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 Nicholas Williams Nicholas Williams is a freshman in the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Pennsylvania, planning on majoring in political science. Administrative law, the body of law that regulates the actions of administrative government agencies, has become increasingly important. Indeed, the Supreme Court barred the Trump administration from putting a question on the 2020 Census that asked people their citizenship status because the Court found that the Census Bureau gave a pretextual reason for their decision to enstate such a question. This was found to be a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act [1], which governs the formulation and establishment of regulations by federal agencies [2]. This is only one of numerous lawsuits that have been filed against the Trump administration regarding violation of the act [3]. In recent years, numerous Supreme Court cases have been decided that seek to challenge precedent regarding administrative law. In the Court’s 2018 term, two important administrative law cases were decided: Kisor v. Wilkie and Gundy v. United States.
0 Comments
 By Filzah Belal
Filzah Belal is a final year undergraduate law student at National Law University and Judicial Academy, Assam. The capital market is a free platform for trading in securities, but what happens when external forces act on the market? It influences the prices of the shares, but not at all in an organic way. In this article, I will discuss one such situation when the prices are influenced by external forces in the share market to gain unfair profits – when prospective acquirers gain ‘toehold acquisitions’ in order to enjoy an upper hand in private placement procedure and do so by increasing activity in the script of the company which inorganically increases the shares’ price. Toehold acquisitions are those acquisitions which are done by a prospective investor. These acquisitions are usually done so that the target company knows that the investor is interested in investing Toehold acquisitions are often small acquisitions (hence the reference of the term to the size of a ‘toe’), but they are significant enough to come to the attention of the target company.  By Kaitlyn Rentala Kaitlyn Rentala is a sophomore in the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Pennsylvania studying Philosophy, Politics and Economics (PPE). On October 8, the Supreme Court heard three major cases about Title VII and discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. The first case, Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, which was consolidated with the second case, Altitude Express v. Zarda, dealt with whether or not sexual orientation was a subset of sex, which is protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The third case, R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, dealt with whether or not transgender status or gender identity was protected by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. [1] Both cases were toted as the biggest cases to be heard in front of the Supreme Court during this term, and could prove to be landmark decisions with major ramifications for both sides. I was one of the lucky 62 members of the public to sit in on oral arguments.
 Private prisons are exploiting the criminal justice system to turn immense profits—and it’s happening right under our noses. By Lyndsey Reeve Lyndsey Reeve is a freshman in the College with a prospective major in International Relations. Prisons—unlike shorter-term jails—hold inmates for lengthy sentences received for serious offenses. While many prisons are public and thus government-operated, privatized incarceration can be a profit-generating machine: the more inmates, the more money a for-profit prison can raise. By capitalizing on the boom of the internment business, private enterprises such as Political Action Committees (PACs) can influence our modern political process. Because they are used to manipulate our criminal justice system for personal gain, these private prisons threaten our democracy.
 By Vikram Balasubramanian Vikram Balasubramanian is a freshman in the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Pennsylvania studying International Relations. The United States has been struck with an epidemic of police violence, in which citizens deserving of equal protection under the law are unjustly brutalized by police. Yet, whenever someone tries to hold cops accountable, they are unable to. It is nearly impossible to sue a police officer for damages in the United States. In 2009, in Pearson v. Callahan, the Supreme Court ruled that government officials are protected from lawsuits (as an individual) unless the plaintiff can show that the official violated a “clearly established” constitutional or statutory right. [1] This is commonly known as the qualified immunity doctrine. Technically, the government can still be sued for damages caused by the official’s actions. However reasonable this might sound, the way it has been applied in court has resulted in a system in which officers are nearly always unaccountable
 By Hailie Goldsmith
Hailie Goldsmith is a freshman in the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Pennsylvania With an estimated count of 130,000 homeless individuals, the extent of the homeless population is severe and ever-growing in California [1]. After a September visit to San Francisco and Los Angeles, the major sites of California’s homeless population, President Trump solely focused on the potential environmental implications of the homelessness crisis. He criticized the used syringes entering the Pacific Ocean as well as open defecation and its potential to violate federal water-quality standards by spreading dangerous pathogens and contaminants [1].  By Nicholas Williams
Nicholas Williams is a freshman in the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Pennsylvania, planning on majoring in political science. At his confirmation hearing in September of 2018, then-Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh said that, if confirmed, he would “always strive to be a team player on the Team of Nine” [1]. Since his confirmation hearing and subsequent confirmation, many Democratic presidential candidates have been open to expanding this “Team of Nine,” including Elizabeth Warren [2], who has recently overtaken Biden for the top spot in the Democratic primary, according to recent polls [3]. Warren claims that such court-packing efforts would “depoliticiz[e]” the Supreme Court [2]. While Warren is correct that the Supreme Court is becoming increasingly politicized, expanding the Supreme Court is not the answer to this problem.  By Suprateek Neogi
Suprateek Neogi is a fourth-year student at the Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab studying Law and specializing in Business Laws. India’s arbitration regime has been criticized by the international community as being non-friendly towards arbitration. Despite good intentions, Indian courts often behave in an interventionist manner while dealing with arbitration disputes.[1] For instance, legal provisions for setting aside[2] and refusal of enforcement of arbitral awards[3] for “public policy” considerations had been inserted into the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act”) to minimise court interference. These provisions have led to certain decisions by Indian Courts which set questionable precedents for the validity of arbitral awards.[4]  By Sophie Lovering
Sophie Lovering is a sophomore in the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Pennsylvania majoring in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics and minoring in American Sign Language and Deaf Studies. In 1971, President Richard Nixon called for a war on drugs, increasing sentencing and enforcement actions for low-level drug offenses [1]. In the following decade, President Ronald Reagan and his wife Nancy Reagan not only continued but also built upon Nixon’s initiative, passing new policies and starting the “Just Say No” campaign [2]. This war on drugs categorized substance abuse as a criminal justice issue in the minds of many Americans. With the concurrent expansion of drug law enforcement, this led to a massive increase in the number of people incarcerated.  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].
|
