Volume 22, Issue 1 (Fall 2024)

Renewing Our Vows: The Lawyer’s Oath and our Pledge to Democracy

Colin M. Black

The lawyer’s oath embodies the democratic principles of the rule of law and stands as a pledge for justice, equality, and due process in a democratic legal system. Indeed, lawyers are not merely participants in the legal process; they are architects of policy, interpreters of laws, and guardians of democratic institutions. Their power must be balanced by their obligations. It is within this framework, that the lawyer’s oath finds profound significance and its modernization a critical step toward a professional recommitment to the principles embedded in the oath.

This article considers the origin and evolution of the lawyer’s oath to establish its significance in regulating lawyers as their role in the development of democratic institutions demonstrates the import of ethical conduct that obligates the lawyer to democratic ideals. Read more.

Checks, Balances, and Challenges to the Supremacy of the Supreme Court

Zachary Carr

A legitimacy crisis seems to be brewing in the Court, and in order to maintain their authority, the Court will need to resist
acting in ways that continue to erode public confidence. Even if the justices can cure their ethical lapses, further threats to institutional legitimacy come from the other branches of government. There are numerous examples of the political branches disregarding, repudiating, or trying to avoid orders issued by the Court, dating back to the early Nineteenth Century. While these incidents were largely isolated throughout history, some anticipate a disobedient trend emerging.

How can the Court’s legitimacy survive if its primary constitutional function is being disregarded by the rest of government? The system of checks and balances created by the Constitution strikes a delicate balance of federal power, and removing the Court’s influence from that system leads to the risk that one of the remaining branches will accumulate power excessively. By second-guessing the Court’s constitutional interpretation, these governors purport to assume some judicial power in addition to and in excess of their executive power. By analyzing similar cases throughout history, this Note attempts to suggest how this power struggle will be resolved. Read more.

The Open and Obvious Doctrine: Tort Law as the New Frontier for Revitalizing the Jury

Priya Vaishampayan

The United States is experiencing a breakdown in democracy. Donald Trump has begun his second term as President of the United States, defeating Vice President Kamala Harris despite an unprecedented criminal record. Although Harris invigorated many progressive voters, many voters had their reservations about the candidate, such as the Uncommitted Movement who criticized Harris’s position on a ceasefire in the war between Israel and Hamas, and an incident involving a Palestinian speaker at the Democratic National Convention. College campuses have also been the center of discord. Police have arrested more than 2,400 students engaged in protests on more than 50 college campuses across the country. In recent weeks, the Trump Administration has begun revoking the green cards and visas of such students and initiating deportation procedures. Public faith in the government has been trending down before the first 100 days of the new administration, with surveys showing a lack of trust in all three branches of the federal government to do the right thing.

Our civil jury system has also been in sharp decline. Prior to the pandemic, only 0.5% of civil cases proceeded to trial in federal court and less than 1% went to trial in state courts. This stands in stark contrast to the 5.5% standard in the mid-1900s. Thanks to a combination of settlement and pretrial procedures, our legal system has incentivized parties to avoid trial. Although less trials make for a more efficient legal system, it also means that the public plays little to no role in case outcomes. Read more.

Taming the Wild West: Can Order Be Restored to the Collegiate Playing Fields?

Edward D. Cavanagh

The landmark settlement in House v. NCAA heralds a new era in intercollegiate athletics. For the first time, colleges and universities will be authorized to pay their athletes directly. For decades, NCAA rules barred member schools from paying their athletes, even as college sports programs generated hundreds of millions of dollars in revenues shared by the NCAA and its members. After House, college athletes will now get of a piece of that pie.

At first blush, the House settlement appears to be a win-win situation for athletes. However, the settlement also raises profoundly difficult questions, which, in turn, creates a great deal of uncertainty about the future of intercollegiate athletics: (1) Will all athletes be paid, or only those in revenue-producing sports? (2) How will compensation for individual team members be allocated? (3) What is the impact of House on non-revenue producing college sports; (4) How does Title IX impact the amount of compensations received? (5) Are college athletes, after House, now to be viewed as employees of their schools with the rights to engage in collective bargaining and to receive a minimum wage? (6) Should Congress intervene with legislation protecting the NCAA and its members from lawsuits?

It is likely that many of these questions will be resolved only after further litigation-precisely what the NCAA sought to avoid by settling House in the first place. The only sure thing is that college athletics will never be the same. Read more.

The Fight to Provide Affordable Housing for the Poor: The New Jersey Mount Laurel Decisions

Carl S. Bisgaier

In 1975, the New Jersey Supreme Court issued its decision in Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Mount Laurel Township, requiring municipalities in the the state to provide their “fair share” of affordable housing to meet a region’s affordable housing needs. Commonly known as Mount Laurel I, this decision paved the way for New Jersey to have one of the strongest affordable housing regimes in the United States, bolstered by enforcement mechanisms provided by the court in 1983’s Mount Laurel II decision, and the Fair Housing Act passed by the New Jersey Legislature in 1985. This article is a personal account from of those nearly two decades of litigation by the lead attorney of the cases, Carl S. Bisgaier. From meeting named plaintiff, Ethel Lawrence, to the construction of the homes named in her honor, Bisgaier recounts the work that went into creating the Mount Laurel Doctrine and the people involved. Read more.