The Roundtable
Welcome to the Roundtable, a forum for incisive commentary and analysis
on cases and developments in law and the legal system.
on cases and developments in law and the legal system.
 By Emma Davies
Emma Davies is a freshman in the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Pennsylvania In recent months, political discourse has turned its gaze towards the US-Mexico southern border in response to developing plans to build a wall, to the separation of migrant children from their families, to murmurs that caravans of migrants are trying to enter the country and to the supposed influx of illegal immigrants. The judicial system plays an dynamic role in responding to these various concerns, both realized and hypothetical. Particularly, the judicial system of immigration courts acts as a flawed and bogged-down means of addressing the legal rights and limitations of the many actors involved in border crossing [1].
0 Comments
 By Ishita Chakrabarty
Ishita Chakrabarty is in the fourth year of her undergraduate study (BA LL.B (Hons.)) at Hidayatullah National Law University, India. Back in the year 2007, Iraqi migrant families had been reportedly leaving Egypt en masse because of severe poverty arising from the government’s denial of their right to work [1]. Over the past couple of months, the Trump Administration’s “zero tolerance” refugee policy has drawn a lot of flak from lawmakers inside and outside the country, press and human rights activists [2]. Apart from the fact that refugees cannot be subjected to criminal prosecution and penalties simply because they happened to cross over illegally, the administration’s separation of children from their parents, even on the pretext of procedural necessities, serves an ulterior purpose of deterring migrants from seeking refugee status. Elsewhere in Asia, the slow-moving registration policies towards the Rohingyas staying in makeshift camps, without adequate living conditions, have exacerbated their vulnerabilities [3]. These are all tactics that shroud ‘refoulement’ as mere ‘repatriation’.  By Lydia Kim
Lydia Kim is a junior at the University of Pennsylvania studying Economics and Cognitive Science. Any entertainment industry is highly visible—if not ostentatious —and for South Korea, music has become one of its largest exports as an over $5 billion industry [1]. Largely made up of “idol groups” comprising of young acts that perform as a unit, South Korea (and more recently, the world at large ) looks to Korean pop culture (K-pop) and these glamorous celebrities to set trends, push consumer innovation, and represent sociocultural norms. CedarBough Saeji, an expert in Korean culture at the University of British Columbia, states that for K-pop stars, “their every public moment is a product to be consumed as representative of the nation, representative of ideal behavior, and representative of performative talent." Many large Korean music management companies are also publicly traded stocks, so this close-knit link between the economy and entertainment makes for a symbiotic relationship. As a result, "scandals involving drinking, drugs or even dating not only make waves in the entertainment news section but also the finance news section” [2]. In early March, however, one scandal created ripples beyond the entertainment and finance sections. South Korea doubled over as it became embroiled in one of the largest scandals in quite some time : colloquially, the K-pop Prostitution Investigation.  By Arabang Dingalo Arabang Dingalo is a sophomore at the Wharton School studying Business Economics and Public Policy. In this day and technology age, there are growing concerns from nations worldwide on the possible abuse of citizens’ personal data and privacy, and South Africa is no exception. This growing concern prompted the then president of South Africa, Jacob Zuma, to sign the Protection of Personal Information Act (POPIA) into being in 2013 [1] and it has finally come into effect in December 2018. POPIA was greatly molded around Europe’s General Data Privacy Protection (GDPR) Act and despite the GDPR having made extensive adjustments since its conception, POPIA has stayed stagnant and failed to adapt to some critical points of the GDPR changes. One pivotal change is the law surrounding Scientific Research. Article 9(2)(j) of the GDPR allows for processing of genetic data as part of a special category of data if ‘processing is necessary for archiving purposes in the public interest, scientific or historical research purposes or statistical purposes,’ [2]. The POPIA has failed to make this adjustments and there are growing concerns from the South African scientific community about the implication this will have on what is today, the hub of African research.  By Connor Gallagher
Connor Gallagher is a junior in the School of Engineering and Applied Science studying chemical and biomolecular engineering. The most recent editions of the University of Pennsylvania Law Review have articles on class action lawsuits, intellectual property, and bankruptcy law––topics you would expect to encounter in a law review. In the middle of an 1897 Harvard Law Review article, future Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes found himself discussing…dragons.  By Grace Lee
Grace Lee is a sophomore in the College of Arts and Sciences. Lyft, the second largest rideshare service in the U.S., pulled ahead of its long-time competitor Uber by being the first of its kind to go public on Friday, March 29th, 2019. The future looks promising for investors, as the company ended its first day with a market valuation of $22.2 billion [1]. However, amidst all the hurrah of the trading comes complications with regulators, and there are a number of legal risks associated with Lyft going public. This is expected with decoupling – when a new technology disrupts an existing industry, in Lyft’s case, the public transportation and taxi service industry [2]. These risks were noted in Lyft’s filing to the Securities and Exchange Commission while registering for its initial public offering [3].  By Kelly Liang
Kelly Liang is a Sophomore studying Mathematics and Political Theory in the College of Arts and Sciences. Lex est quod populus iubet atque constituit - The law is what the people have agreed to and established [1]. This quote of Gaius, a celebrated Roman jurist, describes the source of power of laws, and can be further extended to understand the relation among the People (also the Citizens or the Nationals), the Law, and the State. A further dissection of the quote would lead us to the natural conclusion of a power circuit that works like the children’s game “Paper, Scissors, Rock”: 1) The People gives power to the Law by consents; 2) The Law constructs the State and gives the State power - especially in the case of constitutional government; and finally, 3) the State can use the power to govern the people and execute the Law.  By Anna Schwartz
Anna Schwartz is a sophomore at the University of Pennsylvania studying Political Science, French, and Economic Policy. The purpose of the WTO is to promote fair, efficient, and free global trade. At the heart of the WTO is its Appellate Body (AB), which resolves conflict between member states through processes of appeals and dispute settlement. Seven members serve on the AB with four year terms that are renewable once. The judges are balanced to reflect a range of nationalities, but do not act on behalf of their countries. Rather, they are experts in international trade who are chosen to temporarily speak for the WTO [1]. Through the reduction of the AB and threats of noncompliance with WTO decisions, President Donald Trump is executing a multi-pronged attack on the global trade system.  By Kaitlyn Rentala
Kaitlyn Rentala is a freshman at the University of Pennsylvania studying Philosophy, Politics, and Economics in the College of Arts and Sciences. “If I could choose an amendment to add to the Constitution, it would be the Equal Rights Amendment. I think we have achieved that through legislation, but legislation can be repealed, it can be altered. So I would like my granddaughters, when they pick up the Constitution, to see that notion – that women and men are persons of equal stature – I’d like them to see that is a basic principle of our society.” - Ruth Bader Ginsburg The history of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) has been a long and tumultuous one. Despite the widespread media attention the ERA received in the 1970s, itis widely misunderstood today. Shockingly, 80% of Americans, including many lawyers, believe the ERA is a constitutional amendment while in fact it was never ratified. [1] This also begs the question, why wasn’t the ERA ratified? With nearly two-thirds of Americans supporting the amendment, the ERA clearly holds the same cultural relevance today as it did over 40 years ago. [2] However, with the recent ratification of the ERA by Nevada and Illinois, perhaps the more pertinent question is what does the future hold for the ERA?  By Cole Borlee
Cole Borlee is a freshman in the College of Arts and Sciences One of the most notable examples of President Trump being sued is the travel ban that was first put into place in early 2017. The lawsuits poured in immediately following the executive order that instituted the travel ban. And while injunctions were granted right away, there existed a serious question among experts on whether the courts could even consider arguments against the order. This is called justiciability; that is, the ability of a court to actually hear and consider a case [1; 2]. |
