By Meaghan Geatens, Vol. 64, Staff Writer As states have cracked-down on driving under the influence charges, more than a few legal issues have arisen. One such issue is the use of chemical testing, such as blood or breath tests, at traffic stops. Consistent with emerging case law from the U.S. Supreme Court, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania recently ruled that an enhanced sentence imposed for refusing a blood test was unconstitutional. See Commonwealth v. Monarch, 200 A.3d 51 (Pa. 2019).  The court further ruled that new caselaw from the U.S. Supreme Court, declaring enhanced sentencing for refusal of blood testing unconstitutional, should be retroactively applied because theRead More →

By Emily S. Bley, Staff Writer, Vol. 64 Transgender people face discrimination almost ubiquitously in our society. They encounter bias and oppression in their places of work, in the military, in schools, in their access to healthcare, and also in prison. As issues that affect transgender communities gain more visibility, those issues continue to affect incarcerated transgender individuals to an almost heightened degree. In Lamb v. Norwood, 899 F.3d 1159 (10th Cir. 2018), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed whether current prison healthcare policies for incarcerated transgender people violate the Eighth Amendment. In an opinion by Judge Bacharach, the court held that refusingRead More →

By Emily S. Bley Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 (Title IX) has been a lightning rod for controversy since it first emerged decades ago as a means for women to enter the world of college sports. The Act has significantly evolved from its origins in the athletic realm; today, Title IX is arguably better known for the protection it provides to sexual assault survivors than the equality it establishes in university locker rooms. Though instances of sexual misconduct are no more frequent in our contemporary society than at the time of Title IX’s passage, the issue of sexual misconduct has certainlyRead More →

By: Jonathan T. Rutter, Staff Writer Vol. 64 A perennial problem in American jurisprudence is the question of how the law should respond to the ever-advancing progress of science and technology. In arguing that the Fourth Amendment should apply to the monitoring of telephone calls, Justice Brandeis once explained that the Constitution’s provisions “guaranteeing to the individual protection against specific abuses of power, must have a . . . capacity of adaptation to a changing world,” because “[d]iscovery and invention have made it possible for the government, by means far more effective than stretching upon the rack, to obtain disclosure in court of what is whisperedRead More →

By: Christopher Molony, Staff Writer, Vol. 64. “The policy may be debatable but the law is clear . . . .” Epic Systems Corp v. Lewis, 138 S.Ct. 1612 (2018).  This phrase was the opening and closing statement in the Supreme Court case Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis.  The question that gave rise to this statement was an apparent conflict between the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) of 1935 protection of concerted activity and the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) requirement of enforcing employment contracts containing individualized arbitration agreements.  See id. at 1619.  This question of apparently conflicting federal statutes was first presented in the Seventh, Ninth, and Fifth Circuit courtsRead More →