Volume: 57

Wage theft affects millions of workers in the United States, particularly low-wage and hourly workers. In response to this crisis, many states have enacted wage theft prevention laws requiring employers to provide employees with written documentation of wage information. Employers who fail to provide sufficient notice must pay statutory damages. However, plaintiff-employees seeking enforcement of these provisions against their private employers in federal court often struggle to establish standing to sue. The Supreme Court’s 2021 decision in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez has narrowed the standing doctrine by holding that a statutory violation is insufficient to establish standing without further demonstration that the violation resulted in concrete harm to the plaintiff. After TransUnion, federal courts have remained divided on when an employer’s violation of a wage documentation or notice statute constitutes a concrete injury to the plaintiff for standing purposes. This Note explores the Second and Ninth Circuits’ narrowed approaches to standing in wage documentation violation claims following TransUnion, rendering these provisions toothless and virtually unenforceable. This Note argues that an overly narrow interpretation of standing in wage theft suits unfairly prevents workers from using federal courts to hold their employers accountable and suggests that federal courts must reevaluate the standing doctrine in light of its roots and original purpose.

After Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, states have enacted criminal abortion bans with only narrow and ambiguous exceptions, resulting in dangerous treatment delays for pregnant patients experiencing emergency medical complications. Abortion-access advocates have turned to the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), a federal statute that imposes a duty on hospitals to stabilize emergency conditions, arguing that EMTALA preempts restrictive state laws. The ensuing preemption debate has paid little attention to a key aspect of the statute: a provision specifying that the treatment obligation applies only to care “within the staff and facilities available at the hospital,” which reveals that EMTALA’s reach turns on hospitals’ own choices about which services to make available. This Note raises that even if EMTALA preempts state abortion bans, this statutory carve-out enables hospitals to adopt categorical anti-abortion policies to evade EMTALA’s requirements, threatening abortion access even in life-threatening medical emergencies.

This Note argues that courts should recognize an affirmative obligation under EMTALA—which necessarily follows from the statute’s text and structure—that requires hospitals to keep standard emergency treatments available and to provide specialized treatments whenever they have the medical capability to do so. By distinguishing standard from specialized care using objective medical criteria (not state restrictions, and not hospital policy) courts can prevent administrators from adopting “unavailability” policies to avoid federal obligations. This interpretation simultaneously vindicates EMTALA’s core anti–patient-dumping purpose and avoids creating a de facto federal malpractice regime. Properly understood, EMTALA contains a previously unarticulated cause of action that prevents hospitals from eliminating emergency treatment options, and thereby ensures access to life-preserving abortion care in emergency medical situations.

Despite its ambitious mandate to prosecute the world’s most heinous crimes, the International Criminal Court (ICC) remains hamstrung by its inability to enforce its own rulings. Without an independent enforcement mechanism, the Court is forced to rely on state cooperation—cooperation that is often withheld due to political interests, strategic alliances, or outright defiance. This Note examines the structural weaknesses that leave the ICC vulnerable to non-compliance, with a particular focus on the Assembly of States Parties (ASP). While the ASP was envisioned as a crucial pillar of ICC enforcement, its role has been largely performative, issuing non-binding resolutions that do little to compel states to execute arrest warrants or surrender fugitives. This Note argues that the ASP must be reimagined—not as a passive observer but as an active enforcer. To that end, it proposes a set of reforms that would give the ASP meaningful leverage over non-cooperative states, including diplomatic repercussions, financial penalties, possible amendments to the Rome Statute, and stronger engagement with international bodies like the United Nations Security Council. Ultimately, without a fundamental shift in how the ICC navigates state resistance, the promise of global justice will remain just that—a promise, unfulfilled.

New military technologies are transforming the contemporary battlefield, raising complex ethical and legal questions previously unaddressed. This Article makes three novel contributions to the debate on Autonomous Weapon Systems (AWS) and military AI in the legal and ethical literature. First, it puts forward a normative argument against AWS—even if they outperform humans in adhering to the rules governing the conduct of hostilities. This argument is grounded in the critical importance of the human capacity to act over and beyond the strict letter of the law. The Article contends that this capacity is central to the regulation of warfare, which permits, rather than obligates, the use of force against legitimate targets. Second, it offers a doctrinal analysis of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and International Human Rights Law (IHRL)—the two principal legal regimes that regulate armed conflicts under international law—providing a fresh perspective on how they intersect in the context of AWS. Finally, the Article explores the extent to which its normative argument is persuasive in the context of military AI beyond AWS, an area that is rapidly evolving and already extensively employed in current conflicts. It examines the similarities and differences between these emerging technologies and reflects on their implications for the desirable regulation of both technologies.

Donald Trump’s threats to carry out the mass deportation of unauthorized immigrants helped propel him to a second term as President of the United States. For the estimated 11 million people in the U.S. without lawful status, those threats have increased fears of forced returns to their countries of origin. While American immigration law is heavily focused on the legal processes leading to deportation, little attention has been paid to the post-deportation experiences of individuals who must reintegrate into their home countries. This gap in understanding is especially alarming given the high stakes of reintegration. A successful transition can empower deported individuals to lead economically and socially stable lives, while a failed reintegration may result in homelessness, vulnerability to violence, mental health struggles, and attempts at illegal reentry.

Our project fills this gap. Over four years, our interdisciplinary team interviewed more than 300 Mexican citizens who had been deported (or returned on their own), asking about their economic, social, and cultural reintegration and what advice they would offer to others returning to Mexico. Based on these interviews and interviews with governmental and non-governmental organizations on both sides of the border, we offer specific policy interventions in the areas of deportation, documentation, services, and immigration reform, to facilitate the successful reintegration of returning Mexican citizens. For example, the Mexican Government should use its mobile consulate services to work with their citizens much earlier in the return process—e.g., in federal prisons and at American community centers and schools—to procure the Mexican identification card that is needed to work, rent housing, and obtain services. Our recommendations are bi-national and focus on the role that lawyers, law schools, and law clinics can play in stimulating conversations and action in legal circles on these important reintegration issues.