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 sophomore in the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Pennsylvania, majoring in Philosophy. On February 24, 2020, the Supreme Court added Fulton v. City of Philadelphia to its docket. This case, which was brought by Catholic Social Services (CSS), challenges the City Of Philadelphia’s decision to stop referring foster children to CSS for placement on the grounds that the agency does not certify same-sex couples as foster parents. The agency had lost in lower courts, but appealed their case to the Supreme Court. The ruling of this case may lay out further explanation to the types of religious discrimination claims that warrant legal remedy, alter the decision in Employment Division v. Smith, and address whether the government violates the First Amendment by making participation in the foster-care system contingent on whether an agency conducts themselves in a way that goes against their religious beliefs [1].
0 Comments
 By Emma Davies
Emma Davies is a sophomore in the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Pennsylvania majoring in Philosophy. In 2015, 21 plaintiffs all under the age of 23 sued the US government in the US District Court for the District Court for the District of Oregon in a case titled Juliana v. US. The plaintiffs, supported by the advocacy group Our Children’s Trust claimed that the US government had recklessly promoted fossil fuel use, which jeopardizes the stability and health of the climate. They argued that the US government’s actions violated people’s constitutional rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, on the basis that a stable climate is a necessary condition to exercise these rights.  By Emma Davies
Emma Davies is a sophomore in the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Pennsylvania studying Philosophy. In Georgia, a man was arrested and ordered to wear an ankle monitor for a year after stealing a can of beer worth only $2. The company administering the ankle monitor then charged him hundreds. When he was unable to pay, even after selling his own blood plasma, he was jailed for non-payment. In Ferguson, Michigan, a homelesssingle, teen mom received a ticket for driving without a license. When she missed her court date, she was arrested, and spent time in jail because she could not pay the $250 bail. Her trouble did not end there, as she ended up spending four months in jail due to accruing fees and fines. At one point, she was arrested after she called the police because her ex-boyfriend had assaulted her [2].These situations are not anomalies. In numerous counties across the nation, citizens are facing financial penalties and incarceration, due to the fact that they do not have the financial means to pay fees and fines related to the criminal justice process. In fact, according to a 2015 report, 20% of individuals in local jails were incarcerated because they were unable to pay a fee or fine [3].  By Emma Davies Emma Davies is a sophomore in the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Pennsylvania studying Philosophy. Immigration reform was a main platform position of President Donald Trump during his 2016 campaign and his presidential term. Over the past two years, significant policy changes in the executive branch’s agenda include a ban against individuals from predominantly Muslim countries, lowering refugee admissions, increasing US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arrests, and terminating the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, among others. A change in the “public charge” ruling, a provision that details who is inadmissible or not as a potential immigrant, has become a part of Trump’s docket of anti-immigrant policy initiatives [1].
 By Emma Davies
Emma Davies is a freshman in the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Pennsylvania. Anti-vaccine rhetoric and practices continues to hold a seat in public discourse, despite intensive research to refute myths and countless examples of its effectiveness in not only combating communicable diseases, but reducing risk of certain cancers [1]. Refueled in recent years by social media and online platforms, “a emotional contagion, digitally enabled”, as termed by Heidi Larson in Nature has begun to endanger even more individuals that before [2]. In fact, this year, the World Health Organization recognized vaccine hesitancy- the voluntary reluctance to vaccinate- as one of the top 10 global health threats , such that diseases that were once considered extinct or near extinct in certain countries are re-emerging. The United States alone saw 372 cases of measles in 2018, despite once being considered an “eliminated” disease [3]. The emerging growth of vaccine hesitancy, coupled with the re-emergence of preventable diseases, thus prompts the need for an important discussion of the legal bounds of vaccine refusal with particular emphasis on the dynamic of parental decisions and child welfare. |
|
|
