academic independence.

The freezing or withdrawal of federal funding has drastic consequences for individual students, especially impacting underserved groups. As of 2024, 34% of undergraduate students received a Pell Grant. Low-income and minority students rely on this support at disproportionately high rates, with 72% of black students receiving federal Pell Grants. Although white students made up the largest share of aid recipients overall at 47.9 percent, this disparity reflects their majority representation in college. Research on student debt further shows that students of color are disproportionately burdened. For example, Black college graduates owe significantly more in student loan debt and are more likely to struggle with repayment than white graduates. As low-income and underrepresented students are both more likely to receive Pell Grants and more likely to rely on institutional and federal aid packages, reductions in federal or institutional funding tend to unevenly reduce accessibility and completion rates for these groups.

In early 2025, multiple lawsuits were filed challenging the administration’s executive orders targeting DEI-related policies and ideology based grant funding as unconstitutional. In National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education (NADOHE) et al v. Trump et al, a U.S. District Court in Maryland issued a preliminary injunction on February 21, 2025, blocking major provisions of two orders (Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing and Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity) on the basis that they violate free-speech and due-process protections. A separate lawsuit, National Urban League et al v. Trump et al, filed February 19, 2025, contests the same orders, arguing they infringe upon constitutional rights and impose unlawful restrictions on civil rights protections.

Diverging from Columbia University’s acquiescence of the Trump Administration’s policies, Harvard College filed suit in Fellows of Harvard College v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, after the administration suspended hundreds of millions of dollars in research funding towards the institution as a result of its alleged non-compliance with Trump’s executive order regarding anti-semitism. In September 2025, a federal judge found that the funding freeze violated freedom of speech protections guaranteed by the First Amendment. The court ordered the reinstatement of the more than $2.2 billion in research grants and barred similar funding freezes for the future. For students and scholars at Harvard, this victory restored access to crucial research funding, protecting hundreds of ongoing research projects in fields like medicine and public health. It also set a precedent that the federal government cannot use grant termination as leverage against institutions of higher learning.

The government’s role in higher education has long relied on funding and accreditation as mechanisms to ensure adherence with federal standards. The 2025 executive orders do not eliminate this federal role, but instead change how it is exercised by politicizing compliance. Although federal involvement in accreditation and institutional oversight is well established and not inherently inappropriate, the current approach departs from past practice by limiting the separation between political objectives and institutional decision-making. At the same time, recent court rulings make clear that executive authority in higher education has limits, as judicial intervention has worked to restrict actions that infringe on constitutional rights and institutional autonomy. Moving forward, the boundaries of federal influence in higher education will be determined by judicial oversight and the ability of colleges and universities to withstand this newfound political pressure.

This article was edited by Aileen Moseley and Alana Khona.

BY: SHREEYA RAM

Image Credits: Brian on stock.adobe.com.

Introduction

More than 150 years after slavery was abolished, the United States still relies on a system of unpaid labor, but now it’s hidden behind prison walls. Politicians often sweep the conversation about forced prison labor under the rug, allowing the justice system to keep profiting off the exploitation of America’s inmates. In prisons across the U.S., inmates are forced to participate in manual labor, working in harsh conditions for little to no pay, while their physical and mental needs are overlooked. In a country that consistently attempts to erase its history of slavery, the persistence of involuntary servitude creates a stark contradiction, especially as the U.S. presents itself as a leader in human rights and other progressive issues on the international stage. While the 13th Amendment protects Americans from involuntary servitude, it excludes American prisoners from its umbrella of protection.

Historical Roots of Prison Labor

Forced labor is not a new concept in the U.S., and today’s prison system has deep roots in this country’s history of slavery. The 13th Amendment abolished slavery in 1865. However, a loophole in the amendment allows involuntary servitude to be used as a punishment for individuals convicted of a crime. After the abolition of slavery, many Southern states started implementing and enforcing “Black Codes,” which were laws specifically targeted towards African Americans in order to imprison them and subject them once again to unpaid, harsh labor. Legislators created the loophole in the 13th Amendment in order to profit from the struggles of Black Americans, and this exploitation still continues today.

While the concept of prison labor might seem isolated from factors like race, the reality is that it places the greatest burden on communities of color, specifically the Black community. The U.S. prison system disproportionately incarcerates minority individuals, and this disparity is especially concentrated in the South. Although Black Americans represent only about 12% of the U.S. population, they make up nearly 32% of individuals imprisoned nationwide. Nine of the 12 states where Black people make up a majority of the prison population are located in the South. In fact, in six of the Southern states with above-average incarceration rates, as well as in D.C., Black individuals make up the largest portion of people in prison. For example, in Louisiana, while Black Americans make up 32% of the state’s population, they make up 61% of the prison population, almost doubling the proportion. These numbers highlight how the region’s criminal justice system continues to disproportionately target Black communities. Taken together, these patterns show that modern prison labor perpetuates racially targeted practices rooted in this country’s history of slavery, allowing the system to reproduce inequality rather than dismantle it.

Working Conditions Inside U.S. Prisons

Prisoners in the U.S. are forced to do a variety of jobs for little to no pay and without proper safety equipment. Tasks include prison maintenance, public works projects, emergency disaster relief, and working for state-owned businesses and private companies. Since there are limited legal protections for workers in prison, the safety requirements and protocols are much lower than those that exist for workers outside the system. A survey of incarcerated workers found that 64% worried about their safety on the job, and 70% reported receiving no formal training for their work. During the COVID-19 pandemic, incarcerated workers faced especially harsh conditions while being denied early access to vaccines in 16 states. Many were required to work in the production areas for personal protective equipment, including face masks and hand sanitizer. Others were made to clean the sheets used in the hospitals, move the bodies of the deceased, and even dig graves, putting their physical and mental health at risk. Many prisoners reported that they were forced to continue completing these tasks even under such dangerous conditions, and if they refused to participate, they would be threatened with postponed parole dates or restricted visitation. The consequences for these prisoners who were forced to work without protections were severe: more than a third of incarcerated individuals contracted COVID-19, and over 3,000 have died since the start of the pandemic.

Economic Exploitation

The tasks that prisoners are asked to complete are identical to jobs that Americans outside the system have, yet inmates might only see a fraction of the wages that these types of jobs would typically offer to those who are not incarcerated. In many states, people in prison make as little as 12 to 40 cents an hour for jobs that keep the facility running, and only about 23 cents to $1.15 an hour in Federal Prison Industries (UNICOR), which authorizes prisons to contract with private companies for inmate labor. Prisoners who refuse to complete work are threatened with punishment such as denied visitation privileges and even solitary confinement. These wages and conditions continue a long history of exploiting incarcerated individuals as a cheap labor force.

The Legal Framework

In addition to the loophole in the Constitution that legalizes prison labor, federal and state laws regulate prison labor through programs like Federal Prison Industries (UNICOR). These laws offer little protection for prisoners’ wages, working conditions, or labor rights. Courts have repeatedly ruled that prisoners have a limited ability to challenge these conditions under standard labor laws. The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 imposes a lot of procedural rules and requires that prisoners pay the entirety of the filing fees. This creates a legal environment where economic exploitation can occur with minimal oversight.

Moving Toward Reform

Protecting the rights of incarcerated individuals requires stronger legal protections, fair wages, and substantial oversight of prison labor programs. Legislators must also acknowledge and address the racial disparities that are deeply built into the system. These inequities don’t just affect people in prison; they extend into families and neighborhoods, straining relationships, limiting access to education and stable housing after release, and making successful reintegration into society significantly harder. Reforming the prison labor system could help address these injustices, reducing economic exploitation and the inhumane treatment that those inside the system receive. The continued use of coerced, low-wage prison labor is a reminder that the inequalities from our history are still alive today. Making meaningful change will take both legal reform and a commitment from society to pay attention to the people behind bars.

Edited by Izzy Russo and Anusha Trivedi.

BY: ANNA VALERIA ARANGO

Image Credits: Stephen Coburn on stock.adobe.com.

In recent years, the United States has seen a rise in book bans across public schools and libraries. Many of these banned books address topics such as race, gender, identity, sexuality, and the experiences of marginalized communities. While parents and other individuals argue that restricting certain books is essential to protect children, the rise in book bans has raised the issue of constitutional rights and equal access to information. This entry examines the educational and legal consequences of book bans while highlighting their implications for students.

Book bans in the United States have been on the rise since 2021. The push for banning certain books by authors who identify as primarily people of color, women, and LGBTQ+ has been rampant; now, in 2025, this is the new normal for many public schools and libraries. This is a demonstration of how book bans mirror the broader issues of cultural and political conflicts surrounding identity, human rights, and their relation to public education. Students across the United States rely on school and public libraries for their independent reading; impeding their access to certain books when they lack access outside of these resources can be damaging. Organized groups have come together, pushing school boards to remove books they believe conflict with their moral or religious values. For example, Moms for Liberty, formed in 2021, has spread the most broadly; with over two hundred local chapters. A conservative, non-profit political organization that advocates for parental rights, they advocate against school curricula and books that address topics such as critical race theory, gender identity, and LGBTQ+ issues. These groups have created a censorial trend and have impacted students’ rights to read and learn, but also impact the protections for educators and librarians. Book censorship has become part of a routine and expected as normal school procedures, this is seen in states like Texas, Tennessee, and Florida. While parents should have a say in the education their children receive, not every family shares similar views. Should the preferences of a few be prioritized in ways that restrict the broader community?

Book bans not only impact students’ worldview but also limit their access to information, which causes a disadvantage both socially and academically. Book bans narrow students’ worldviews by limiting access to diverse perspectives, which can hinder empathy and academic growth, especially for those who rely on school libraries. Students with less access to information struggle to keep up in class and lack context for key social issues that shape relationships. Not only does this create a disadvantage for students, but it also impedes their First Amendment rights. However, this challenge is not new, as it has impacted the United States historically; “In Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853 (1982), the Supreme Court stated: “Our Constitution does not permit the official suppression of ideas.” The ruling affirmed the “special characteristics” of the school library, making it “especially appropriate for the recognition of the First Amendment rights of students,” including the right to access information and ideas. The central holding of Pico, on page 872 of the decision, was “[L]ocal school boards may not remove books from school library shelves simply because they dislike the ideas contained in those books(…).” Despite this ruling, book bans continue to raise First Amendment concerns because constitutional protections apply when public schools and government officials take action to restrict access to information. These actions only violate the First Amendment if an official removes a book or restricts access to it because they dislike the ideas or disagree with the viewpoints in the book. Increasing pressures from government officials and threats to school funding ensure that schools comply with their demands to ban certain books, leading to further censorship.

During the 2024-2025 school year, PEN America recorded 6,870 instances of book bans across 23 states and 87 public school districts. Under the idea of “returning education to parents”, President Trump has released Executive Orders such as “Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling,” “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism,” and “Ending Radical And Wasteful Government DEI Programs And Preferencing.” Although these Executive Orders don’t directly aim at books, they have been used to justify the removal of almost 600 books from the Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA) schools on military bases. This was done with the goal of restricting discussion on diversity, equity, inclusion, transgender individuals, and barring schools from “promoting un-American ideas.” The Department of Education has eliminated a federal role within the Office for Civil Rights that has been responsible for investigating discriminatory book bans, and it released a letter instructing schools to “cease using race preferences and stereotypes” or risk losing federal funding. Although federal judges have prohibited its enforcement, several state leaders have complied, demonstrating the extent of government control over public education.

In the argument for banning certain books, many LGBTQ+ books were incorrectly labeled as pornography because they featured an LGBTQ+ character or discussed sexuality. Any depiction of LGBTQ+ characters or themes is deemed “sexually explicit”, even those without any sexual content. PEN America also reports the rise of preemptive censorship, instead of waiting for formal complaints or following review processes; school officials are removing books out of fear of political backlash or legal consequences. Many of these removals are not required by law but rather are done to avoid any challenge, demonstrating the normalization of censorship through threat alone. In 2025, more than seventy bills and policies were introduced across twenty-six states, with twenty-two of them becoming law in sixteen states. Although policies are extending censorship over public schools and libraries, they are now also aiming to extend control over higher education as well. Some of these states include, “Arkansas // HB 1512 // restricts discussion of certain concepts relating to race, ethnicity, sex, color or national origin, including “ideas or beliefs in violation of” the Civil Rights Act, Titles IV, VI, VII. West Virginia // SB 474 and Executive Order No. 3-25 // restrict discussion of concepts relating to race, color, sex, ethnicity, and national origin. Wyoming // HB 147 // restricts discussion of concepts relating to race, color, religion, sex, ethnicity, and national origin. This increased demand for censorship not only impacts students but also places a strain on educators, librarians, and school administrators, leading to increased harassment and administrative burdens. Banning has become normalized and is now a routine part of school operations, demonstrating how education is taking a shift from exploration to restriction.

Despite the growing efforts of book censorship, there is also a strong call for legal and grassroots resistance. PEN America urges communities to advocate for transparent review processes, define First Amendment protections, and support librarians and educators targeted by these bans. The resistance against book bans is growing as there are multiple current lawsuits filed, such as Florida: PEN American Center v. Escambia County School District. The non-profit organization, PEN America, along with parents and authors, filed a lawsuit that challenges the removal and restriction of books from school libraries. They claim it violates the First Amendment and argue that the district’s decisions to ban certain books are ideologically motivated and unconstitutional. Their claim asserts that the district’s decisions were driven by bias and therefore constitute unconstitutional discrimination. Cases like this highlight how legal action, combined with community resistance, plays a role in preserving students’ rights.

The rise of book bans in the United States demonstrates the serious legal, social, and educational challenges. It raises the question of whether public institutions are upholding or undermining constitutional rights. Restrictions on certain books raise concerns about the First Amendment implications, reduce equal access to information, and may disproportionately affect already marginalized groups by restricting access to representation and knowledge. These consequences extend into shaping how students understand their rights, diversity, and their place in the world.

Edited by Liliana Triviski and Alana Khona.

BY: CHADWYCK BECKFORD

Image Credits: bbourdages on stock.adobe.com.

Since the inception of the United States of America, the judicial branch has been the guardian of American civil liberties. Established to protect the American citizen and provide due process, the judicial branch has seen landmark cases such as Brown v. Board of Education and Gideon v. Wainwright. These cases saw the expansion of fundamental rights; however, in recent years, the protective role the courts adopted has begun to change. A slew of recent Supreme Court decisions represent a growing judicial perspective, one that strips away federal protections for citizens. Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic represents a tipping point in this manner, one that deeply affects millions of Americans across the country.

This shift in judicial philosophy becomes even clearer when examining the actions of state government officials. Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic is about an executive order from the state of South Carolina in regards to Medicaid. Medicaid, which was established in 1865, is a program between the federal government and the states designed to provide healthcare welfare to individuals who need it. Medicaid offers federal funding to states in return for compliance with certain provisions. One of these provisions is the “free-choice-of-provider” provision, which ensures that Medicaid beneficiaries are able to receive medical assistance from any qualified provider of their choosing. States must submit their medical assistance plans for approval. If states fail to comply with federal requirements, the Secretary of Health and Human Services has the authority to withhold funds.

Understanding the structural backdrop makes the real-world stakes of the case even more apparent. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic is a company operating two health centers in South Carolina. They provide medical services such as cancer screenings, contraception, and STI treatment. Medicaid recipient Julie Edwards was receiving gynecological care at Planned Parenthood, and planned to continue. However, in July of 2018, South Carolina governor Henry McMaster issued an executive order directing the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) to terminate abortion clinics from being under Medicaid. As a result, Planned Parenthood was no longer qualified to serve Medicaid beneficiaries. DHHS terminated the enrollment agreement immediately, cutting patients such as Edwards off from their chosen provider. Both Planned Parenthood and Edwards sued the director of DHHS, and the case reached the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court’s ultimate ruling radically reshaped what enforcement of these protections means. In an immense 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that Medicaid’s “free-choice-of-provider” provision does not allow beneficiaries to sue state officials when a state excludes a qualified provider from participation. The ramifications of this decision will be felt far beyond this case. By effectively eliminating patients’ ability to bring their own lawsuits against states, the Court leaves millions of low-income Americans with no meaningful way to challenge restrictions on their healthcare. This shift grants states far greater freedom to target or exclude providers for political reasons, with the understanding that patients have no judicial foundation to fall back on. Additionally, it makes a once-enforceable federal protection into a symbolic one that cannot be defended in a court of law.

The consequences of Medina V. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic extend beyond the healthcare industry. The ruling further exposes a deeper governmental problem: the erosion of checks and balances. The establishment of Judicial Review was for the Court to serve as a check for the legislative branch, the executive branch, and the states. But when the Supreme Court repeatedly narrows who can enforce federal protections, it creates power within the judicial branch itself. The Court’s 2013 decision in Shelby County v. Holder abolished the need for states with long histories of discrimination to get federal preclearance before changing voter laws. 9 years later, the Court ruled in Dobbs v Jackson’s Women’s Health Organization that the Constitution does not protect a federal right to abortion. These examples in a chain of Court decisions over the last 25 years indicate the growing trend of power within the courts, and their impact on the civil liberties Americans have relied on for decades.

These decisions that strip Americans of their civil liberties disproportionately harm marginalized communities. Low-income individuals, racial minorities, and women are the ones most dependent on federal statutory rights. In turn, they are also the ones most affected when these rights are not available to them. When states violate housing protections, people living in poverty often have no alternative pathways for support. When states restrict access to reproductive healthcare, the burden falls squarely on women who rely on services such as Medicaid. The ability to take an issue to trial is one of the most important facets of the American governmental framework. But when this right is stripped away, entire communities are left scrambling in disarray. Civil liberties are becoming stratified: they are strong for those who can afford proper legal counsel and private healthcare, and nonexistent for those who cannot.

These radical changes in judicial philosophy have contributed to a larger consequence. Decisions such as the one in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic feed into a rapidly growing public distrust of the judiciary. Over the last decade, polls show decreasing confidence in the Supreme Court among Americans. Many citizens view the Supreme Court as a partisan institution rather than the impartial guardian of the Constitution it was designed to be. The aforementioned Supreme Court cases are seen as decisions that align with political agendas, rather than the civil rights principles the nation was founded on. Throughout history, when the Supreme Court appears to be taking stances on political ideology (such as the Lochner era, a 40-year period where the Court limited the federal government’s ability to regulate economic exploitation by private actors), it routinely sparks widespread social division and instability. The modern legal environment mirrors those times.

All together, these trends illustrate a dark reality about the fragility of civil liberties under judicial review. The ruling in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic stands as a harsh reminder of how quickly federal protections can dissipate when the judiciary chooses constraint over rights. It also reflects a deeper truth about the American governmental framework: civil liberties can be fragmented not only through legislative action, but also through judicial interpretation. The judiciary has become a powerful agent of rights restriction. When the Supreme Court narrows the definition of civil liberties through interpretation, it reframes the relationship between the government and American citizens. And unlike the legislative branch, the judiciary operates without electoral accountability. There are a few avenues for remedy when the Supreme Court makes jarring decisions to the societal framework.

In light of the rapidly shifting judicial sphere, a societal response becomes not only relevant but necessary. The current legal and political sphere in the United States is a mandatory call for renewed civil awareness. Citizens must be cognizant that the preservation of civil liberties not only relies on the Constitution, but also on public legal and political consciousness. The need for legal and political education is at an all-time high in the United States. Understanding the impact of decisions such as Shelby, Dobbs, and Medina is crucial to ensuring that civil rights remain at the heart of American governance. The judiciary was once the strongest impartial guardian of civil liberties, but as its role shifts, it falls on the shoulders of the public, the legislative, and groups of advocates to ensure that federal rights do not become relics of the past.

Edited by Maggie McHugh and Afreen Ahmad.

BY: MAIA DIETZ

Image Credits: Michelmond on stock.adobe.com.

Since its founding in 2006, biotechnology company 23andMe has enabled customers to gain insight into their ancestry, genetics, and potential health risks with its direct-to-consumer DNA testing service. Co-founder and former CEO Anne Wojcicki established 23andMe with a simple goal: giving people direct access to their medical data. In its mission to bridge the gap between doctors and patients and “provide more personalized, trusted care,” 23andMe has amassed over 15 million users and developed one of the largest genetic databases in existence today. However, this widespread availability of direct-to-consumer genetic testing has not come without costs–it has raised concerns about privacy, consent, and intellectual property.

Users consent to their genetic information being analyzed and stored in the 23andMe database when they agree to the terms of service. The company uses this data to provide individual genetic reports to customers, as well as to compile the samples they receive for both internal research and external partnerships. In 2018, 23andMe formally partnered with pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) for the stated goal of developing new drug therapies to slow the progression of certain genetic diseases. While this was a beneficial partnership for the field of medicine, it also sparked further debate over the ethics of using customers’ DNA for profit.

In October 2023, 23andMe suffered a data breach that affected 6.9 million of its customers when hackers accessed profile information and ancestry reports linked to individual 23andMe accounts, revealing the names, birth years, locations, and other genetic data held within the platform. This data is extremely sensitive, and unlike passwords or other financial information, genetic information cannot be changed once leaked–highlighting the need for stronger consumer protections in biotechnology.

23andMe has continued to be at the center of controversies and was forced to file for bankruptcy in March 2025 due to its inability to attract repeat customers. California Attorney General Rob Bonta responded to this news by issuing a consumer alert, urging customers to direct 23andMe to delete their data and destroy any samples of genetic material retained by the company.

23andMe’s practice of commercializing private data raises questions about informed consent and intellectual property in direct-to-consumer genetics, as well as the legal debate over whether donors have a legal right to the information derived from their genetic samples.

While consumers consent to 23andMe’s practices before submitting a sample to be analyzed, research shows that participants in genetic research tend to lack a full understanding of the information presented to them. In the medical field, informed consent requires the disclosure of relevant information in a manner that potential participants can understand, so they can make a voluntary and informed decision about participating. However, participants often have difficulty recalling information and understanding science concepts presented in Informed Consent Documents (ICDs). This issue is only exacerbated in genetic research, where participants are presented with complex concepts such as DNA sequencing and genomic data sharing. As a result, even participants who express satisfaction with the consent process or their medical decisions may not be objectively well informed. Additionally, with the rise of digital consent forms, users tend to consent to online privacy policies or terms of service without reading them, due to both the length and the saturation of these consent forms across the internet.

23andMe’s partnership with GSK and the resulting commercialization of genetic data raise questions about ownership over derived genetic information, and whether genetics should be viewed as a form of personal property. The debate over whether individuals have a right to information derived from biological samples first became mainstream with the case of Henrietta Lacks, who, when being treated at Johns Hopkins Hospital for an aggressive form of cervical cancer in 1951, had samples of her cancerous cells removed and given to a lab researcher without her consent. In the lab, it was discovered that her cells had a unique capacity to survive and reproduce, and the researcher shared her cells widely with other labs and scientists. Today, the “HeLa” cells are still used, and work done with them has underscored most of the key discoveries in the medical field, including the ongoing development of COVID-19 vaccines.

The case of Henrietta Lacks also demonstrates the racial inequities in the medical research field: she was a Black woman, and Johns Hopkins Hospital was one of only a few in the country that provided care to Black people. For decades, none of the biotechnology or other research companies passed any of their profits back to her family, and scientists repeatedly failed to ask her family for consent before publishing her name, medical records, and the full genome of her cells.

Another example of racial discrimination in medical research occurred in 2004, when the Havasupai Tribe filed a lawsuit against the Arizona Board of Regents and several Arizona State University professors for misuse of blood samples collected from members of the tribe for type 2 diabetes research. Without participants’ consent, the researchers used their blood samples to study schizophrenia, ethnic migration, and population inbreeding–all of which are highly taboo topics in Havasupai culture.

Another topic raised by the question of rights to genetic information (GI) is whether or not this information is legally considered a form of property. According to a study conducted by the University of Copenhagen Center for Information and Innovation Law, individuals don’t have an explicitly established legal right to derived GI, since patent law gives the rights to inventors rather than the donors of biological samples. However, this doesn’t mean that donors shouldn’t have a way to address their concerns. The study argues that, instead of treating GI as personal property, concerns over privacy and potential exploitation can be better addressed through policy balancing that incorporates consent and ethics.

Overall, these findings highlight a need for ethical reform in the broader field of biomedical research as it continues to advance. Researchers continue to face the tension between morality and profit, and the industry needs to standardize its approach in a way that balances both the security of individual donors and the potential for medical breakthroughs that come with studying genetic data on a large scale. This concept is defined as “responsible innovation,” which outlines several guidelines to ensure that any ethical concerns are addressed before new technologies are widely implemented. First, researchers and companies must be transparent about their methods of analysis and data collection. Next, they should encourage conversation and engagement with both the public and stakeholders about ethical considerations to ensure that research reflects societal values. Lastly, they must subject themselves to oversight from governments and regulatory bodies that provide clear guidelines and ensure that genetic research is conducted ethically and safely. Ultimately, individuals can ensure that companies like 23andMe act with ethical considerations in mind by reclaiming their role in the process of genetic advancement.

Edited by Sofia Ramirez and Afreen Ahmad.

BY: MASSIMO LAGAZZI

Image Credits: Yuriy T on stock.adobe.com.

Introduction

On March 31st, 2025, the Trump administration and immigration enforcement officials admitted that the deportation of U.S. resident Kilmar Abrego Garcia two weeks prior was an “administrative error.” Kilmar Abrego Garcia sued the Trump administration a day later, citing that a U.S. immigration judge granted him an order of protection in 2019, which should have blocked his deportation to his home country of El Salvador. After the Supreme Court ordered his return to the United States, it took two months for him to return to his family. This case has garnered backlash among the public and legal officials. His experience highlights several concerns over the lack of due process for immigrants under the Trump administration.

Due process, rooted in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, guarantees that the government cannot deprive someone of life, liberty, or property without fair procedures. Courts have repeatedly held that due process protections extend to all people, including undocumented migrants. But immigration is a civil system, not a criminal one, and since civil cases are not meant to punish, rights are not as protected as they would be in a criminal case. For example, people facing deportation are not entitled to a court-appointed attorney if they cannot afford one, which differs from criminal courts, where the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees all people the right to an attorney, whether or not they can afford one. Other structural issues have also been described to have limited due process for decades. Immigration judges are employees of the Department of Justice, and the Attorney General has broad authority to reinterpret immigration law through different precedent decisions. These weaknesses in the immigration system have been routine since long before the Trump administration.

Within this already fragile system, the Trump administration has introduced more policies that immigration rights organizations have seen as intensifying existing due process shortcomings.

Trump-era Policies Affecting Due Process

Two days after Abrego Garcia was detained by ICE, Trump activated the Alien Enemies Act through an executive order. He did so by proclamation, arguing that the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua was “perpetrating, attempting, and threatening an invasion or predatory incursion against the territory of the United States.” The Alien Enemies Act is a wartime authority that allows the president to deport citizens of an enemy nation, permitting him to target immigrants without a hearing based on their country of birth, which has raised serious criticism from immigration rights groups against what they describe as interfering with the due process of immigrants.

As another way to facilitate the deportation and detention of illegal immigrants, the Department of Homeland Security expanded expedited removal, a procedure established by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, which allows officers working under the department to deport an individual without a hearing before an immigration judge. Expedited removal proceedings effectively reduce protections for noncitizens to present evidence, call witnesses, and challenge their case before a judge, which is all allowed under standard removal. Under expedited removal, noncitizens have to prove, to the satisfaction of an immigration officer, that they have been present in the U.S. for two years. This move has been met by a lawsuit filed by immigrant rights non-profit organization Make the Road New York, where they argue that the policy deprives noncitizens of procedural protections.

Trump also cut funding for legal services that have aided immigrants facing detention and deportation. The Department of Justice ordered legal services to stop their work on these programs, which include but are not limited to the Legal Orientation Program, the Counsel for Children Initiative, and the Unaccompanied Children Program. Multiple non-profits have criticized the cuts to fund these programs, deeming them necessary for noncitizens to have fair trials.

Consequences and Criticisms

Many of the Trump administration’s moves to facilitate the detention and deportation of illegal immigrants have been recently contested in courts. ACLU and Democracy Forward filed a suit against the president for invoking the Alien Enemies Act, stating that the invocation of a wartime act during peacetime is unlawful.

The administration’s decision to expand expedited removal is also being challenged by non-profit organization Make the Road New York, ACLU, and the New York Civil Liberties Union in the D.C. District Court. The organizations argue that the expansion limits procedural protections of noncitizens, which is a violation of the Fifth Amendment. They say that current procedures “fail to provide time or a meaningful opportunity” for noncitizens to prove their innocence. The case is still ongoing.

Organizations that provide legal services to noncitizens are also suing the Trump administration for terminating the National Qualified Representative Program, which provided counsel to people in detention who have been found to be unable to represent themselves in proceedings due to mental incompetence. The director of litigation of the National Immigrant Justice Center, Keren Zwick, stated that this lawsuit seeks to “stop the Trump administration from eliminating the right to due process for immigrants in our country.”

Counterarguments: The Administration’s Reasons

The Trump administration frames its policies as necessary for national security, border control, and restoring legal order. The Trump administration defends its use of the Alien Enemies Act by framing it as a national-security necessity in response to what officials describe as the growing threat of the transnational gang Tren de Aragua. The administration argues that this statutory authority allowed the president to take swift action against citizens of hostile nations during a security emergency, including removal without a full hearing, if doing so protected the country.

The White House also claims plans for full use of expedited removal was to maximize the speed of deportation, and asserts that this power is legally authorized by Congress and essential to deter what officials describe as a lawless “invasion.” In addition, the administration frames the cuts to legal services, like the termination of the National Qualified Representative Program, as part of a broader effort to reallocate resources to frontline enforcement. By redirecting funding away from legal aid, the government argues it is prioritizing efficient removals and maximizing the impact of its deportation goals.

The administration also leans on longstanding legal precedent and executive authority to justify these measures. The argument is that the president has a broad discretion to enforce immigration laws, and that expanding expedited removal and detention operations is a legitimate exercise of power granted by Congress and affirmed in prior legal frameworks.

Implications

The policies introduced under the Trump administration carry several legal implications for how due process is interpreted and applied in immigration proceedings. Expansions of expedited removal, for example, have raised questions about the scope of administrative authority. Federal courts have noted that reducing access to hearings and eliminating opportunities to present evidence may increase the risk of imprecise deprivation of rights, which is a key concern under the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause. In Make the Road New York v. McAleenan, plaintiffs argued that a prior expansion during the first administration failed to provide adequate legal procedures and therefore conflicted with constitutional due process standards. These challenges point to a legal question of how far the executive branch can go in simplifying the removal process without violating procedural requirements that courts have said apply to all people in the United States, including noncitizens.

The invocation of the Alien Enemies Act also introduces longer-term legal considerations. Historically, courts have permitted the use of this statute only in contexts involving officially designated wartime enemies. Applying it during peacetime and toward nationals of a country with which the U.S. is not at war has resulted in cases questioning whether the president’s authority under this statute can extend beyond traditional wartime circumstances. Lawsuits filed by organizations such as the ACLU argue that expanding the Act’s use may conflict with statutory limits and established interpretations of executive power. Collectively, these developments highlight a series of ongoing legal debates about statutory interpretation, the boundaries of executive authority, and the minimum procedural standards required in civil immigration enforcement.

What’s Next?

The Trump administration’s reform of immigration policy, from invoking the Alien Enemies Act to expanding expedited removal and cutting legal support programs, has reshaped immigration law by shifting away from protections in legal procedures and towards enforcement. While long-standing weaknesses in due process for immigrants existed before Trump, his policies have largely amplified them. As ongoing court challenges continue to test the scope of the executive’s power, future administrations face a choice between maintaining the status quo created by Trump or reshaping the system toward fairness. Ultimately, the recent system reshaping and legal events leave questions on how the constitutional promise of due process can be upheld for all people within the United States’ borders.

This article was edited by Aileen Moseley and Alana Khona.

BY JADE DUFFUS

Image Credits: Rosemarie Mosteller on stock.adobe.com.

Introduction

George Washington University (GW) markets itself as a civic-minded “anchor institution,” but in reality, it acts more like a nonprofit corporation reshaping an entire neighborhood with private-sector force. GW is one of the most powerful landholders in Foggy Bottom, and its decisions about development, policing, and land use reverberate across D.C.’s already fragile housing ecosystem. With a multibillion-dollar real estate portfolio that is heavily concentrated in commercial and multifamily properties around Foggy Bottom, GW has enough structural power to shift housing costs, dictate commercial patterns, and police public space, all without paying property taxes on most of its holdings. This dynamic deeply mirrors the logic of mid-century redlining, where institutions rather than individuals engineered who belonged in certain neighborhoods. Today, instead of the red lines of federal maps, institutional expansion plans and campus policing strategies shape who can afford to live near GW and who is pushed out. With D.C. already experiencing some of the fastest displacement rates of Black residents in the country, university expansion acts as a new form of gatekeeping that reproduces the city’s longstanding racial divides. The result is an urban landscape where opportunity, access to stable housing, quality public services, well resourced schools, employment pipelines, and political influence, clusters around campus boundaries, while long-term residents, especially Black communities, face intensified instability.

Historical Context: From Redlining to University Urbanism

D.C.’s racial geography has deep historical roots, and Foggy Bottom is a case study of how institutional power has long shaped the area. Before GW built aggressively into the neighborhood, Foggy Bottom was home to a multiracial working-class community with significant Black residency called “Funkstown,” which experienced displacement in the 1950s. Mid-century redevelopment cleared large portions of the neighborhood, laying the groundwork for institutional dominance over residential land. Howard University researchers have shown that modern gentrification continues these cycles, especially because Black homeownership, already undermined by past discriminatory lending, faces ongoing barriers in D.C. As manufacturing declined in urban centers nationwide, large universities and hospitals that became major urban employers, known as “eds and meds” institutions, stepped into the role of major landholders, acquiring tax-exempt property and using campus expansions to consolidate long-term wealth. Universities like GW inherited the geography produced by this redlining and now reinforce it.

GW’s Footprint: Expansion as Structural Force

GW’s expansion into Foggy Bottom is not incidental, it is strategic. The university’s ongoing Campus Plan for 2027 conforms to GW’s desire for additional construction, rezoning flexibility, and expanded commercial partnerships, all of which require shaping neighborhood density and usage. Residents consistently express concerns about how new university buildings raise land values, increase housing demand, and accelerate the transition of the neighborhood from community-rooted to university-dominated. Institutions submit proposals to the Zoning Commission that residents cannot easily challenge, giving universities disproportionate power to rewrite the urban fabric. This dynamic mirrors what the Georgetown Review describes in its analysis of Georgetown University’s expansion: a process by which universities effectively become urban planners without public accountability. When universities control massive blocks of property but do not pay property taxes, they extract value from the community while offloading fiscal responsibility onto the city itself.

Displacement Mechanics: How University Growth Recreates Inequality

University expansion places significant pressure on local housing markets, and GW is no exception. Research on campus-adjacent neighborhoods shows that enrollment growth combined with limited on-campus housing capacity is associated with increased private rental development near universities particularly in mid to low rent neighborhoods where developers perceive unmet demand. GW is no exception. As more students choose off-campus units, often supported by parental income or financial aid, rental prices in Foggy Bottom adjust upward within a market increasingly oriented toward student demand. Over time, long-term Black and low-income residents are priced out and forced to relocate to neighborhoods east of the Anacostia River, repeating the displacement patterns highlighted in investigations. What looks like natural market adjustment is actually institutional pressure: GW’s enrollment growth and limited on-campus housing capacity have been associated with increased demand for off-campus units in the surrounding neighborhood, a dynamic that coincides with higher rental prices and more rental development near major universities. This pattern makes the neighborhood economically inhabitable for anyone outside the university’s orbit.

Seasonal population shifts in Foggy Bottom also affect housing stability. The flood of GW students every fall and their mass departure every spring creates intense competition for rentals in Foggy Bottom, as universally housing rules push thousands of undergraduates into the private market and landlords prioritize short-term student leases over long-term residents. Landlords maximize profit by aligning lease terms with student turnover, offering August move-ins, 12 months cycles, and summer sublets, rather than the needs of long-term residents. Sociological studies repeatedly show that neighborhoods dominated by transient populations experience weaker community ties and higher rates of displacement, leaving long-standing families unable to compete in a market designed around temporary, affluent consumers.

Commercial displacement and university expansion reshape Foggy Bottom in ways beyond just residential pressure. Commercial corridors, the main streets lined with shops, restaurants and small businesses, transform rapidly as a result. As GW acquires property or influences landlord expectations through its real estate portfolio, commercial rents in the surrounding area remain among the highest in the city, contributing to the displacement of small Black-owned and immigrant-owned businesses. This pattern of redevelopment marketed as “revitalization” often destroys the cultural and economic anchors of long-standing Black communities. Small, locally owned businesses are increasingly displaced by higher-end and standardized commercial tenants oriented toward the consumption patterns of wealthier, more transient populations, a hallmark of commercial gentrification. These shifts not only reduce affordability but fundamentally rewrite the cultural identity of Foggy Bottom.

University policing operates as a critical but often overlooked mechanism through which real estate expansion is stabilized and displacement is enforced. At GW, campus policing extends beyond university-owned property into surrounding public space, reshaping how Foggy Bottom is experienced by residents as well as students. Heavy police presence, expanded patrol zones, and the securitization of sidewalks, parks, and commercial corridors function to regulate who can linger, gather, or contest space near campus. Urban scholarship has shown that intensified policing in gentrifying neighborhoods disproportionately affects Black and brown communities, contributing to displacement not only through arrests or fines but through the everyday production of surveillance, intimidation, and exclusion. In this context, policing supports redevelopment by making contested spaces feel less accessible to long-term residents while reinforcing an environment designed around institutional priorities and affluent users. Rather than protecting community safety, university policing helps secure the spatial conditions necessary for continued expansion, reinforcing racialized boundaries around who is understood to belong in Foggy Bottom.

Why Universities Can Do This: Policy, Power and Tax Structure

GW’s ability to dominate Foggy Bottom’s housing and commercial markets comes directly from its nonprofit designation, which exempts it from property taxes on most of its holdings. At the same time, GW has enormous influence over zoning boards and local planning processes. Through campus plan negotiations, the university steers development priorities in ways that benefit institutional growth at the expense of neighborhood affordability. Community benefit agreements (CBAs), often presented as remedies, are mostly symbolic. Residents have documented repeatedly that CBAs lack meaningful enforcement mechanisms, allowing universities to promise equity while acting with corporate freedom. In effect, GW operates with the privilege of a public institution, the revenue model of a private corporation, and the accountability structure of neither.

The Human Impact: A New Racial Geography Emerges

The combined effect of rising rents, transient population turnover, commercial displacement, and intensified policing produces a neighborhood increasingly inaccessible to Black, immigrant and working-class residents. This aligns with broader studies documenting the sharp decline of Black residency in D.C., a pattern accelerated by institutional redevelopment across the city. Georgetown, Howard and GW all contribute to a new geography of inequality where opportunity, safety and affordability becomes tied to proximity and university influence. Those excluded from these spaces are pushed further from their homes and communities, losing access to long-standing neighborhood resources and support networks as displacement pressures mount in ways that disproportionately affect Black and brown residents. This is not accidental, it is structural, predictable, and deeply tied to institutional decision-making.

Conclusion

GW’s real estate strategy functions as a modern form of redlining, not through explicit racial policy, but through institutional expansion that systematically advantages students and university affiliates while pushing out long-term Black and working -class residents. The tools have changed, but the outcome mirrors those of the past: racialized exclusion, uneven development, and a city increasingly divided by opportunity. For GW to truly embody its shared values, it must abandon extractive land practices and embrace community-centered governance that redistributes power rather than consolidating it.

To break this cycle, universities must shift from extractive to reparative development. GW should partner with community land trusts, nonprofit organizations that acquire and hold land to ensure it remains permanently affordable for residents, to create permanently affordable housing near campus. They should also offer subsidized commercial rents for minority-owned businesses and subject future campus plans to racial equity and anti-displacement impact analyses. Policing must become transparent, limited in scope, and accountable to community oversight, particularly in areas where the George Washington Police Department (GWPD) extends its presence into surrounding public spaces in ways that shape who can safely occupy and contest the neighborhood. Most importantly, this university must make CBAs enforceable legal commitments rather than symbolic gestures, with measurable outcomes, timelines, and public reporting. A university that claims to be an “anchor” must anchor equity, not displacement. Foggy Bottom deserves more than performative partnerships; it deserves structural justice.

This article was edited by Izzy Russo and Anusha Trivedi.

BY ANUSHA TRIVEDI

Image Credits: logoboom on stock.adobe.com.

Modern films in the U.S. seem to depict everything—drug use, sexual acts, violence, etc. However, this flourishing industry has faced some obstacles to get where it is today. The First Amendment, which protects freedom of speech and expression, has not always applied to moviemakers. Over time, various court rulings have shaped the nature of film and the leniency filmmakers receive regarding the topics they are allowed to depict. Other countries, such as India, have dealt with the topic of film censorship laws in different ways from the U.S., highlighting how interpretations of free speech can vary across the world.

The history of film censorship in the U.S.

Movies have gained mass popularity in the U.S. since the 1890s, but the rise in scrutiny of this entertainment form first occurred from 1900 to 1915. During this time, the growth in public action and administrative efforts to ameliorate social issues led reform efforts to begin focusing on film. Progressives of the time were concerned about child welfare, morality, and health, sparking attempts to restrict the film industry through legislation. Film manufacturers and reformers began to collaborate, and manufacturers started to voluntarily submit their movies for censorship, believing that this would increase their patronage and improve the film industry’s reputation.

In 1911, Pennsylvania was the first state to create a censorship board, and by 1915, several states had established state boards for film censorship. Religious leaders played a major role in supporting this movement. In 1930, a Catholic priest and a publisher created the Motion Picture Production Code, otherwise known as the Hays Code. The main principles of this document were that films should not lower viewers’ moral standards, they should only portray correct moral standards, and natural or human law must not be ridiculed. The Production Code Administration (PCA) was then created to enforce these regulations. If films passed their censorship rules, the PCA’s approval would be shown in the credits, and if it failed, the film would not be allowed to have a wide release. Revising and resubmitting censored versions of films became a popular practice in the face of pressure from the PCA, religious protestors, and state censorship boards, at least up until a major case in 1952 changed how films were treated.

One of the first major cases in film censorship was Mutual Film Corp. v. Industrial Communication of Ohio in 1915, though it was later overturned. In this case, the court ruled that film was a business and not an art form, so its free speech was not protected by the First Amendment. This decision was upheld for the next 37 years. Only in 1952 was this precedent changed—In Burstyn v. Wilson, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that banning a film for being “sacrilegious” violated the First Amendment. This case built on a few previous rulings, including Gitlow v. New York in 1925, which established that the First Amendment applied to the states, as well as Near v. Minnesota in 1931, which established that prior restraint was only allowed in rare, extreme cases. Another important case was United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc. in 1948. This case forced big studios to divest from theaters, which allowed independent films to gain more audiences and a more even playing field. Because of this, filmmakers who lost studio backing by refusing to censor their movies were still able to gain some success. As movies that went against the PCA maintained their audiences and court cases that allowed for the censorship of certain films were reversed in the Supreme Court, the PCA weakened. It was eventually disbanded in 1968 due to this increased opposition.

In 1968, the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) created a new rating system for films—G stood for General Audiences, M stood for Mature Audiences, R was for people aged 16 and up unless with a parent or guardian, and X meant that those under 16 were not allowed. During the 1970s and 1980s, the general public began to associate the X rating with pornography, and newspapers and TV did not display ads for films of that rating. In 1990, the NC-17 rating replaced the X rating as a way to differentiate film as art compared to pornography, but even today, the general public is rarely exposed to NC-17 movies. All of the major Hollywood film studios submit their movies to the MPAA, even though it is voluntary, and most theater chains only show movies with a rating.

Comparison: Film censorship in India

Though the U.S. has had strict film censorship in the past, it is a general agreement among scholars that India has one of the strictest censorship laws in the world. While informal film censorship likely occurred earlier, it first occurred formally in India with the Cinematograph Act of 1918, which stated that films could not be publicly shown without prior certification and licenses. The British government then set up a Board of Censors in five cities, which were each tasked with creating regulations around film certifications. Each Board of Censors outlined the specific restrictions for what could be displayed in films, modeling them after the British Board of Censors’ rules. Objectionable content, according to these guidelines, included criticism of the British regime, suggestions of immorality, and sexual scenes. Opposition eventually increased from both the British, who thought films were painting the West in a bad light, and from Indians, who thought films were corrupting Indian morals. Later, the Cinematograph Act of 1952 was implemented, which created the Central Board of Film Censors (CBFC) to certify movies to be shown publicly by either allowing them unrestricted public exhibition, restricted public exhibition to adults or another group, or not allowing public exhibition at all. Today, films still face major censorship issues—In 2016, the Central Board of Film Censors asked the creators of the film “Udta Punjab” to make 94 cuts to their film, especially regarding their depiction of drug use, despite the film’s story centering around this topic. Though the filmmakers challenged this and eventually were able to release the film with only one cut, this demonstrates the severity of Indian film censorship laws compared to the modern U.S.

American films experienced pushback as well when depicting controversial topics, but this was more from the bottom up than the top down compared to India, which involved both. The U.S. also did not have a colonial power like the British hoping to suppress criticism of their regime through film censorship during this time. While the U.S. faced various restrictions on films in its beginnings, a major difference between the two countries is that modern American films now have increased leniency due to various court rulings upholding their freedom of expression, while Indian films are still faced with legal challenges to this day.

Modern film censorship

Today, many Hollywood films depict drug use, sexual acts, and other controversial topics without major restrictions. However, while filmmakers have gained more leniency in their freedom of expression, there are still outside factors that can hinder their attempts to depict certain topics. The main motive here is financial: PG-13 movies tend to make the most money at the box office out of all the MPAA ratings. The general public often views movies rated G or PG as movies for kids, and rated R movies are restricted to those 17 and older unless they are with a parent or guardian, leaving PG-13 as the most profitable segment. Only two rated R movies have grossed over a billion dollars worldwide, compared to 36 PG-13 movies. This might motivate moviemakers to reduce the amount of explicit or profane content in their films or simply avoid making movies about those topics, even if it is not due to restrictions from the law. Another factor to consider is worldwide markets. While certain depictions may be acceptable in the U.S., they might not comply with regulations in other countries. For example, the movie “Spectre” had to cut short its kissing scenes in its Indian release, and the CBFC did not allow the movie “Monkey Man” to be shown in theaters in India because of its criticism of Hindu nationalism. In 1997, China was upset with the release of the Martin Scorcese film “Kundan” because of its depiction of the Chinese invasion of Tibet, so they banned the parent company, Disney, from China. Disney had already invested over a billion dollars into the Chinese market and was hoping to expand there even further, demonstrating the major consequences that can occur from angering foreign countries through film.

Conclusion

While moviemakers have gained more and more rights throughout history in the U.S., there are still financial considerations that can restrict their ability to portray various topics in their films. Legally, however, the U.S. has come a long way in its journey to let people create art that might be controversial, especially when compared to other countries that might be lagging in this area. Freedom of expression is an essential right that allows filmmakers to push boundaries and expose viewers to new perspectives, even if they do not always fit conventional standards of morality or appropriateness.

This article was edited by Alana Khona and Nika Tarkian.

BY OLIVIA MCDOWELL

Image Credits: RebeccaDunnLevert on stock.adobe.com.

As the 2024 election cycle progressed, a shared target by the Republican Party became increasingly clear: transgender individuals, particularly minors seeking gender-affirming care. Donald Trump used far-fetched rhetoric, such as the suggestion of schools brainwashing children into identifying as transgender, to justify incredibly harsh policies restricting access to care.

Rise of Anti-LGBTQ+ Legislation

While Trump introduced the issue of gender-affirming care for minors to the federal executive branch for the first time, the debate itself is not new. Rather, Trump elevated to the national stage a conversation that state legislatures have been discussing for years. The number of anti-LGBTQ+ bills introduced has been increasing since 2015, shifting to specifically target trans individuals around 2020. Queer individuals have been afforded some specific protections through the federal court system. Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), for example, establishes that a state cannot erode the right to same-sex marriage. Pavan v. Smith (2017) similarly establishes that marriage provides a “constellation of benefits” that cannot be denied to queer people; in that case, having two queer parents’ names on a child’s birth certificate was debated. The most recent landmark case, Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), held that workplace laws that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Despite these basic protections, there is plenty of room for state legislatures to restrict freedoms. The ACLU tracked over 500 anti-LGBTQ+ bills that were introduced in state legislatures in 2024 alone. By far, the most common type of restrictive bill is one that restricts the rights of minors. This could look like banning gender-affirming care unless the recipient is above the age of eighteen or requiring parental permission for a teacher to use a student’s preferred name and pronouns at school, which was the case in Ohio’s HB 8. Other types of bills are the restriction of free speech – such as drag bans – attempts to redefine sex, and the infamous bathroom bans.

Is Public Opinion to Blame?

The simple explanation for this phenomenon would be that public opinion does not support a progressive stance on transgender rights, and the democratic election process reflects public opinion. Data reflects this sentiment: two-thirds of American adults favor laws requiring transgender individuals to compete on the sports teams that align with their assigned sex at birth, and over half of American adults support banning gender-affirming care for minors. However, these numbers have actually increased since 2022. This suggests that there may not be some inherent American opposition to transgender rights. Instead, perhaps the propaganda that Republican lawmakers have pushed surrounding these bills and issues since 2020 has been working. Americans also support transgender individuals’ legal protections from employer and housing discrimination. This aligns with the proposed explanation–Americans still support such discrimination protections because this is not the issue state lawmakers are railing against.

From Decriminalization to Political Stigmatization

If not for public opinion, where and why did this animus originate? Gender diversity is not a new idea. Trans people have always and will always exist, but this decade appears to contain the most political fire they have faced. However, the criminalization of queer identities is not a new phenomenon either. Cross-dressing, in particular, was criminalized under the guise of preventing crime. Theoretically, someone could commit a crime and dress as the opposite gender to evade suspicion. Of course, this use was carried out against queer and gender-nonconforming people, requiring them to wear three pieces of clothing correlating with their gender at all times. These laws were slowly repealed, and a wave of decriminalization of same-sex relations took place in the 2000s, culminating in the passage of Obergefell.

This decriminalization, in a way, may have led to the political stigmatization of transgender individuals. After Obergefell, conservative pundits needed a new target to keep their base engaged. Conservative arguments against transgender protections are similar to the ones against gay marriage: namely, that gender nonconformity is a social phenomenon and that transgender individuals are targeting children to ‘spread’ gender nonconformity. Meanwhile, there has been a shift on the liberal side as well. When North Carolina attempted to pass a restrictive bathroom bill in 2016, national outrage erupted. In 2024, similar outrage was not seen despite 543 bills on this topic being introduced. The 2024 liberal presidential candidate even toned down her support of transgender rights, despite representing the most LGBTQ+-friendly presidential administration yet.

Strategic Framing and Public Manipulation

It seems, then, that the reaction to the North Carolina bill was the exception rather than the rule. Republicans seem to have found their footing with arguments about women’s sports and minors. While bathrooms are more about privacy, the argument that transgender women have an unfair advantage in sports appeals to American individualism, which allows transgender issues to be tied to Republicans' calls for attacks on “wokeism,” using merit as an excuse. Republicans have created the idea of public schools as too “woke” as well, with attacks on Critical Race Theory, so it is similarly easier to convince voters that public schools are also teaching “gender ideology”. These issues serve as gateways for limiting transgender rights. Once the public gets on board with separating transgender individuals in some scenarios, they will be more tolerant of increasingly restrictive legislation, such as bathroom bans. Republicans may have been able to capitalize on outrage from Joe Biden’s election in 2020 to push for restrictive legislation, as seen in other policy areas like voting rights.

Looking Ahead: Trans Rights and the Courts

The good news is that these anti-LGBTQ+ bills seem to be unpopular or largely for show–only about three percent of such bans pass. However, as long as Trump is in the White House, the trans community and their allies have cause for concern. With a president hostile to transgender individuals and a legislative branch controlled by a party that is sympathetic to the president’s desires, the courts may be the last safeguard for restrictions on these civil liberties. The Supreme Court heard a federal challenge to Tennessee’s ban on gender affirming care for minors in October. The release of this decision, likely in the summer, will indicate the degree of solace trans youth can find in the courts.

This article was edited by Alana Khona and Nika Tarkian.

BY SIENNA VAUGHN

Image Credits: danielfela on stock.adobe.com.

Refugee Status

As climate crises, civil war, controlling dictatorships, terrorism, and other ongoing threats continue to force people to become refugees, waves of individuals leave their homes in search of stability and a better life. The United Nations 1951 Convention defines a refugee as a person who is in danger and cannot find safety in their country due to fear of persecution on any of the five protected grounds: race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. In other words, if any part of a fleeing individual’s identity directly threatens their safety in their home country, they are a refugee. Furthermore, a refugee becomes an asylum seeker when they apply for asylum in a new country.

Court Backlog

Unfortunately, the United States faces severe challenges in granting asylum, including a backlog of 1.5 million pending asylum applications due to the overwhelming number of asylum seekers from around the world. In 2023, there were an additional 3.6 million newly registered asylum applications and 6.9 million asylum seekers with pending applications worldwide. This immense backlog has led to increased challenges for hopeful refugees, as host countries accept more asylum seekers than their government can accommodate.

Asylum Acceptance

In the United States, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Department of State, and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) manage the acceptance of asylum seekers. In 2023, there was a 63% increase in the number of people seeking asylum in the United States, reaching over 800,000 applications in just one year. For these 800,000 applicants, there are only 659 immigration judges and 800 asylum officers in the United States. As a result, the government only closed about one-tenth of the cases it received.

Affirmative Asylum

While the U.S. government is struggling to sort through the backlog, the application process is even more difficult on the applicant side. The most common type of application is the affirmative asylum process, which is for refugees who are not scheduled for deportation and are applying for asylum for the first time after arriving in the United States. The first requirement to file for affirmative asylum is active presence in the United States. An individual must file their application within a year of arriving in the United States, unless they have extraordinary circumstances to explain the delay. Considering that there are over 120 million people forcibly displaced around the world, countries have ramped up border security to limit asylum seekers in their country. Thus, this first step of being physically present in the United States is difficult.

Application Process

The second step is physically filling out the asylum application, known as the Form I-589. There are multiple severe obstacles to completing this step. First, many asylum seekers do not have the proper documentation to prove their identity. Specifically, up to 41% of refugees do not have access to travel documents, such as passports or birth certificates. This is due to a number of reasons, including the individual being stateless because they were born in a country that does not have birthright citizenship, the refugee losing their documents during travel, or an individual not having an opportunity to access these documents before they must leave their home country.

Evidentiary Standard

Even if a refugee has proper documentation, they must also provide direct evidence that their safety is in jeopardy on one of the five identity-related grounds mentioned earlier. Law professor, Paulina Vera, explains that some of her clients provide clear evidence of danger, but the courts still deny their access to the United States. For example, a gang member approached one of her Catholic clients, threatening her at gunpoint to help him. The judge ruled that this case did not provide sufficient-enough evidence because the gang member did not directly say that he would kill the client, even though the threat was related to the client’s religious identity. This incredibly high standard for evidence abandons reasonability and makes the process of filing Form I-589 unlikely to succeed.

Access to Counsel

Furthermore, defendants in immigration court do not have the right to government-appointed counsel. While there are many nonprofits that offer pro-bono legal services, these organizations are overwhelmed with enormous caseloads and are oftentimes inaccessible if an asylum seeker does not know where to look. Thus, an asylum seeker must fill out an extensive application, provide valid documentation and evidence, and go through all these steps without any legal guidance or assistance.

Work Visas

While asylum seekers are in the United States awaiting approval, they are not allowed to apply for a work visa for at least 150 days after they file their asylum application. Furthermore, the government cannot grant a work visa until the pending period exceeds 180 days. Refugees typically lose their homes in their native countries and do not have the capacity to bring many resources or belongings with them. Thus, during this time, asylum seekers must work illegally or have enough money to last them months without employment.

Defensive Asylum

When an asylum seeker’s application is rejected, the Department of Homeland Security files a Form I-862—a Notice to Appear (NTA)—against the respondent to begin the process of removing the asylum seeker from the United States. Many asylum seekers remain in the United States illegally if their application is denied. Others, though, begin the defensive asylum application process, an attempt for asylum seekers to remain in the United States after the government has scheduled their removal. This type of application is slightly less successful than the affirmative application process.

Legal Challenges to Asylum Seeking

Furthermore, asylum seekers are not provided with government-appointed legal representation and must navigate U.S. immigration courts on their own, find pro-bono representation, or pay for an immigration lawyer. That being said, only about 66% of asylum seekers are able to hire counsel. If they fail in immigration court, they can appeal or apply for withholding of removal, which allows asylum seekers to delay their removal from the United States; however, this is extremely difficult to attain. As U.S. immigration courts continue to fall behind, it becomes less likely that asylum seekers will be able to live in the United States legally.

BY CHLOE KIM

Image Credits: Bill Chizek on stock.adobe.com.

Roe v. Wade was a historical ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that established the right to an abortion, based on the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of the right to liberty. The Dobbs decision overturned this nearly 50-year precedent, stating that the U.S Constitution does not support the right to abortion as abortion rights were not “deeply rooted” in U.S. history. This decision has been interpreted as a weakening of stare decisis which requires courts to adhere to precedents, especially concerning fundamental rights. The decision asserted that societal dependence on abortion access was insufficient to uphold precedent. The Dobbs’ rejection of stare decisis emboldens political actions that restrict reproductive healthcare. Following this decision, states with abortion bans saw a 24% drop in oral contraceptive prescriptions and a 65% decline in emergency contraceptive fills. The post-Dobbs decision is mirrored beyond the territory of the U.S. The current administration’s freeze on USAID has significantly impacted women’s access to contraceptive care on a global scale with reduced access to clinics and care abroad. Clinic closures like the MSI Reproductive Choices and UNFPA have occurred in 42 countries which cut contraceptive care for 2 million women within weeks. Both Dobbs and the aid freeze impacts women’s healthcare.

The Legal Battle Regarding the Funding Freeze

The Trump Administration issued a “stop-work” order on all USAID on [give date] foreign assistance funding as well as a 90 day pause in United States foreign development assistance for assessment of programmatic efficiencies and consistency with United States foreign policy. This action demanded organizations to cease operations on delivering foreign family planning aid. This led to an immediate impact on the ground in low-income countries, halting reproductive health, HIV, and tuberculosis treatment. On February 13, a US district court judge, Judge Amir Ali, placed a temporary restraining order on the administration’s freeze on foreign assistance. This order kept the administration from canceling contracts regarding USAID, freezing funds or implementing these “stop-work” orders. The ruling was based on the argument that Trump’s freeze likely violated the Constitution as it infringed on Congress’s power to decide how government money is spent. During the appeal, the administration argued that Judge Amir Ali has “overstepped his authority and interfered with the president’s obligations to make appropriate judgements on foreign aid.” In addition the Trump administration indicated logistical issues in immediately disbursing the approximately $1.5 billion in payment requests from USAID. On February 26, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. issued an “administrative stay” which meant that USAID and the State Department did not need to immediately pay for more than $1.5 billion in already completed aid work. An “administrative stay” is an interim measure to preserve the status quo while the Supreme Court justices take time to consider the matter more deliberately. This led to the halt of the immediate release of the $1.5 billion in payments for past foreign aid work. This was noted as the first victory for the Trump administration in legal challenges against the executive actions. Although there was an original 90-day review, the administration has made it clear that the foreign funding freeze is not temporary as the US Agency for International Development (USAID) has been fully dismantled. However, there has not been approval by Congress on the dismantling of USAID as they have continued to appropriate funds for global aid like family planning.

The Trump Administration's Rationale and Legal Defense

There had been several justifications articulated for the freeze on USAID foreign assistance funding. The Trump administration and other top government officials stated that foreign aid is wasteful spending and not aligned with America’s vital interests. The freeze was framed as “a good government measure to ensure that taxpayer money is being spent in accordance with the law and the President’s policies.” Therefore, the pause on spending was presented as an opportunity to review agency programs and determine best uses within the law.

Connecting to the Overturning of Roe v. Wade and Stare Decisis

On January 20, 2025, the Trump Administration made a decision to put a freeze on the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) foreign funding leading to a global domino effect of health clinics shutting down and hindering the supply chain for contraceptive healthcare. This action, which followed the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization that overturned the nearly 50 year precedent set by Roe v. Wade which constitutionally protected abortion, occurred within a shifting legal landscape concerning reproductive rights and the principle of stare decisis, where courts follow precedents established in prior cases. Since 2016, Congress has appropriated $607.5 million every year in foreign aid. This aid, including $32.5 million for the United Nations Population Fund, the UN’s sexual and reproductive health agency, provides assistance for family planning. Approximately 47.6 million women and girls receive access to modern contraceptive care in 2025 through this program. Trump freezing this foreign funding despite prior congressional appropriations for family planning, has led to legal challenges with some arguing that the action exceeded executive authority with projected consequences such as the denial of contraceptive care and its effects.

The Immediate and Potential Impact

The immediate impact of the foreign assistance funding served as a blockage of family planning services. Due to the “stop work” order in January 2025, there was an estimated average of 130,390 women that were denied access to care each day. Within the first week of the freeze, there were an estimated 912,720 women and girls who could not receive contraceptive care. After one month, this estimate had increased to four million. Over the 90 day review period, the estimated number of women and girls who were denied access to care was 11.7 million with 8,340 deaths from complications during pregnancy and childbirth. Regions that were hurt the hardest include Sub-Saharan Africa with countries like Ethiopia, Mali, and Niger who are heavily reliant on USAIF for family planning. Conflict-affected areas may also lose services from clinics that offer reproductive care as well as gender-based violence responses thus increasing risks of maternal complications and gender-based violence. Long-term impacts would depend on whether the pause is temporary or extended, and how quickly services resume.

Conclusion

The Trump administration’s decision in early 2025 to freeze foreign funding had immediate repercussions for global health, particularly regarding access to contraceptive healthcare. This executive action, followed by the dismantling of USAID and the reduction of its workforce disrupted the delivery of services and supply for contraceptives internationally. These actions were framed by the administration as necessary to address wasteful sending and align with President Trump’s policies. However, legal challenges to the administration have been ongoing with the focus surrounding how the executive action infringed on Congress’s power on government money decisions. Ultimately, the legal battles surrounding the freeze underscored a dispute between executive authority over foreign policy and Congress’s constitutional power of the purse, occurring within a domestic post-Dobbs environment where the legal landscape concerning reproductive care has shifted.

This article was edited by Chloe Rose and Abigail Williams.

BY AILEEN MOSELEY

Image Credits: sergign on stock.adobe.com.

Recent comments from President Trump have pitted diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies against the idea of American meritocracy. While DEI initiatives are designed to correct systemic inequalities in education and employment, critics argue that they compromise fairness by prioritizing identity over achievement and merit. Research suggests, however, that meritocracy is not as neutral as it seems, with students from the top 1% of income levels being 77 times more likely to attend an Ivy League school than those from the bottom 20%. This article examines the shortcomings of the perceived meritocratic system and the factual basis for DEI initiatives.

Historical Foundations of Meritocracy

The modern concept of meritocracy emerged in the 20th century as a response to the long-lasting class system and privilege. Meritocracy promises that individuals will succeed based on their talent and effort. However, practices used to determine merit, like standardized test scores, were implemented on the assumption that all students had equal opportunity. This assumption ignored the disparities in wealth, race, and social status. Over time, legacy admissions and hiring through informal networks have exasperated these imbalances, ensuring that the system designed around merit still has inherited advantages.

The Myth of Meritocracy

Meritocracy is celebrated as the idea that talent and hard work determine success. However, data indicates that systemic barriers still exist. For example, legacy admissions at elite universities make a candidate up to 7x more likely to be accepted, showing apparent favoritism for affluent students over equally qualified peers from underrepresented communities. Additionally, studies have found that only 12% of students come from the bottom fifth of the income distribution. In the workplace, informal hiring methods and employee referrals contribute to up to 80% of hired candidates. These findings reveal that what is often labeled as “merit” often reflects pre existing privilege and systemic advantage.

How DEI Challenges Traditional Notions of Merit

To address the longstanding inequalities DEI initiatives work to expand access and ensure fair competition in admissions and hiring. In higher education, outreach, and mentorship programs have been linked to an increase in minority students. In the corporate sector, measures like blind resume screening, have been shown to reduce biases during candidate selection. Furthermore, data suggests that companies with diverse management teams can see a significantly improved performance, supporting the idea that broader talent pools lead to better outcomes. These reforms do not lower standards, rather they redefine “merit” by acknowledging opportunity must be equitable for true talent to emerge.

Case Study: The Affirmative Action Debate

Despite the compelling evidence in favor of DEI, these policies have ignited political backlash. Recent surveys indicate that 52% of Americans are in favor of DEI initiatives, this slim majority has been falling in recent years. This is a direct result of political polarization using DEI as a part of their agenda. A landmark Supreme Court ruling in 2023, which struck down race conscious admissions policies while leaving legacy practices intact has further intensified debates.

The controversy around Affirmative Action is an example of the conflict between DEI and meritocratic ideas. In the 2023 Supreme Court case, the plaintiffs argued that race-based admissions policies actually disadvantaged certain groups, specifically Asian American applicants, but preserved legacy admissions processes that favor economically advantaged students. After the ruling, some institutes experienced an increase in enrollment at historically Black colleges and universities, demonstrating the complex and sometimes unintended consequences of shifting admissions policies. This case illustrates that addressing what is truly “fair” can have wide-ranging impacts, challenging the notion that merit is applied uniformly.

Finding Common Ground: Can Merit and DEI Coexist?

Rather than viewing DEI and meritocracy as mutually exclusive, an integrated approach is widely seen as the ebay solution. One promising strategy calls for shifting DEI from race-based Affirmative Action to socioeconomic based measures, which may address wider inequality. Additionally, funding education reforms, like funding under-resourced schools, will reduce long term inequalities, which would create a more fair merit based system. In the corporate world, increasing hiring and promotion transparency can increase employee trust and create a more diverse workforce. The debate over who “deserves” a seat at the table, and how that seat is earned, is rooted in both historical inequalities and political tensions. As long as legacy practices and systemic barriers persist, efforts for DEI policies will be both needed, and contentious.

This article was edited by Kyle Nguyen and Abigail Williams.

BY ANIKA KANITKAR

Image Credits: Sergey Kohl on stock.adobe.com.

In 2011, the United States formally launched its Strategy on Women, Peace, and Security (WPS), marking a significant milestone in integrating gender perspectives into U.S. foreign policy and security operations. This strategy was developed in response to the global WPS agenda established by the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325, which recognized the disproportionate impact of armed conflict on women and highlighted women's critical role in conflict prevention and resolution. The U.S. WPS strategy represents a convergence of international legal obligations and voluntary commitments that have fundamentally reshaped how the United States approaches security challenges worldwide.

U.S. National Action Plan on WPS

The U.S. National Action Plan (NAP) on Women, Peace, and Security was initially introduced in 2011. It operationalizes the principles outlined in UNSCR 1325. The NAP is structured around four fundamental pillars aligning with the international WPS framework: participation, protection, prevention, and relief/recovery.

The participation pillar aims to increase women’s meaningful involvement in peace processes and decision-making institutions. This reflects the obligations established in UNSCR 1325, which urges member states to “increase representation of women at all decision-making levels in national, regional, and international institutions.” The United States has worked to implement this through diplomatic initiatives that support women’s participation in peace negotiations and political processes in conflict-affected countries.

The protection pillar centers on safeguarding women and girls from gender-based violence during conflicts, aligning with UNSCR 1820 (2008), which explicitly recognizes sexual violence as both a tactic of war and a matter of international security. U.S. policy has incorporated these principles through targeted programs to prevent and respond to gender-based violence in conflict zones.

The prevention pillar addresses the root causes of conflict and violence while recognizing that gender inequality is a driver of instability. This pillar connects to UNSCR 2242 (2015), which emphasizes the need to address the conditions conducive to the spread of violent extremism while considering gendered dimensions.

The relief and recovery pillar focuses on ensuring that women's and girls’ needs, including access to healthcare, education, and economic opportunities in post-conflict settings, are addressed in relief and recovery efforts.

Integration with U.S. Foreign Policy and Security

The United States had progressively integrated WPS principles into its diplomatic, defense, and development policies. The Department of Defense has developed gender-sensitive training programs for military personnel deployed to conflict zones. At the same time, the State Department has incorporated gender analysis into its conflict prevention and resolution strategies.

In 2016, the Women, Peace, and Security Act was signed into law, codifying the U.S. commitment to the WPS agenda and mandating a whole-of-government approach to its implementation. This legislation represents a significant step in institutionalizing WPS principles across U.S. foreign policy and security sectors, requiring regular reporting on progress and establishing WPS as a priority regardless of administration changes.

The United States has taken concrete actions to implement the provisions of this act, particularly when it comes to supporting women’s participation in peace processes. For example, the U.S. supported including women in Colombian peace negotiations, resulting in a gender responsive peace agreement in 2016. Additionally, the U.S. has funded programs to protect women from gender-based violence in conflict zones, such as in the Democratic Republic of Congo and South Sudan.

Subsequent UNSC Resolutions and Their Influence

Following UNSCR 1325, several additional resolutions have expanded and reinforced the WPS agenda, each influencing U.S. policy in distinct ways.

UNSCR 1820 (2008) recognized sexual violence as a tactic of war and a threat to international peace and security. This resolution has informed U.S. approaches to addressing conflict-related sexual violence, including the development of specialized training for military personnel and peacekeepers.

UNSCR 1888 (2009) strengthened the implementation of UNSCR 1820 by establishing leadership, expertise, and other institutional mechanisms. The United States has supported this by funding the Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Sexual Violence in Conflict.

UNSCR 1960 (2010) established monitoring and reporting mechanisms on sexual violence in armed conflict, which the United States has incorporated into its own conflict monitoring systems.

UNSCR 2242 (2015) addressed women’s roles in countering violent extremism and terrorism and improved WPS implementation methods. This has helped shape American counter-terrorism strategies by encouraging the inclusion of women in prevention efforts.

Other International Legal Instruments

Beyond the UNSC resolutions, other international legal frameworks have influenced the U.S. WPS strategy. Although the United States has not ratified the Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), the principles embodied in this convention have nonetheless informed U.S. policy approaches to gender equality in conflict prevention and resolution. Additionally, the U.S. has ratified The Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols, which provide for protection for women during armed conflict. These legal instruments have shaped U.S. military doctrine regarding the treatment of civilians, particularly women and children in conflict zones.

Voluntary Commitments and “Soft Law” in U.S. WPS Strategy

Beyond its obligations under international law, the United States has made numerous voluntary commitments to advance the WPS agenda, including financial support for UN Women and the establishment of the Global Women, Peace, and Security Initiative, which provides funding for programs that support women’s participation in peace processes and protect women in conflict situations. The U.S has also launched bilateral initiatives such as the U.S.-Nordic Women, Peace, and Security Dialogue, which aim to coordinate efforts to advance the WPS agenda globally. These voluntary actions demonstrate the U.S. commitment to global leadership on WPS issues.

“Soft law” refers to non-binding agreements, principles, and norms that shape state behavior despite lacking formal enforcement mechanisms. In the context of WPS, soft law includes declarations, guidelines, and best practices developed through international forums and organizations. The U.S. has embraced these informal frameworks by committing to forums such as the G7, G20, and Community of Democracies. For example, while holding the G7 presidency in 2020, the U.S. supported the adoption of the Women, Peace and Security Partnership Initiative, which promotes collaboration among G7 nations on WPS implementation.

U.S. WPS Strategy in Action
Afghanistan represents a critical case study of the U.S. WPS strategy implementation. Following the 2001 military intervention, the U.S. invested significantly in programs to support Afghan women’s rights and participation in governance. These efforts included funding for girls’ education, women’s healthcare, and economic empowerment programs. The U.S. also advocated for the inclusion of Afghan women in peace negotiations, including the 2020 peace agreement with the Taliban. However, critics have argued that women’s participation remained largely symbolic and that the U.S. ultimately prioritized security and counter-terrorism objectives over women’s rights. The subsequent U.S. withdrawal in 2021 and the Taliban takeover have raised serious questions about the sustainability of U.S. WPS efforts in Afghanistan and highlighted existing tensions between security priorities and gender equality goals.

The United States has also incorporated gendered perspectives into its support for international peacekeeping operations, particularly in regions like the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and South Sudan, where gender-based violence has been widespread. U.S. funding for UN peacekeeping missions has included support for gender advisors and specialized training on preventing sexual exploitation and abuse. Additionally, the U.S. military has developed gender-sensitive approaches to its own operations, including the deployment of Female Engagement Teams in Afghanistan and the integration of gender analysis into operational planning, representing the practical applications of WPS principles in U.S. security operations.

Challenges in Implementing WPS Strategy

Despite significant progress, the implementation of the U.S. WPS strategy has faced numerous challenges, primarily due to each presidential administration having its own priorities and commitment levels. The first Trump administration’s “America First” foreign policy approach resulted in reduced emphasis on multilateral cooperation and human rights issues, affecting WPS implementation. In contrast, the Biden administration reaffirmed the importance of the WPS agenda and integrated it into its broader focus on human rights and democracy. Administrative barriers, including insufficient coordination among government agencies and inadequate training for personnel have also hindered effective implementation. The WPS strategy requires a whole-of-government approach, but bureaucratic silos and competing priorities have sometimes impeded this integration.

Funding for WPS initiatives has also been inconsistent, fluctuating budget allocations based on changing political priorities. Programs supporting women’s participation in peace processes and protection from gender-based violence have been marginalized in favor of more traditional security concerns. Reports from the State Department and USAID have highlighted how shifts in funding priorities have affected WPS implementation, as during periods of budget constraints, gender-focused programs have faced disproportionate cuts compared to other foreign policy priorities.

Conclusion

The U.S. Strategy on Women, Peace, and Security represents a significant commitment to integrating gender perspectives into foreign policy and security operations. Grounded in international legal frameworks, particularly UNSCR 1325 and subsequent resolutions, the strategy has reshaped how the United States approaches conflict prevention, resolution, and post-conflict reconstruction.

While the U.S. has made notable progress in advancing WPS principles through legal commitments and voluntary actions, challenges remain in fully implementing the agenda. Political fluctuations, administrative barriers, and inconsistent funding have all affected the strategy’s impact. Moving forward, sustained political commitment, consistent funding, and improved coordination among government agencies will be essential for implementing the U.S. WPS Strategy. By strengthening its approach to WPS, the United States can enhance its foreign policy's effectiveness and its contributions to global peace and security.

This article was edited by Kyle Nguyen and Abigail Williams.

BY LILIANA TRIVISKI

Image Credits: bbourdages on stock.adobe.com.

Modern-day policing finds its origins in slavery and the policing of African Americans. Since then racial profiling and discrimination in the criminal justice system have been prevalent. In 2020, George Floyd was murdered in Minneapolis, Minnesota by a police officer, after being arrested for purchasing cigarettes with a counterfeit $20 bill at a local grocery store. When officers arrived after the store owner called the police, George Floyd was quickly pinned down by officers and became unconscious. This brutal behavior was primarily executed by white officer Derek Chauvin. His exaggerated response to such a minor crime was taken to be an act of racism and profiling. As a result, the emergence of the civil rights movement took off and attention was brought to the entrenched issues of the criminal justice system.

Historical Background (1600s-1865)

Enslaved Africans were policed and were the earliest forms of organized law enforcement, or “Slave Patrol”. The origins of modern-day policing being rooted in slavery and racism can display where the ingrained roots began. The “Slave Patrol” was created in the 1700s to prevent slave uprisings and rebellions in North and South Carolina. They used violence and control to enforce behavior. The American South relied on enslaved people's labor to continue prosperity through fieldwork. However, increasing slave rebellions would disrupt their goals. During the beginning of the Civil War, they were worried it would increase revolts and rebellions. As a result, they increased their violence and would arrest any enslaved person they saw during the night. After the Civil War, the Slave Patrols ultimately disbanded when President Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, freeing all enslaved people. However, many of the Slave Patrol’s activities inspired the actions of the Klu Klux Klan, a white supremacist hate group, to torment black populations, often with police support. The founding of patrols and policing in the enforcement of slavery and the suppression of black people show through modern-day practices and biases.

Civil Rights Movement (1960-80s)

During the Civil Rights Movement, the 14th Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause were ratified in 1868. This was to ensure equal protection of the Bill of Rights for all Black Americans, while also abolishing Black Codes, laws created to restrict Black people after the abolishment of slavery. However, quickly after, Jim Crow laws were instituted. They were able to legalize racial segregation. In the 1900’s they were often enforced by police and in small governments they created police departments to directly enforce these laws. Brutality and violence were used against Black people who did not follow these laws.

Popular civil rights activists such as Martin Luther King Jr. and the Black Panther Party also emerged at this time. MLK Jr. championed peaceful protests against racial inequality. He inspired action by giving speeches and giving hope to many. The Black Panther Party also encouraged resources for Black Americans created to protect them from police brutality. A series of covert and illegal actions to fight back against these activists began with the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI). The Counterintelligence Program or COINTELPRO, was created. They aimed at surveilling, infiltrating, discrediting, and disrupting American political organizations that the FBI perceived as subversive. This was directly targeting Black Americans and taking down their “radical” activities, even though their acts were constitutional under the 1st amendment. The COINTELPRO wanted to remove the people and groups that inspired retaliation to racism.

COINTELPRO was a direct threat to black Americans and held many similarities with the early Slave Patrols. The FBI being a modern organization meant to enforce the law and major crimes creating a program that is saturated in racism, can be a blatant reason for the continuation of racial profiling in the criminal justice system.

During the 1970s, The War on Drugs also increased the targeting of Latino and Black Communities through Mass Incarceration. Beginning as an anti-narcotics campaign it quickly evolved into a reason for arrests of black and Latino people. In the 1980’s “80% of crack users were African American,” and with Marjiuna often being imported from Mexico, incarcerations of these demographics were inevitable. Many of these anti-drug policies led to people of color being more likely to be stopped and searched for drug possession. The policies led to racial profiling to be much easier, police officers were able to search and arrest with little motive other than possibly drug use and possession.

Modern Day (1990s-Present)

During the modern day, mass incarceration and racial profiling in arrests are prevalent. In 1994, a Crime Bill was passed to create tougher prison sentences and allow states to build more prisons. This caused an increase in mass incarceration. More laws were passed to penalize more crimes and instituted the death penalty for 60 more crimes.

More recently, New York’s Stop-and-Frisk program was found unconstitutional. It originally “allowed police officers to stop, interrogate and search New York City citizens on the sole basis of “reasonable suspicion.””. This violated the 4th amendment, prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures. However, many of the tactics persist today. Black and Latino people make up almost 84 percent of stops by the police. This also contributes to the “Driving while Black” phenomenon. The occurrence of a person of color being pulled over while driving for seemingly no reason. This is mostly an after-effect of the war on drugs, stopping black or Latino drivers from searching their cars for illegal contraband. Expect “An ACLU study of traffic stops along a Maryland freeway showed that police searches uncovered contraband from African-American and white motorists at about the same rate — 28.4% in searches of blacks and 28.8% in searches of whites.” proving the racial profiling to be ineffective (ACLU).

As previously mentioned, George Floyd and other victims of police brutality and racial profiling have increased attention to this issue through the Black Lives Matter movement. The Black Lives Matter movement, founded in 2013 after the acquittal of Trayvon Martin’s killer, gained significant momentum following George Floyd’s murder in 2020. His death, along with countless others, ignited global protests against police brutality and systemic racism. These demonstrations pressured governments and institutions to reassess policing practices, leading to policy discussions on defunding the police and racial bias in law enforcement. Additionally, the movement amplified conversations about broader racial injustices, including disparities in the criminal justice system, economic inequality, and voter suppression, reinforcing the ongoing fight for racial equity and accountability.

Conclusion

Through deeply entrenched roots in slavery and racism, the criminal justice system has fallen to racial profiling. The current actions of the criminal justice system require a re-evaluation, especially after the 2000s and the increase of police brutality targeting black Americans and people of color.

This article was edited by Mila Schultz and Elina Salian.

BY SAMEEKSHA ARUTLA

Image Credits: JHVEPhoto on stock.adobe.com..

Since its founding, the United States has been a global hotspot for immigrants. Each year, the flow of immigrants into the country reaches a new record high, emphasizing the increased need for comprehensive immigration protocols. With the rise and fall of presidential administrations, immigration policies have fluctuated over the years, with some presidents instituting liberal reform while others have pursued conservative ideas. Immigration policy, whether in a physical or legislative form, has direct effects on both the existing population of the United States and incoming immigrants hoping to become legal residents.

Historical Background of Immigration Policy in the United States

Following the marked independence of the American colonies from Britain in 1776, settlers from around the world sought to find a home in the newly liberated United States of America. One of the first major pieces of immigration policy, the Naturalization Act of 1790, allowed free whites in the United States who had maintained residence for two years or longer to apply for citizenship. Prior to this point, only property-owning white males could become citizens; this change largely expanded the population of those who could gain rights to life, liberty, and property in the newly established nation. After the War of 1812, the resulting peace enabled major waves of Irish and German immigration to North America. This was largely driven by domestic unrest and the desire for new lives and citizenship across the sea. The massive influx of immigrants provoked anti-immigration movements in 1849, leading to the creation of the Know-Nothing Party, a nativist political movement that spoke out against immigrants and called for more aggressive citizenship requirements. Elsewhere, on a broader level, jurisdiction over the determination of immigration law officially passed from state legislatures to the federal government in 1875, marking the beginning of a continued debate over where and by who immigration laws should be approved.

With the rapid inflow of migrants came deliberation over which should be welcomed and which were to be turned away. In 1882, Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, definitively refusing entry into the United States for all Chinese immigrants for ten years. Despite the knowledge that Chinese immigrants provided an important source of labor in the eyes of politicians and landowners, white workers blamed the new population for lower wages. The Act prevented state and federal courts from granting citizenship to Chinese applicants and was largely motivated by rising xenophobia that had made its way into judicial proceedings. Following this trend, the Immigration Act of 1891 created the first official federal office of immigration in the United States; however, despite its pro-immigration qualities, the Act also expanded the list of “excludable classes” to be denied citizenship upon arrival. Nevertheless, immigration to the United States reached its first momentous peak in 1907, with 1.3 million migrants passing through Ellis Island on their journey to settlement. As the rate of immigrant flows into the country increased, Congress passed the Immigration Act of 1917 and the Immigration Act of 1924; the former forbade immigration from many Asian countries and called for a literacy requirement for all immigrants, whereas the latter created nationality quotas to funnel the number of immigrants permitted to enter the country. The Immigration Act of 1924 favored immigrants from European countries, with Great Britain, Ireland, and Germany making up 70% of those admitted into the United States. Additionally, in 1924, the government established the United States Border Patrol, designed to secure the Mexican and Canadian borders primarily from Asian immigrants who were no longer permitted to enter the United States legally. These initial laws formed a basis for future United States immigration policy, which would prove to become much more complex in the face of increasing immigration-related challenges.

Immigration Unlocked

Despite the aforementioned restrictive measures, between 1924 and 1942, there was a notable shift towards inclusive policies and the easing of restrictions on immigration into the United States. For example, the Bracero Program in 1942 responded to WWII labor shortages by hiring Mexican agricultural workers to pursue temporary work in the United States, expanding opportunities for Mexican migrants hoping to enter the country. The implementation of the first official United States refugee resettlement program in 1948 allowed easier access to Europeans seeking permanent residence abroad after the devastating events of WWII; similarly, the McCarran-Walter Act of 1952 expanded the right to enter the United States to Asian populations which had previously been barred from entry. These loosened restrictions would prove to be particularly relevant in the years of the Cold War, during which the United States would accept over three million refugees, primarily from the Soviet bloc. In 1965, the federal government officially terminated the quota system, choosing to prioritize family reunification and the acceptance of skilled immigrants into the American workforce. Reagan’s Simpson-Mazzoli Act of 1986 further expanded opportunities for foreigners in the United States, granting amnesty to over three million illegal residents who had not entered with sufficient paperwork. These pro-immigrant reforms, however, faced a significant wall in 2001 when the United States faced one of the worst crises on American soil in its history.

2001 and Modern Policies

Many sought to blame immigrants and foreign nationals for the attacks of September 11th, 2001, creating tension between several populations in the United States. Facing a frightened population looking for safety from future attacks, Congress under President George W. Bush implemented the Homeland Security Act, creating the Department of Homeland Security and the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, today known as ICE. Though ICE remains a relevant agency today, fears over immigration settled under the Obama administration, leading to milder policies. President Barack Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, often abbreviated to DACA, provided protection measures for children who were illegally brought to the United States; however, the program did not create a path to citizenship for many illegal inhabitants of the country.

Positive news for immigrants faltered under the following Trump presidency, with a general trend of increased deportation, stricter restrictions on who could apply for asylum, and the deterioration of federal measures intended to assist immigrants in the United States. For instance, in July 2017, ICE ended the Family Case Management Program, making it more difficult for migrants to access legal services for resettlement. The administration’s agreements with Central American nations and implementation of Title 42 meant that immigrants could be expelled without full screening of their asylum case; in the event that their country of origin was not safe to return to, asylum seekers from Central and South America were rerouted to nations such as Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador. Deportations increased with immigration judges being required to try 700 cases per year, leading to mishaps and the lack of time for full screenings. In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic led to the indefinite closure of the United States’ southern border to all new immigrants, in defiance of international law. Many immigration reforms under the first Trump administration were challenged by independent law associations and civil groups; for example, PJES v. Wolf succeeded in halting the constant expulsion of children on the southern border. However, many conservative policies remained in place, persevering through the Biden administration and strengthening under the current presidency.

The Biden administration’s immigration policies marked a shift away from conservative reforms, raising immigration numbers and offering more naturalization and citizenship opportunities for recently arrived immigrants. Additionally, cooperation with foreign governments made immigration flows and protocols smoother, opening new venues for immigrants, particularly at the southern border. One of the most notable Biden-era immigration policies was the implementation of the CBP One app, which quickly became known as a breakthrough solution providing immigrants with numerous resources to plan out their journeys, ensure legal entry, and communicate with immigration enforcement officials. However, despite the reforms, Biden-era deportations rivaled those of the first Trump presidency, with the most pressure felt at the southern border, resulting in the flow of migrants from the south to large cities in the northern United States. Similarly, recent wars in Afghanistan and Ukraine led to a dramatic increase in the number of refugees entering the United States. These increased migrant flows were accompanied by a surge in legal immigration which burdened immigration courts and drained funds from immigration programs. Finally, immigration policy under the Biden administration was defined by a disconnect between state wishes and national policy regarding the new influx of immigrants; for example, US v. Texas solidified the executive branch’s ability to dictate immigration enforcement policy without challenges from the states.

Current Policy and Future Implications

Donald Trump’s reelection in 2024 provided a marked deviation from liberal immigration policies. Characterized by the declaration of a national emergency at the southern border and a dramatic increase in deportations, the new administration has implemented decreases in refugee resettlement initiatives and humanitarian action, restrictions on citizenship and Temporary Protected Status, and agreements with third-world countries to relocate asylum seekers. Many recent executive orders related to immigration and naturalization, such as the administration’s attempt to end birthright citizenship, have been blocked or delayed by federal judges, raising questions over the power of the executive branch in dictating immigration policy. When comparing potential immigration reforms to those implemented during the last Trump term, many believe that any new legislation passed will be strongly anti-immigrant, with higher restrictions and more standards for compliance.

As migrants and the world prepare for the potential consequences of a second Trump administration, it is important to keep in mind not only the consistencies in American immigration policy through presidencies, but also the major differences. Democrat governments, such as under Obama and Biden, tend to pursue more liberal immigration policies with a focus on creating pathways to citizenship, whereas Republican governments, such as under Bush and Trump, focus on secure borders and removal of illegal residents of the United States. However, despite these variations, tensions brought on by rapidly multiplying immigrant flows, particularly in the southern states, have resulted in a roughly equal number of deportations during both the Biden era and Trump’s first term as president. Moving forward, the United States has several issues to contend with regarding immigration, including the balance between federal and state legislative power, an overflow of migrants across the southern border, and advancement of asylum programs to ensure the legality of new residents. It is by researching and implementing adequate solutions to these issues that the United States can maintain its historical role as the melting pot of global society.

This article was edited by Afreen Ahmad and Elina Salian.

BY SAMEEKSHA ARUTLA

Image Credits: @dulceylima Unsplash (Unsplash License)

For centuries, colonizers in North America have suppressed the indigenous population with biased laws and power grabs. Major European powers, including the French, British, and Spanish, arrived in the New World seeking land, resources, and a larger sphere of influence. In their pursuits, they displaced dozens of Native American tribes and forced others to adapt to colonial laws and discriminatory policies. Though new initiatives are being instituted to address historical errors, they are hardly sufficient to ensure the sovereignty and self-determination of Native Americans. Erasure of indigenous culture, limited healthcare access, and a lack of tribal recognition are only a few of the issues that plague the United States’ indigenous populations today.

Historical Background

The suppression of Native Americans most notably began with Christopher Columbus’ colonial arrival in the Americas in 1492. Newly arrived colonizers, in the search for a place to settle, began to displace the Native Americans, launching a series of conflicts between the original owners of the land and the new white settlers that would continue for centuries. Many colonizers followed Columbus’ example of enslaving Native Americans upon arrival and using them for forced labor, exacerbating the issue. As French, Spanish, and British forces arrived in North America in the coming years, increasing colonial involvement in land affairs, tensions rose and Native Americans were further suppressed and used for colonial objectives. One of the first major pushbacks against colonization came to fruition in the French and Indian War, in which French and Native American forces came into direct conflict with British colonizers and the Iroquois Confederacy. This period was followed by the Seven Years’ War, which not only involved a number of European powers warring in mainland Europe, but also pitted French and British forces against each other for control of North America and the Native American population. Both wars, and the hundreds of following conflicts, revolved around colonial territorial claims, despite the heavy involvement of Native American forces. By the end of the 19th century, over four million Native Americans had been killed across the continent due to colonial wars.

In 1785, the Treaty of Hopewell was signed. Negotiated between United States federal officials and tribal leaders of the Cherokee lands, the agreement established clear borders for the tribe and promised that they would be respected by incoming settlers. Though this treaty claimed to protect the Cherokee population in the United States, white settlers continued to move into Cherokee territory, creating conflict that led to repeated violations of Cherokee sovereignty. The Cherokee later gave up their right to all land outside set borders through the Treaty of Holston, further harming Native American sovereignty over their historical lands. Around the same time, the Cherokee nation became involved in Worcester v. Georgia (1832), a major Supreme Court case that not only defined the limits of colonial control over Native American nations, but also proved the United States government’s penchant to ignore those limits. The case, primarily debated between missionaries in favor of Cherokee sovereignty and the state of Georgia, was decided under Justice John Marshall and sided with Worcester, stating that the Cherokee nation was entitled to its land and legislative sovereignty and therefore was not held under any obligation to obey the laws of Georgia.

Despite the outcome of this case, Marshall’s sentiments on Native American sovereignty did not align with those of then president Andrew Jackson. A strong proponent of native relocation, President Jackson signed into law the Indian Removal Act and displaced the Native Americans into lands west of the Mississippi, which were largely viewed as “undesirable” to the colonizers. The series of treaties that followed, opposed by almost every indigenous nation, were ratified nonetheless by the Senate and effectively sealed the federal government’s right to evict countless Native American tribes from their historical territories.

When the Cherokee nation and other Native American groups refused to relocate, they were forcibly marched westward, losing thousands of lives to disease, malnutrition, and frostbite in an event that later became known as the “Trail of Tears.” Relocation during this time period led to the deaths of over a quarter of the Cherokee population and forcible displacement by the United States government of over 100,000 Native Americans in total. Following this pattern of repression, Congress passed the Indian Appropriations Act in 1851, preventing Native Americans from leaving their reservations without permission.

The act restricted several integral components of Native American culture, challenging historical customs of hunting and fishing for subsistence and severely limiting free communication outside of reservations. Though the government provided food rations to several tribes as compensation, Native American sovereignty continued to face disrespect at the hands of colonizers. Many historians view this move by the United States government as a deliberate attempt to curb the autonomy of Native American populations and force assimilation into American society and culture.

A Positive Change

The roaring 20s brought a notable shift in accommodation for the United States’ Native American population. In 1924, Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act, granting citizenship to Native Americans born in the United States and consequently allowing for greater indigenous mobility within society, after decades of restriction. The Indian Reorganization Act followed in 1934 and restored several sovereign rights to tribes in favor of tribal autonomy, highlighting a clear attempt by the federal government to remedy the mistakes of the past. President Lyndon Johnson’s Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968 provided rights similar to those found under the Constitution to Native Americans, including freedom of religion and speech. This series of laws reflected a growing trend in the 20th century for Native American sovereignty, which has persisted in modern legislative debate.

Pros of Modern Policy

The Department of Justice’s Sovereignty Policy serves as a guide for Native American self-determination and sovereignty today. It calls for federal consultation with tribal leaders before crafting legislation that would affect Native Americans and contains several clauses protecting Native American culture and religion, on top of other sovereignty protection measures. Additional positive news for Native American populations developed with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, formally approved by President Barack Obama in 2010. This agreement granted unprecedented levels of sovereignty to indigenous populations around the world, including protections against military intervention on native lands, inalienable rights to education and employment, and distinct political structures for tribal nations.

Cons of Modern Policy

However, despite the many positive reforms, it is estimated that dozens of tribes remain to be federally recognized, including Native Hawaiians and other Pacific Islanders. Federal recognition is critical in order for tribes to secure funding for key infrastructure. Several years ago, unrecognized tribes such as the Chinook Indian Nation in Washington were not granted sufficient vaccines or testing supplies for the COVID-19 pandemic. On the other hand, federally recognized tribes are able to build up healthcare infrastructure, ensure food security for their population, and are better equipped to support their communities through federal grants and loans.

Furthermore, tribal culture continues to face challenges recovering from the repressive policies of the past. For example, the Trail of Tears is speculated to have erased crucial Native American culture due to the thousands of deaths and the sheer scale of displacement, preventing ancient religious and cultural practices from effectively passing down through future generations. Native American culture also suffered from “assimilation schools” of the past, which attempted to convert indigenous children to Christianity and teach them Caucasian values to blend in with colonizers. Such a policy promoted detachment from tribal customs in favor of an Americanized way of life, aggravating the rapid decline in Native American cultural sovereignty.

Native American populations in the United States must also navigate a privatized healthcare system largely designed in favor of those who can afford life-saving care, rather than one that ensures equitable access for all. Federal actions implemented by the Indian Health Service fail to properly remedy the disparity between Native American healthcare access and that of the majority White population of the United States. Today, Native Americans suffer from higher rates of preventable illness and experience a lower life expectancy than most other ethnic groups in the United States. A lack of federal investment into tribal healthcare initiatives continues to act as the key contributor to inequitable healthcare for this population. As concluded by the National Congress of American Indians, the federal government would need to double or even triple the current amount of spending on native healthcare to entirely close the gap between Native Americans and more privileged populations in the United States.

Upcoming Years

The conservative shift, a political phenomenon occurring in both the United States and several other democratic nations around the world, further exacerbates primary issues for America’s indigenous peoples and raises concerns regarding the priorities of the United States government. In 2024, voters engaged in general elections for over sixty countries worldwide, with the results showcasing a preference for conservative economic policies and renewed support for right-wing populism. Donald Trump’s win in the United States is likely to be detrimental for Native Americans, largely based on an examination of policies from his previous presidency. A key component of Native American sovereignty that may be affected is ownership over their ancestral land and resources. Trump has proven to be a strong advocate for oil and gas pipelines, supporting the accelerated construction of both the Dakota Access and Keystone XL pipelines in the years following his 2016 victory, both of which cut through Native American lands and polluted natural resources in the area. Furthermore, Native American concerns regarding access to healthcare are likely to be dismissed in upcoming years. Several politicians and analysts have concluded that Trump will seek to privatize Medicare, America’s largest federal healthcare program. Such a change would make the cost of healthcare more expensive, disproportionately affecting minority populations, such as Native Americans, who are already suffering from limited access to life-saving care and often live in higher rates of poverty than other ethnic groups.

As the United States navigates an increasingly challenging political and economic landscape, the federal government must continue to work to address the asymmetric impacts of key issues on Native Americans. By involving Native American leaders in policy making and ensuring their equal input in all legislative decisions, the country can work towards a more equitable system. However, debates such as the Native American healthcare crisis, stemming from a much deeper history of socioeconomic discrimination, may require a more comprehensive, structural solution. It is crucial that the government continues to examine larger patterns of inequality when dictating Native American policy in the United States. Overall, though America’s historical approach to accommodating its native populations has seen its mountains and valleys, there still remains much work to be done to ensure an equitable future.

This article was edited by Afreen Ahmad and Elina Salian.