The Undergraduate Law Review at UC San Diego

Volume II of the Undergraduate Law Review at UC San Diego

This paper discusses the vulnerability of diabetic individuals when they are subjected to arrest procedures in criminal law. It analyzes the wrongful arrest theory as a device for individuals with disabilities to bring claims against law enforcement when their rights under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) are violated. Individuals with diabetes constitute more than 10% of the United States population, meaning that many individuals are at risk for police misconduct because of their disability. The symptoms that come about with having diabetes, such as fruity-smelling breath and loss of coordination, can be mistaken for illegal activity leading to a wrongful arrest. No case involving ADA Title II violation claims against law enforcement relying on the wrongful arrest theory has been brought by an individual with diabetes. This paper explores the possibility of its potential success. To accomplish this, this paper first defines disability under the law, including diabetes. It then conducts a thorough analysis of the wrongful arrest theory in various case studies consisting of non-diabetic and diabetic plaintiffs. In a final case study, I apply the wrongful arrest theory to a case hypothetically to illustrate the plaintiff's potential success if he claims a wrongful arrest. Lastly, I explore some of the theory’s limitations and propose a potential solution. I hope that my findings will emphasize the lack of discourse surrounding individuals with diabetes in disability law and encourage further research and education on the wrongful arrest theory as a successful claim against Title II violations committed by law enforcement.

In the 21st-century digital age, health data privacy remains a crucial concern. This paper evaluates the effectiveness of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, known as HIPAA. More specifically, it demonstrates a need for a unified federal framework in the U.S. that aligns with General Data Protection Regulation’s protections to address modern-day cybersecurity threats better. This article argues that in an era of increased globalization, the United States should confront the task of reforming its healthcare data protection law to align with current cybersecurity risks. 

We begin by examining landmark legislation across American states to reveal inconsistencies between state and federal protective rulings. Later, we uncover the reactive nature of HIPAA, in contrast to GDPR’s proactive and citizen-centric approach. Through evaluating past lawsuits related to patient protection noncompliance, this paper depicts significant differences in the purpose, coverage, and execution of data protection laws between the United States and the European Union. It highlights GDPR’s effectiveness in granting individuals greater control over their data. Furthermore, this article proposes the adoption of newfound systems for standardized risk analysis and enhanced security across healthcare providers.

As healthcare becomes more accessible to the American public, the amount of data in this system increases. This nationwide surge in data underscores the critical need to assess whether privacy laws established in the 1990s remain sufficient. Therefore, updates to healthcare legislation are essential to establishing stringent patient protections in response to the significant rise in data breach incidents within the healthcare network. 

This article critically examines sexual misconduct reporting on university campuses, emphasizing the inherent flaws in how consent is defined and implemented within policy frameworks. While acknowledging the value of clarity, it argues against adding modifiers like enthusiastic and affirmative, which can obscure and over-generalize consent definitions. Analyzing current policies and relevant cases underscores the urgent need for prompt changes in university and federal settings. More specifically, it focuses on the problems arising from schools having autonomy in setting their definitions of consent, leading to issues such as policy ineffectiveness. This article proposes a comprehensive definition of consent, incorporating key factors like culpability and verbal and nonverbal cues to promote safer campus environments. Thus, it advocates for the release of guidance documents by the OCR to push schools to adopt a standardized definition of consent, ensuring a more uniform approach to addressing sexual misconduct on university campuses.

This paper delves into the intricate relationship between the evolving field of genomic medicine and healthcare providers' legal and ethical responsibilities, with a particular focus on the duty to warn in the context of genetic risks. Through a critical examination of landmark cases such as Pate v. Threlkel and Safer v. Estate of Pack, this study underscores the expanding scope of healthcare providers' duties to include not just the patient but potentially at-risk family members as well. It highlights the legal, ethical, and practical challenges that arise when balancing patient confidentiality with the need to prevent harm through the disclosure of genetic information. The descriptive portion of the paper outlines the current legal precedents and the ambiguity surrounding healthcare providers' responsibilities. The prescriptive portion proposes the establishment of comprehensive, clear guidelines to support healthcare providers, particularly genomic counselors, in navigating these complexities. This includes recommendations for policy changes and the development of protocols that respect patient autonomy while addressing the preventive potential of genomic medicine. Through an analysis of legal frameworks and ethical considerations, this paper argues for a nuanced approach that equitably balances individual rights with the collective good, ultimately advocating for a future where genomic medicine is integrated into patient care in an ethically responsible and legally sound manner.

The healthcare system in the United States ought to provide its citizens with unhindered access to high quality medical care as well as equitable treatment and coverage. Legislation to advance access to healthcare, such as the creation of the Medicare and Medicaid programs in 1965 and the Affordable Care Act in 2008, have been appropriate steps forward in achieving these goals, but obstacles to healthcare access still persist for many Americans. Healthcare access is hindered by foundational problems, such as a large uninsured population, inadequate infrastructure and facilities, and high costs for services. In rural communities, these problems assume different social and economic contexts and thus require their own separate evaluation. Rural Americans currently lack effective access to healthcare, despite existing policies aimed at improving access by making healthcare more affordable. In this article, I will explain different facts of the discussion revolving around rural healthcare access and analyze specific problems in the area. There are three policy directives that are essential to the expansion of rural healthcare access: public private partnerships, loan forgiveness for doctors serving at critical access hospitals, and expansion of the telehealth network. These avenues expand rural healthcare access, minimize government expenditure, and maximize public benefits.

In 1929, the United States limited the number of congressional districts for the House of Representatives to 435 seats through the Permanent Apportionment Act. At the time, the average number of people within a congressional district stood at around 280,000 persons. In the 2020 census, this number has risen to 761,000 people per district. As a result, the voting power of citizens has been diminished. Representatives also face issues including logistical challenges in providing aid and information to constituents due to large populations. Importantly, the 435-seat limit dilutes the voting power of the electorate by reducing representation in states that have disproportionately large populations. This article argues that the 435 limit enacted by the 1929 Permanent Apportionment Act and the current method of apportioning districts to each state conflicts with precedent set by the Supreme Court from the cases Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964) and Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964). The 1929 Permanent Apportionment Act also violates the Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection of residents who live in states with slow growth rates. This article will advocate for Congress to repeal the 1929 Permanent Apportionment Act and return to the practice of expanding the number of House seats every ten years, as well as lowering the size of each congressional district. 

This article delves into why the United States and Singapore, despite their shared colonial history, democratic institutions, wealth, and global influence, have drastically different free speech models. This paper will look at three points of comparison: historical context, political theory, and evolution of judicial interpretation. By comparing the current events and the prevalent political theories at the time of drafting the Singaporean and American constitutions, this paper seeks to understand why the nations ratified contrasting free speech clauses.  However, the Constitution is only as meaningful as the courts interpret it, so this paper also explores how the respective Supreme Courts of Singapore and America have evolved their interpretation of the Constitution to shape their contrasting free speech models. While this paper will not argue which model of free speech is more effective, it will outline the underlying reasons for Singapore and America's drastically different free speech models. 

Several pieces of legislation have sprung up in recent years in Florida aiming to restrict public school library books and curricular materials. Notably, this coincides with other state legislative moves to restrict what students read and learn in school with partisan purposes. Library associations have reported that nationally, removed books disproportionately contain LGBTQ and racial minority themes. One law at the heart of these restrictions, Florida HB 1467 (2022), empowers community members to challenge and remove public school books and adds bureaucratic obstacles to the access of previously allowable materials. The vague and broad language of the Florida law leads to erratic application by school districts across the state, resulting in the suppression of protected speech. This article examines a key constitutional tension: Under what circumstances does the students’ right to receive information under the First Amendment outweigh school officials’ authority, and, by extension, parental authority over local education under the Tenth Amendment? The U.S. Supreme Court in Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District v. Pico (1982) offers one answer, holding that political orthodoxy is an unacceptable rationale for removal, but pervasive vulgarity and educational unsuitability are acceptable. These three standards are useful, yet entangle in ways Pico is not fully suited to address. This article argues HB 1467 (2022) is unconstitutional under the political orthodoxy Pico standard, strict scrutiny analysis of content-based regulations, and the vagueness and overbreadth doctrines of the 1st Amendment.

This thesis explores the factors that influence the US Supreme Court’s decisions to overturn precedent. I argue that the Court is more likely to depart from precedent in cases relating to the right to privacy due to the dynamic nature of privacy rights and their inherent connection to rapidly evolving technology and societal values. As society grapples with digital surveillance, data collection, and personal freedoms, the question of how the Supreme Court navigates past precedents in the face of new realities becomes increasingly relevant. I find that privacy precedents are more likely to be altered than other subject matter. This research contributes to a deeper understanding of the common law system’s adaptability in the face of contemporary challenges by examining the Court’s decisions to overturn precedents based on subject matter.