The Undergraduate Law Review at UC San Diego

Volume III of the Undergraduate Law Review at UC San Diego

The presence of racially biased facial recognition technology (FRT) in law enforcement presents significant legal and ethical challenges, especially in its disproportionate impact on communities of color. The biases embedded in FRT systems, due to non-diverse training datasets, lead to misidentifications that result in wrongful arrests, detentions, and broader violations of constitutional rights. This exacerbates systemic racial inequalities and further entrenches discriminatory practices within the criminal justice system. The growing reliance on FRT for policing necessitates comprehensive reforms in both technology and law to address these concerns. Therefore, solutions aimed at reducing racial bias must include diversifying training datasets, improving data quality, and incorporating advanced techniques to enhance the accuracy of these systems. However, technological improvements alone are insufficient to resolve deeper racial issues. A holistic approach is required, involving robust legal frameworks for accountability, extensive training for law enforcement, and independent audits of FRT use to ensure its fair and transparent application. While further research into the practical, large-scale implementation of these reforms is necessary, addressing the intertwined technological and legal challenges is essential to address the widespread concerns presented by racially biased FRT in policing and to protect the rights of all individuals.

A growing concern in the growing ESG investment landscape is greenwashing, which is the misrepresentation of sustainability credentials in financial products. Due to gaps in fiduciary law, fund managers and corporate directors in Delaware, the leading jurisdiction for corporate and fund governance in the US, have been able to include ESG criteria like labor policies, board diversity metrics, or greenhouse gas emissions targets in investment strategies without a strong financial justification or efficient oversight procedures. Fiduciaries may rely on ESG factors that have no proven connection to risk-adjusted returns if there is no statutory financial materiality standard, which increases the possibility of misleading investors. Although opinions are still dispersed and primarily reactive, cases like Spence v. American Airlines, SEC v. BNY Mellon, and Gatz Properties v. Auriga Capital show a growing judicial awareness of these risks. Specifically amending Delaware Titles 8, 12, and 6 to create a default financial materiality threshold and directing fiduciaries across corporations, trusts, and other entities would be a more successful strategy. With the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, this default rule would preserve contractual flexibility while restricting ESG integration to financial considerations unless specifically permitted. By doing this, Delaware can strengthen fiduciary discipline, reduce greenwashing, and make ESG-related investment practices more transparent.

Despite the nation’s former dedication toward providing redress for victims of international law violations under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), in the period after 9/11, the United States reneged on its commitment to international legal norms by failing to provide redress to victims of rights infringements. Although scholarship on the legality of the United States’ conduct during the War on Terror is abundant, much of this research fails to highlight how the nation's legacy of avoiding redress stands in stark contrast to our allies. European nations that aided the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)’s detention and interrogation program by hosting secret detention centers, known as black sites, were found liable for international law violations under the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and forced to pay redress to the victims. After analyzing the limited redress options available in the ECtHR versus in domestic courts, this paper proposes that Congress should pass an amendment to the ATS enshrining the right to sue non-domestic corporations, which includes military contractors, for violating the international law of freedom from torture in line with the cause of action provided by previous ATS cases. In creating such an amendment, the United States can ease the strain on military operations and intelligence connections resulting from conduct during the War on Terror. Although victims still endure damages, it would provide a clear avenue for those seeking redress. Furthermore, the amendment would disincentivize further rights violations, allowing the United States to reassert its commitment to international legal norms.

International treaty law, while playing a crucial role in keeping states in check with one another, remains flawed both in terms of its procedural and enforcement measures. States are incentivized not to engage with international actors, like the International Court of Justice, instead choosing to avoid or outright ignore international attempts at dispute settlements for political or sovereignty-based reasons. The South China Sea dispute, involving several states in the Asia-Pacific vying for control over the region, serves as a key example of how nation-states have chosen to take advantage of weaknesses in both international judicial institutions and international law as a broader governing structure. This article seeks to analyze the effectiveness of international law and assess its legitimacy by using the South China Sea arbitration case to identify shortcomings in the procedure and enforcement of international law. It will also delve into how international law and treaty enforcement can be strengthened, including recommendations for changes in dispute resolution procedure as well as the establishment of stronger enforcement mechanisms.

As software becomes increasingly widespread, the data generated through bookkeeping and information transfers can be harnessed for the public good. The principle of data science, using forms of information to uncover insights or predict future outcomes, is dependent on inputs to fuel its function. For instance, large language models such as ChatGPT draw from massive datasets to respond to user questions with precision in the form of a large language model. What happens, however, when the data driving these technologies is inaccurate or biased? If flawed inputs lead to life-altering consequences, who should be held accountable? This paper challenges the efficacy of artificial intelligence algorithms used by housing corporations to identify “ideal” tenants. Through examining two recent court cases and outdated privacy legislation, I will identify inconsistencies in user data protection law and reevaluate them through a legal and technological lens. The paper argues that, to protect civil rights in the age of AI, both the data and the laws governing its use must be critically examined. By focusing on AI’s role in national housing development, broader industries leveraging artificial intelligence may integrate similar safeguards to ensure fairness and accountability for the people they serve.

As anti-immigration rhetoric and policies continue to fester in the United States (US), mixed-status immigrant families are often legally vulnerable. This paper evaluates the practicality of revoking the birthright citizenship doctrine found in the Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment. In light of the predominantly conservative US government across all three branches and our current Supreme Court’s pattern in reversing long-standing decisions, people are debating the likelihood of a successful attack on birthright citizenship. However, scholars have raised strong doubts about the Court reversing this birthright citizenship standard. A lengthy history of legal statutes and the stare decisis doctrine protects the current territorial understanding of birthright citizenship as it pertains to U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants. Even if the Court makes such a revocation, our current immigration laws do not allow for any means by which the US government could impose the processes of denaturalization, then deportation, upon such children. The rules that dictate whether or not an individual’s American status is revoked are limited to citizens who were granted legal status strictly via naturalization. As it stands, the US government cannot exclude these children of the undocumented from retaining their legal US citizen statuses, conferred to them by their right of birth within US borders.

The Volcker Rule’s Covered Fund Provision, enacted under the Dodd-Frank Act in 2013, was designed to separate traditional banking from speculative investment activities to safeguard financial stability and delineate the roles of distinct segments within the financial system. In 2020, financial regulators compromised this regulatory firewall by excluding venture capital and credit funds from the provision’s restrictions, allowing banks to serve as investors, sponsors, and working partners. This paper critiques the 2020 modification through a combination of legal and regulatory analysis. I will first examine the foundational purpose and structure of the original Volcker Rule. Then, I will interpret the statutory definitions, treatment, and risk profiles of venture capital and credit funds. Together, these analyses support the paper’s primary contention that the 2020 modification failed on two core fronts: contradicting the original legislative intent of the Volcker Rule and reintroducing systemic vulnerabilities by enabling banks to invest in high-risk, illiquid, and speculative funds. Reinstating an uncompromising definition of covered funds and creating a clear separation of federally insured banks from speculative investments will be critical to maintaining systemic financial stability and preserving systemic resilience from future crises.

This paper discusses the “zero-tolerance policy” responsible for the mass separation of immigrant families, including those with children who hold birthright citizenship. Immigration legislation, including the zero-tolerance policy, was passed under the first Trump Administration to curtail illegal immigration. Despite attempts to restrict unlawful entry, the policy violates the fundamental rights of citizens and undocumented families. This paper analyzes the powers enumerated to the government over immigration as provided by the Constitution. It also examines the authority the executive branch has over immigration legislation through the Take Care and Vesting clauses, particularly after the enactment of the 2002 Homeland Security Act. Through an examination of the institutional framework governing the child removal process in states along the Southern border, I will assert that the separation of families by immigration authorities surpassed the scope of their legal jurisdiction. Children, regardless of immigration status, are entitled to proper custody protocol and the option to stay with family. Thus, I will argue how the due process and equal protection rights guaranteed to families under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments were violated by the enactment of the zero-tolerance policy.

This Article explores a discrete yet consequential driver of AI-generated copyright infringement: overfitting. By analyzing overfitting as a statistical phenomenon, it offers a legal framework for understanding how this technical failure can lead machine learning models to reproduce protected works nearly identically. Through the lens of the Italian Plumber Problem, this article critiques the limitations of the fair use doctrine when applied to generative AI outputs, identifies regulatory and policy shortcomings, and argues for an updated doctrinal toolkit. Finally, it draws a conceptual parallel between algorithmic overfitting and judicial reasoning, positing that courts may fall prey to overfitting by relying on fact-specific precedent in the absence of guiding rules for novel technologies. Using interdisciplinary analysis, this article calls for a recalibration of legal frameworks to accommodate the realities of machine learning and protect both innovation and authorship in the digital age.

This paper examines the implications of granting limited legal rights to artificial intelligence (AI), particularly on intellectual property law and the expanding field of human genetic engineering technologies. It advocates for an innovative legal schema that accords AI entities a restricted status of legal persons, altering the traditional conceptions of inventorship and proprietary rights within genetic engineering. This proposed legal framework seeks to correct the deficiencies evident within intellectual property paradigms, demonstrated by AI-enhanced CRISPR technologies and the problems they present to legal frameworks. Moreover, it aims to guarantee equitable access to genetic therapies and promote a more inclusive framework for innovation, addressing ethical imperatives and practical necessities in the evolving technological landscape.