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 Natasha Kang
Natasha Kang is a senior at the University of California, Davis. By 1965, Congress had discovered that existing federal anti‐discrimination laws were not nearly enough to prevail over the opposition of state officials. When the Department of Justice tried to eliminate discriminatory electoral practices on a case‐by‐case basis, it found that as soon as a discriminatory practice was proven unconstitutional, another one took its place. [1] Thus, a stronger piece of voting rights legislation, the Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965, was passed to effectively uproot state disenfranchisement. [1] Sadly, the VRA did not bring about the end of disenfranchisement, as seen in the events following the 2010 United States Census. After a national census is taken, state officials use census data to reconsider and redraw the boundaries of congressional and state legislative districts. [2] This formally allows state officials to incorporate shifts in the population and guarantee equal representation for their constituents with respect to the principles of the VRA. However, in reality, equal representation is far from guaranteed—and “redistricting” is becoming more well‐known as “racial gerrymandering” in the state of North Carolina.
0 Comments
 By Natasha Kang
Natasha Kang is a senior at the University of California, Davis. Few issues can be considered black-and-white with a clear, absolute answer – except violations of human rights, right? Even the overriding international norms of jus cogens do not allow for human rights abuses such as torture and arbitrary imprisonment. [1] However, this is not simple in practice, as seen in the recent history of the case against Mohamed Ali Samantar, a government official under the brutal regime of the late dictator of Somalia, Mohammed Siad Barre. [2] Serving as Defense Minister and later as Prime Minister during the regime, Samantar oversaw armed forces that engaged in acts of torture, rape, abduction, extrajudicial killings, and groundless imprisonment. After moving to the US in 1997, Samantar recently filed his third petition for writ of certiorari in a long battle against the members of the Isaaq clan, victims of Samantar’s actions while he was working under the regime. [2] In 2004, the Center for Justice & Accountability (CJA) filed a complaint with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. [3] Samantar was charged for the “extrajudicial killing; arbitrary detention; torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment; crimes against humanity; and war crimes” committed by the armed forces he oversaw. [4] After a struggle to enforce a subpoena in order to obtain documents concerning human rights and military issues in Somalia, Samantar’s motion to dismiss was granted based on statutory immunity grounds. This meant that under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) [4], Samantar possessed “immunity from civil lawsuits to foreign states and to their agencies and instrumentalities” because officials acting on orders should be treated as an agency or instrumentality. [5] 
by Natasha Kang
Natasha Kang is a senior at the University of California, Davis. China, the fastest-growing economy in the world, [1] was already made headlines four years ago in 2010 when it overtook Japan as the world’s second-largest economy. [2] It took another leap forward when the International Money Fund declared China as the world’s largest economy in late 2014 as it overtook the United States. Of course, this is just in terms of purchasing power (the amount of goods and services that can be purchased), as China still has ways to go before surpassing the US in raw terms. [3] This development bears much value, as a bilateral investment treaty with China now takes more priority than ever before. According to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, a bilateral investment treaty (BIT) is an agreement “between two countries for the reciprocal encouragement, promotion, and protection of investments in each other's territories by companies based in either country.” [4] BITs act as tools to break down market access barriers by setting terms and conditions for foreign investment while giving foreign investors special rights and legal protections. These substantial protections include foreign companies being treated as favorably as local ones, letting investors transfer funds in and out of a host country using the market exchange rate, and even limiting host governments from adopting inefficient practices that may harm trade. In addition, BITs give investors the right to submit an investment dispute with the government of the host country directly to international arbitration. [5] 
By Natasha Kang
Natasha Kang is a senior at the University of California, Davis. Whether it was in government class or Law & Order, we have all heard about the right to counsel, an important right listed in the highest law of the land: the United States Constitution. The Sixth Amendment stipulates that in criminal prosecutions, the accused will “have the assistance of counsel for his defense.” [1] However, the Fifth Circuit of Appeals has passed a decision seemingly in conflict with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Maples v. Thomas that attorney abandonment is a valid excuse for a failure to appeal a denial of habeas relief. A writ of habeas corpus is used as post-conviction relief for prisoners in both the state and federal levels who wish to challenge the legal grounds of the application of laws used in the court proceedings that resulted in their conviction. [2] If a court denies the habeas application, the defendant may attempt to appeal their denial, but the appeal must filed within a certain time period. If a notice of appeal is not filed in time, federal habeas review will be barred from the petitioner due to his or her failure to follow state appellate procedure, also known as procedural default. [3]  By Natasha Kang
Natasha Kang is a senior at University of California, Davis. Whether they’re seen as famous or infamous, whistleblowers have been providing game-changing information about Watergate, the Vietnam War, and most recently, the National Security Agency leaks provided by Edward Snowden. However, sometimes whistleblowers blow on behalf of the government, with the added bonus of a share of the reward. Drug makers are popular targets for such whistleblowers because of the bounties offered under the False Claims Act (FCA) including up to 30% of all amounts recovered and attorney fees. [1] Lawyers who are employed by individuals seeking these bounties without real knowledge about fraudulent happenings pursue what are known as “parasitic” lawsuits. The FCA is a federal statute that sets penalties for “falsely billing the government, over-representing the amount of a delivered product, or under-stating an obligation to the government.” [2] Enforcement of the FCA authorizes action taken by the Justice Department or, in a unique provision of the act, by private individuals through qui tam lawsuits. 
By Natasha Kang
Natasha Kang is a rising senior at University of California, Davis. Email is usually the first stop when someone opens an internet browser. You would probably see a flyer or two from stores you have subscribed to, bank e-statement notifications, some work emails, and maybe a few personal emails. But with some certainty, if you are an active professional, you will see an email from LinkedIn asking you to upgrade to premium; a status that allows you to see who is looking at your profile and to connect more easily with someone you may only vaguely remember. On September 17, 2013, a 46-page complaint was filed against LinkedIn for sending emails to users’ contacts without their consent in a class-action-seeking lawsuit. [1] LinkedIn is a professional networking site based in Mountain View, California that helps its 300 million users get access to people, jobs, news, tips and more in your professional field in over 200 countries and territories. [2] When creating an account with the network, an external email account is required. If given access to the account by users, LinkedIn is able to send emails on behalf of the user advertising its products and services, as well as gather any email addresses in the account for LinkedIn’s servers. [1] 
By Natasha Kang
Natasha Kang is a rising senior at University of California, Davis. Abortion, long considered a controversial issue, has gotten even more complicated. The debate no longer focuses solely on what happens in an abortion clinic, but also on what happens around the clinic. To protect prospective patients entering abortion clinics, Massachusetts law placed a fixed thirty-five foot “buffer zone” around facilities. The statute stipulates that the “entrance, exit or driveway” of a reproductive health care facility is protected by the buffer zone from anyone who is not: (1) a person entering or leaving the facility, (2) employees or agents of the facility, (3) a municipal agent such as an ambulance or law enforcement doing their job, or (4) a person merely passing the facility to reach another destination. [1] The law specifically does not mention those attempting to persuade prospective patients against terminating their pregnancies.  By Natasha Kang
Natasha Kang is a rising senior at University of California, Davis. The Fourth Amendment and the issue of privacy have once again come into question at the Supreme Court; however, this time around, the question has different facets in an era of information-filled smartphones. On June 25, 2014, the Supreme Court set the tone for privacy in this digital age by holding that police cannot search the information on a cellphone seized from an individual who has been arrested. How this tone might proceed will certainly be a point of interest in the ongoing legal challenges to the National Security Agency’s spying operations started by Edward J. Snowden. In Riley v. California, which the Court recently decided in late June, David Riley was charged with firing at an occupied vehicle, assault with a firearm, and attempted murder with the evidence obtained from his phone. [1] After initially stopping Riley for driving with expired registration tags, the officer searched Riley and a detective specializing in gangs uncovering incriminating photographs and videos. These photographs and videos revealed Riley’s involvement with the activity of the Bloods street gang, specifically a shooting that occurred a few weeks earlier. |
|
|
