By Shannon Alvino
Shannon Alvino is a junior at The George Washington University studying Political Science and Criminal Justice.
Enigmatic personalities have long occupied the nine seats before the regal red curtain, from the “savagely sarcastic” Justice James McReynolds who physically turned his back on women arguing before the Court and used a servant in lieu of a bird dog while hunting  to the RV-piloting, stare decisis-shirking “nut,” Justice Clarence Thomas.  No justice, however, has confounded the executive branch, his colleagues, and the public more than Justice David Hackett Souter, the infamous Republican apostate.
By Tanner Bowen
Tanner Bowen is a junior at the University of Pennsylvania studying business.
It is well known that the private sector has thoroughly employed machine learning algorithms into their products in order to gain a competitive edge in the market place. This can be seen from Google’s attempt at creating a self-driving car to high frequency traders in the financial sector. One sector that we might not think about when it comes to machine learning is the government. Often criticized for layers of red tape and inefficiency, expansion of machine learning into the public sector might seem like a natural extension of these technological advances. But is this legal?
There seems to be four potential concerns of using machine learning of which regulators will have to be cautious if they decide to adopt these algorithms into the administrative framework. In particular, these topics include: nondelegation, due process, anti-discrimination, and transparency. We will quickly touch upon each of these legal issues and highlight the relevant case law and legal theory where applicable in a series of blog posts. This blog post will focus on nondelegation.
By Sanjay Dureseti
Sanjay Dureseti is a sophomore at the University of Pennsylvania and an associate editor of the Penn Undergraduate Law Journal.
Amidst a flurry of high-profile executive actions and bitter confirmation hearings that headlined the first weeks of his presidency, Donald Trump proposed filling the most politically charged Supreme Court vacancy in decades with a decidedly uncontroversial figure. Mr. Trump nominated Neil M. Gorsuch, a George W. Bush appointee who currently serves on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, to occupy the seat left open by the death of Antonin Scalia in February 2016. While Democrats, still seething over the obstructionist tactics employed by Republicans in preventing the confirmation of Merrick Garland, will likely seek political retribution by protracting Gorsuch’s confirmation, the judge has established himself as a natural heir to Scalia’s jurisprudential philosophy.
To properly understand the eventual impact that Gorsuch’s appointment will have on the Court’s decisions, it is first necessary to evaluate his predecessor’s role on the bench. Scalia was a staunch originalist and textualist, meaning that he interpreted the Constitution narrowly and did not presume to grasp the social or political intentions of the Framers in establishing certain clauses. As a result, Scalia often railed against the notion of unenumerated rights, the expansion of federal power, and the encroachment of the central government on state actions.
By Habib Olapade
Habib Olapade is a first-year law student at Yale University.
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure often lag behind technological developments. This gap is particularly acute in the case of Rule 4, which, among other things, regulates how plaintiffs may serve domestic and international defendants with orders to appear before a federal court. 
Under Rule 4, domestic parties may only be served in person, through an individual living in their housing unit, or through an agent. Foreign parties, on the other hand, may be served in any manner that complies with constitutional due process requirements and other requirements in Rule 4. Under the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause, notice must be “reasonably calculated, under all circumstances to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.”  In practice, this fuzzy standard has been interpreted to include service of process via physical delivery, letters rogatory, repeatedly published notices in newspapers, telex, email, and Twitter posts. Private Facebook messages (not public wall posts) have been authorized by a few district courts, but only as a supplemental mode of delivery. 
Tackling Unconstitutional Constitutional Amendments – Can a Transnational Principle Be the Solution?
By Harshit Rai
Why do we need a constitution? This question is of fundamental importance to scholars and thinkers alike, involved in tracing the genesis of constitutional regimes all over the world. Answering the question however, is not as easy as raising it. The notion of Social Contract has stood out as the most significant paradigms in Western philosophical and legal theory.  Locke provided that men are essentially free and equal, refuting the argument that men were naturally subject to the will of the monarch.  However, prior to Locke, the notion that the king and his subjects are equally subject to the law was firmly established by the grant of “Magna Carta” in 1215.  Magna Carta was a symbol of defence against the tyranny of the government making it the edifice of English liberties and the cornerstone of the British Constitution. 
Over the course of time, certain societies have realized that there is a need of certain normative regulations which not only bound the society but also its rulers. These norms in several nations often take the form of written constitutions and their primary purpose is usually check tyrannical abuse of power and oppression.
By Luis Bravo
Luis Bravo is a sophomore at the University of Pennsylvania studying sociology.
You don’t have to be a political junkie to admire the Constitution, perhaps the most remarkable American achievement. Standing the test of time, the Constitution has remained intact through countless challenges. Although the Founding Fathers did not establish a perfect government, they left us with something even better- a constitutional foundation with the ability to adapt to societal problems. Needless to say, given the many advances the founding fathers simply could not have envisioned, this is a blessing. Telephones, cameras, and the Internet are just some of the many revolutionary developments that are now commonplace in our country. But while our laws and interpretations of the Constitution have been continually revised to incorporate new technology, we have reached a point in our society where technological developments are outpacing the speed at which we can create laws America’s next great constitutional challenge may soon be in every household, automobile, and even wrist! That’s right, I am referring to the Internet of Things.
The Internet of Things (IoT for short) refers broadly to gadgets capable of going online and collecting and exchanging data.  There are a plethora of IoT devices including cell phones, smart watches, and more recently even refrigerators. “Smart devices” are a rapidly growing and becoming common in American households.  As the Internet of Things increases, more devices will be capable of recording user information and, consequently, reducing privacy. While for most users, the convenience of tech gadgets will outweigh privacy concerns, there is not enough legislation in place that clearly outlines the ability (or lack thereof) of the government to lawfully collect this information and utilize it in court. This issue made headlines last year after the FBI asked Apple to unlock the iPhone belonging to the gunman behind the San Bernardino shooting. In a statement, Apple refused the request by citing the customer’s privacy. Eventually, the FBI was able to crack the phone’s password through the assistance of an outside company, yet the underlying question regarding the government’s ability to obtain IoT information remains unresolved.