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 Rachel Bina
Rachel Bina is a freshman in the Huntsman Program studying Business and International Studies with a focus on Russia. She is interested in global affairs, foreign languages, international law, as well as experimenting with international cuisines in her free time. As we have heard time and time again since the COVID-19 pandemic began, we are living in unprecedented times. These unprecedented times have resulted in unprecedented measures like various state and federal mandates, which have, in turn, led to new legal challenges and precedents. In the United States, the Biden administration’s push for vaccinations has led them to mandate vaccinations for federal workers. In addition to this, they announced on November 4, that January 4, 2022, will be the deadline for companies with 100 or more employees to mandate coronavirus vaccinations for their employees [1].
0 Comments
 “Demonstration London Demo - Free Photo on Pixabay.” Accessed March 24, 2022. https://pixabay.com/photos/demonstration-london-demo-activist-4193109/. By Rachel Bina
Rachel Bina is a freshman in the Huntsman Program at the University of Pennsylvania studying Business and International Studies with a focus on Russia. The idea of environmental activism is commonplace in the present-day United States, however, this was not always the case. American environmental activism only truly began in the 1960s, when American citizens started using litigation to advance environmental goals. The 1965 case Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference v. Federal Power Commission is widely recognized as the beginning of environmental law. In this case, the Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference, a citizen group, sued the Federal Power Commision in an attempt to block a planned power plant on Storm King Mountain, New York [1]. The court’s decision supported the citizen group and the power plant was not built.  By Rachel Bina
Rachel Bina is a freshman in the Huntsman Program at the University of Pennsylvania studying Business and International Studies with a focus on Russia. One of the United State’s most contentious issues is that of abortion. The most recent development in this decades-long debate is the legal battle over a new controversial Texas state law that limits access to abortions in Texas. The new law, titled Senate Bill 8 (S. B. 8) or the Texas Heartbeat Act, allows private citizens to sue anyone who “aids and abets” an abortion after the detection of a fetal heartbeat, which typically occurs around six weeks of pregnancy [1]. There are no provisions for instances of incenst or rape, however, the law permits abortions for health reasons such as danger to the mother’s life [2]. Among those classified as individuals who “aid and abet” abortions are doctors, staff, or drivers who offer transport to patients to abortion clinics. Plaintiffs, provided they win the case, will receive $10,000 and their legal fees will be covered by the defendant [3]. Lawmakers wrote the law in such a way as to exclude state officials from enforcing the law and, instead, deputize private citizens to do so to avoid federal judicial review [4]. |
|
|
