Tunick, Mark

In Boumediene v. Bush, the Supreme Court held that individuals detained as enemy combatants at U.S. Naval Base Guantánamo Bay (GTMO) during the War on Terror are constitutionally entitled to the writ of habeas corpus. In so finding, the Court failed to thoroughly investigate the nature of the United States‟ relationship with Cuba – an investigation that would have indicated that procedural due process also ought to be extended to those detained at the base. In this thesis, I review the legal battle over enemy combatants, evaluate the writ of habeas corpus as a remedy for unlawful detention, examine the extension of the Constitution beyond its territorial limits, conduct a detailed review of U.S.-Cuban relations, and conclude that GTMO detainees are also constitutionally entitled to all the protections of procedural due process.

The process of plea bargaining in the American legal system has long been criticized for being coercive. I use Robert Nozick’s criteria for coercion to show that plea bargaining is not inherently coercive. However, prosecutors can introduce coercion into the process, and the possibility of uneven introduction of coercion in offering pleas
makes the system of plea bargaining unfair. However, that plea bargaining can be unfair
and often coercive does not mean that it must be abolished. Although the current state of plea bargaining is not ideal and does result in unfairness for many, there does not seem to be any viable options to radically reform the process at this time without losing
efficiency, though standardizing some plea offers while leaving the discretion of whether
to offer pleas to the prosecution could help remove some of the coerciveness and unfairness

Privacy as a legal concept affects every single American citizen whether they
know it or not. Justice Harlan's concurrence in Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347
defined an expectation of privacy as one that society must recognize as objectively
reasonable. The court has used this doctrine to establish different privacy tests for
different situations, yet has never empirically determined whether its decisions accurately
reflect society's view of what is 'reasonable.' To that end, this paper will examine the
philosophical and historical origins of the right to privacy, and well as its development by
the Supreme Court to its current status. I'll compare the Supreme Court's interpretation of
society's expectations with empirical data from psychological studies and conduct a
normative analysis to determine if the Supreme Court has accurately interpreted society's
expectations and correctly crafted the right to privacy to ideally protect the citizens and
limit state invasions of privacy.

In December of 2005, members of the Harriet Wilkes Honors College voiced objections over the erection of a Finals Tree, a faculty and staff endorsed pine tree that held various snacks for students during finals weeks. In an email, the tree was accidentally called a Christmas tree, which it did resemble. One faculty who objected deemed the tree unconstitutional because he felt the university was endorsing a particular religion and was acting unethically. I examine the history of the Finals tree tradition, evaluate its constitutionality according to Supreme Court precedent, and examine whether its display violates the rights of those opposed to the tree according to democratic theory. I conclude that the erection of the tree is constitutional; however, according to democratic theory, the Honors College acted in an ethical way by creating a compromise that replaced the pine tree with a palm tree, a tree with no religious connotations.

In 1954 a unanimous Supreme Court ruled that maintaining separate schools for white and black students was inherently unequal. Following the decision, school boards
across the nation struggled to determine what desegregation meant for their schools. This research focuses on the history of desegregation at Suncoast High School, in Riviera Beach, FL, paying specific attention to the respective goals of the various stakeholders. The goals are discerned by drawing on official documents, newspaper articles and interviews. After weighing the goals of each stakeholder against the current state of desegregation at Suncoast I argue that only some goals have been met. I conclude that while the goals of the national stakeholders, school board and local white parents have been met as of 2010, some goals of the local black community—most importantly, having a community high school for their children—have not been met.

The controversial debate over Affirmative Action in higher education institutions center on the constitutionality of legislative public policies to enact steps to create racially diverse campuses. Concerns arise from Affirmative Action policies in undergraduate and graduate college admission that those policies cause further harm than good for all prospective students. Citizens comment that racialized preferential treatment in public policies steer society from becoming equal and continues racial tension. I argue that Affirmative Action is constitutional under the Equal Protection Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment and essential for minorities as a legal remedy for past wrongs.

While professional boxing is subject to some federal regulation, there is still a call for greater uniformity throughout the states. For example, the variation of state procedures for performance-enhancing drug and post-fight neurological testing present a serious threat to an athlete’s health that can lead to physical impairments or even death. I argue professional boxing regulation should be completely uniform, left to the federal government rather than individual states. I review the regulatory system in professional boxing and show how the lack of uniformity leads to undesirable health, safety, and business practices. Founded on a critical analysis of federalism, the argument is based on a general consideration of when public policy in the United States should be uniform and when it should be left for states to decide.

Eyewitness testimony is a common form of evidence in the legal system. People generally identify suspects based on characteristics such as their appearance, clothes, voice, and even writing style. But what if you could identify someone based on the way they move (e.g., the way in which they walk)? To determine if identification based on movement would be practical and legally allowed, I examined the legal implications of identification that pertain to the Fifth Amendment, as well as the appropriate scientific applicability test based on movement. I also conducted an experiment to evaluate the reliability of such identifications based on movement.

Charged with involuntary manslaughter, Michelle Carter was said to have used text
exchanges and phone conversations to “coerce” her boyfriend, Conrad Roy, into
committing suicide. But is Ms. Carter to blame for Mr. Roy’s death? By delving into the
moral concepts of duty and coercion, and theories and case law concerning manslaughter
and free speech, I argue that although Ms. Carter’s actions were not morally sound that
does not mean that they were illegal and worthy of punishment.

The United States is founded on the principles of liberty, democracy and equality. Many individuals leave their home countries in the hope of enjoying these American ideals. The young children who are brought along on the journey quickly assimilate, yet as they grow older society teaches them they are different. Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, an executive order, allows certain unauthorized immigrants who entered the country as minors to receive a renewable deferred action from deportation and a work permit. Drawing on legal scholarship and works of political theory, I argue that if these minors can prove they are people of good moral character, exemplary students and positively contribute to our society, then they should not be inhibited from pursuing higher education but rather should be afforded the same advantages as the rest of the children they grew up among.