Dear Readers,
It is with great pleasure that we present the revival of the LLSO Review with two years’ worth of content now available in our new online publication. These theses and articles were selected as exemplary pieces of scholarship. They cover a wide range of topics that reflect the interdisciplinary nature of the Law, Letters, and Society major itself.
By enabling students to choose their own broad focus fields related to the law, LLSO transcends traditional disciplinary boundaries and emphasizes a holistic exploration of law within the broader context of economic, political, and social life. In alignment with the major's approach, these theses and essays present a diverse range of perspectives, drawing inspiration from across the social sciences. Though each thesis is unique, together they grapple with questions of control and power in society. This year's volume underscores the richness and complexity of LLSO itself, reflecting the program's commitment to cultivating informed and critical examinations of law in its many dimensions.
In "Who Controls Young People's Bodies? The Use of Social Science in Minor Medical Autonomy Cases," Shannon Chung takes up the high stakes question at the heart of many legal controversies brought to the fore by Covid-19 vaccination controversies and the increasing abortion restrictions in the United States. Chung combines legal analysis, historical research and the consideration of modern case studies to evaluate both the courts' use of social science evidence in decision-making and the current landscape of minors' rights. Chung's insightful commentary exemplifies the importance of multidisciplinary approaches to legal analysis and in judicial decision-making itself.
Ramshankar Balasubramaniyan takes up similar questions about medical control, power, and autonomy in "Examining the Utility of Public Health Litigation as a Supplement to Statistics Generated in the Global Burden of Disease Study." In the thesis, Balasubramaniyan explores the complex relationships between large organizations and lower- and middle-income countries within global public health discourse. In questioning how global health discourses sideline the input of lower- and middle-income countries, Balasubramaniyan proposes a more comprehensive approach that combines public health litigation and GBD statistics.
In "Finding Nemo: On The Application Of Nemo Dat Non Quod Habet To Cultural Property Law And The Case Of The Aramaic Incantation Bowls In The Schøyen Collection," Erin Braner thoughtfully tackles questions of legal pluralism, cultural property, and the modern legal challenges of restitution. To explore the Schøyen Collection’s unique position in a legally pluralistic arena, Braner looks to the Laws of Hammurabi as the first codified instance of nemo dat non quod habet. Highlighting postcolonial barriers embedded within the modern international legal and political systems, Braner’s thesis centers ancient and modern Iraq in its analysis of the Aramaic incantation bowls as a case study for the modern legal challenges of restitution.
Themes of culture, art, and ownership are also at the heart of "The Financialization Of The Music Industry: Songs As Assets In The New Economy." In the thesis, Annabelle Burns contemplates the political economy of the US/UK music industry. Burns dissects examples from both the 1990s and the contemporary era to offer compelling evidence that music rights are leveraged to benefit financial actors. Burns’ piece is nuanced and sharp: she deftly leverages examples of the securitization and assetization of songs to demonstrate both the occurrence of financialization and its dependence on the legal environment.
In her thesis, “Prosecuting Immunity: Reconstruction Congress, Modern Courts, and a Purpose-Based Approach to Prosecutorial Liability under Section 1983,” Jacqueline Lewittes examines the history of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 and the Supreme Court’s § 1983 jurisprudence, including an in-depth statutory analysis. By dissecting the history of the Supreme Court’s prosecutorial immunity doctrine, Lewittes offers a compelling case for the harms of prosecutorial immunity, particularly for the vulnerable seeking justice.
Fiona Brauer also looks to the Supreme Court as a site of regulation and potential harm. In "Tinker Tailored: The Inadequate Standards for Student Free Speech through Mahanoy Area High School v. B.L.," Fiona Brauer presents a clear and perceptive analysis of the complexities surrounding students’ free speech rights. Brauer navigates the legal intricacies of the Mahanoy case to highlight the shortcomings of existing standards and propose a nuanced approach to address the challenges of off-campus and online student speech. Her proposal of a harm-based standard for regulating off-campus and online student speech adds a valuable perspective to the ongoing conversation around student free speech rights.
Like Brauer, Sophie Feng also tackles the legal, social, and political ramifications of a Supreme Court case. In "Brackeen v. Haaland and the Ongoing Threat to Indigenous Livelihoods," Feng anticipates the Supreme Court’s decision in Brackeen v. Haaland. Throughout the piece, Sophie illustrates a legacy of Western political statecraft, rendered through Supreme Court decisions and federal law that aim to curtail Indigenous tribal sovereignty. Sophie’s essay is timely and astute, artfully drawing attention to an ongoing project to uphold settler hegemony and codify Indigenous elimination within formal institutions.
Thank you for supporting us in the revival of this publication. With the introduction of our online format, we look forward to the continued growth and success of the Review for years to come.
Warm regards,
The Editors of the LLSO Review