By Hannah Steinberg
​
In our visually expressive world, logos, symbols, and designs are often the governing force in an identification of a person, brand, or place. These trademarks often function as the key to success for companies and individuals as it allows for an increase in profitability and fame. The laws of intellectual property govern the protection and regulation of such trademarks, primarily using the Lanham Act, established by Congress in 1946.

By Khlood Awan

Native American communities have long been marginalized by U.S. legislation. The Indian Removal Act of 1830, signed into law by Andrew Jackson, forcibly displaced thousands of Native Americans from their homes and sacred lands, leading to immense suffering and loss of life. [1] This removal led to the erasure of Native American cultural identity among many tribes, as much of their identity is connected to the land Indigenous communities reside on through deeply rooted spiritual and ancestral ties. The Dawes Act of 1887 compounded this suffering by allowing the Federal Government to divide tribal lands and sell portions of it to non-Native Americans. Although the Act was eventually repealed, the fragmentation of Native lands remains an enduring issue. The devastating impacts of the Indian Removal Act and the Dawes Act continue to have negative effects on the Indigenous communities. Since the 18th century, Native American tribes have waged ongoing legal battles to reclaim unrestricted access to their ancestral territories. While some tribes have secured access to reservations, they continue to face significant challenges and systemic inequities.

Written by Henessis Umacata

The opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions of the designated authors and do not reflect the opinions or views of the Penn Undergraduate Law Journal, our staff, or our clients.

How can one’s name be used to violate individual constitutional rights?

Since 2003, the United States has implemented a “No Fly” list policy which indefinitely bans U.S citizens and residents from flying to and from particular destinations. While it was originally created to prevent potentially threatening individuals from boarding commercial flights, the guidelines have received scrutiny for allowing discriminatory offenses.

Written by Nicole Patel

The American Dream—once a catalyst of hope, illuminating the path for possibility— has now become increasingly elusive for individuals, especially those ensnared by an inequitable justice system. And while the essence of the dream has not changed, its definition has. Individuals still believe in the core idea of achieving success and prosperity, but the way individuals experience it is different because of inequalities that have formed wedges. The shifting nature of the U.S—particularly the emphasis on a punishment system— has pushed the nation to obtain the highest incarceration rate of any independent democracy [1]. In a world where empathy has been replaced by a motivation to punish rather than reform, the very foundation of the American Dream seems to crumble under the weight of systemic inequality.

Written by Ella Jewell

Laws all have the same end: Enforce justice and support a well-run society. However, in the field of international and comparative law, we find that sets of laws come in hierarchy: the United States takes precedence, western European countries’ are a close second, and laws in developed Asian nations are sub-par. This article stands to detail the history of this view- which is called legal orientalism- and critique it, as well as explain why it is harmful and what the western world can learn from Asian legal systems.

Written by Arshiya Pant, Edited by Shrey Raju

The American legal system has long attempted to navigate the contentious issues of campaign finance. From the first-ever federal limitations on campaign finance set forth by the 1907 Tillman Act to the creation of the Federal Election Commission to oversee individual, corporate, and political groups’ contributions, the flow of money in an electoral democracy has always been a precarious issue demanding legal attention. [1] Despite guardrails, many individuals, organizations, and corporations in American history have challenged campaign finance and corruption laws written to preserve electoral and political integrity. Cases involving potential violations typically see similar issues: enormous donations, lack of transparency, non-compliance with reporting regulations, and more. However, this election cycle, tech billionaire Elon Musk has challenged election and campaign finance laws in a truly unprecedented way. By instituting a $1 million prize giveaway for registered voters who sign the entrepreneur’s America Political Action Committee (PAC) petition, Musk has jolted several private and public parties into legal action against him. 

Anonymous Submission, Edited by Yoonjung Choi

While autism accounts for merely 1% of the population at large, about 60% of autistic adults maintain part- or full-time employment [1]. Unfortunately, many face discrimination on the job and in the hiring process due to their differences. 
​
​A recent case of this discrimination was recently won by plaintiff Cardone of New Jersey against JDKD Enterprises, a restaurant franchise ownership group, after being fired purely on the grounds of his autism diagnosis after he had worked as a line cook for 37 years with excellent performance at that location. When new owners took charge of the restaurant in 2018, they quickly terminated Cardone upon finding out about his condition. It is noted in the case that his vocal modulation and volume were part of his firing criteria, however, it is consensus across the field of psychology that autism often is associated with difficulty in communicating, whether it be in vocal difficulties or gesture production. After a long legal battle, Cardone is receiving $100,000 in compensation and the JDKD Enterprises will be made to undertake staff training in reasonable accommodations and implicit bias reduction provided by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) [2].