Imagine that you and your friends took a vacation to a five-star resort. Your phone vibrates with an alert that a foreign country has just launched a nuclear missile, and it is undoubtedly on its way to your location. The resort can assist you in departing before the missile arrives. Meanwhile, while cognizant of the danger, the resort’s staff disregards the severity of the crisis.
You and others are stunned when you hear the resort’s response to the many grievances that are circulating amongst the group. Despite knowledge of the danger and the resources to assist you and others, the resort ignores your plea and adds ‘you’ll survive, don’t worry.” However, one staff member disagrees and offers you and others a way out of this travesty. And when the group makes its way to the exit, the head of security for the resort halts you in your path. And to add to this preposterous response, you overhear a command on the head security guard’s radio stating, “this is the owner of the resort; those individuals are prohibited from leaving the resort grounds.” The resort’s security begins to detain you and the group and jokingly says “you were supposed to fill out a request, subject to the review of our board of directors who will be in next week.”
The right to own property, legally enshrined in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, is a fundamental American right.[1] The Fifth Amendment provides that no person shall be “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”[2] Property rights cover an individual’s rights to something in relation to other persons,[3] including the rights to: possess, use, exclude, dispose of, transfer, and remain free from government seizure without just compensation.[4]
Courts have for decades treated human gametes as legal property when cryogenically preserved outside of the human body, explicitly referring to preserved gametes as a “unique type of ‘property.’”[5] The property rights to those gametes only become relevant, however, once the gametes have left the body and “been transferred to a commercial middleman.”[6] Gametes should be treated as legal property while they are still “live”—meaning inside of the body rather than extracted and/or preserved. The rights to “live” gametes would (as with cryogenically preserved gametes) become relevant when the gametes transfer from one party to another with the potential to make new matter, such as an embryo. During heterosexual intercourse, therefore, the property rights to the live sperm would transfer to the person able to become pregnant. Assuring property rights to live gametes would provide a stronger constitutional basis for reproductive autonomy than the implied “right to privacy” in the Fourteenth Amendment that the Supreme Court relied on in Roe v. Wade,[7] which has been constantly challenged since the ruling.[8]
Since 1910, Black farmland owners have lost approximately 14 million acres of land in the U.S.[1] This considerable loss results from heirs’ property legal challenges, such as partition actions, foreclosure sales, and adverse possession issues.[2] Heirs’ property occurs when someone dies without a will, and their land passes to their children, spouse, parents, or other family members.[3] Heirs’ property owners hold the land as tenants-in-common, sharing an undivided, fractional interest in the land.[4] Tenancy-in-common is the “most widespread form of common ownership in the United States” because about half of Americans do not make wills.[5]
Heirs’ property challenges substantially burden Black landowners who have difficulty paying for an attorney to solve their property issues. Consequently, forced partition sales continue to disproportionately impact Black landowners.[6] Heirs’ property owners cannot secure “traditional mortgage financing or business loans” because they do not have a clear title to their land.[7] Without a title or deed, heirs’ property farmland owners have difficulty securing loans or aid from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).[8] In many cases, state USDA offices do not approve these owners for loans or disaster relief funding because landowners fail to prove ownership since tenants-in-common landowners cannot produce a deed.[9]
The United States has a long history of mistreating its minority population. Since the founding of this country, from the 3/5 rule to modern voter-dilution practices, the U.S. has subjected minorities, and particularly African Americans, to state-mandated second-class citizenry. Of which, minority populations continue to struggle for fair apportionment and representation within our state and federal governments. After Abraham Lincoln gave his Emancipation Proclamation in 1863,[1] Congress took over seven years to draft, pass, and ratify the 15th amendment granting African American men the right to vote.[2]
Millions of U.S. citizens living in unincorporated territories, like the U.S. Virgin Islands, have an inferior political and legal status. Congress passed legislation organizing the territory’s government under the Revised Organic Act of 1954, extending the Bill of Rights except the Ninth Amendment and other key constitutional amendments.[1]
While Congress extends U.S. citizenship to persons in these territories, they have no right to vote in presidential elections because unincorporated territories are not states.[2] They have a delegate to Congress, but this delegate has no voting rights.[3] This is an inequitable application of constitutional rights. Restorative principles insist the Court and Congress must create equity by dismantling the laws and policies that have denied these political rights to Virgin Islanders since its acquisition by the United States.
The Fourth Amendment protects an individual’s right to privacy.[1] However, applying these protections in the public sphere is a tricky endeavor. For starters, one must balance individual privacy rights with public safety.[2] This means factoring in law enforcement’s need to access private information in order to protect the public.[3] Overlaying this calculation is modern technology, which allows people to quickly store and access massive amounts of data in previously unimaginable ways.[4]
Half of all homeless women reported domestic violence (DV) as the cause of their homelessness.[1] There is a misconception that DV survivors are not at risk of becoming homeless.[2] This misconception stems from the idea that survivors often have a choice between being homeless or remaining with an abusive partner.[3]
Ranchers are not terrorists. This statement may seem obvious—but is it? The use of public lands in the American west is wrought with tension between generations of ranching families and the federal government.[1] Tensions are greatest in the western states where a higher percentage of the land is owned and managed by the federal government.[2] Currently, “46.4% of the 11 coterminous western states” are federally owned and managed.[3] This amount of governmental ownership is sharply contrasted in the rest of the country, where only 4.2% of the land is federally owned.[4]
Lush green grass surrounds a statuesque clubhouse. Early morning mowing hums barely, yet noticeably, in the distance. Impressive statues and perfectly placed trees line the landscape. If you listened carefully, you might hear slight laughter in the distance as a group tees off before driving their golf carts down the fairway.[1] This soothing scene thinly veils the golf industry’s historically destructive nature, as many golf courses cause environmental harm to their surrounding landscapes.[2] For example, Trump International Golf Links Scotland (“Trump International”) exemplifies this picturesque perfection and how it delicately conceals a long history of ongoing environmental wreckage.[3] The construction of this golf course depleted the presence of legally protected sand dunes in Scotland.[4] Scottish National Heritage— an agency that monitors environmentally sensitive sites in Scotland—reported that constructing Trump International depleted 168 acres of the Forevan Links.[5]
Helsinki, 2013: The director-general of the World Health Organization, Dr. Margaret Chan, stands before a crowd of conference delegates and issues a dire warning about the food and drink industry’s piqued interest in public health policy.[1] “It is not just Big Tobacco anymore,” she states.[2] “Public health must also contend with Big Food, Big Soda, and Big Alcohol. All of these industries fear regulation, and protect themselves by using the same tactics.”[3] These tactics include influencing regulation that serves corporate interests, and experts fear that those interests will rarely align with the interests of public health.[4] “When industry is involved in policy-making,” Chan cautioned, “rest assured that the most effective control measures will be downplayed or left out entirely. This is well documented, and dangerous.”[5]
Submissions The Vermont Law Review continually seeks articles, commentaries, essays, and book reviews on any subject concerning recent developments in state, federal, Native American, or international law.
