On The Wax: How Prosecutors Weaponize Rap Lyrics at Trial

Jasmine Ross

Volume 28.2 (download PDF)

Abstract

In the last few years news headlines have been filled with stories of high-profile trials in which celebrity rappers like Young Thug, Tekashi 6ix9ine (now “6IX9INE”) and Bobby Shmurda have been confronted by prosecutors with lyrics they wrote. Of course, the use of rap lyrics in these trials is no accident. Since the 1990s criminal defendants who happen to pen rap lyrics are increasingly likely to have their lyrics admitted against them at trial. This is happening all over the country—in federal and state courts—at every stage of criminal proceedings. This Note will focus on the use of rap lyrics at trial in cases where a defendant has been charged with gang-related crimes.

Despite rap lyrics being creative expressions and not always depicting real events, prosecutors have successfully admitted them to prove that a defendant did the crime with which he is charged or to demonstrate his unethical character to a jury. Rap lyrics are admitted at trial at higher rates than any other music genre. Black and Latinx men are also the demographic most likely to have their rap lyrics admitted against them. Thus, prosecutors’ fixation on rap lyrics demonstrates the racism that animates the entire criminal justice system.

In addition to briefly discussing the cases of Young Thug, Tekashi 6ix9ine and Bobby Shmurda, this Note will spotlight stories from lesserknown defendant-rappers across the country who have had their lyrics used against them at trial. In all these cases, prosecutors used Federal Rules of Evidence 401 and 403 or their state-specific corollaries to introduce rap lyrics into evidence. This Note will examine the various arguments prosecutors and defense attorneys make regarding whether these rules should admit or preclude rap lyrics from evidence. Finally, this Note will examine proposed or implemented reforms across the country that either make it more difficult for prosecutors to admit lyrics or categorically ban the admission of rap lyrics into evidence.

Continue reading

The Architecture of U.S. Fascism: Part I

Nina Farnia

Volume 28.2 (download PDF)

Abstract

In this two-part series, I excavate the political, racial, and colonial economy of U.S. fascism. Part I presents definitions of both proto-fascism and fascism. I argue that fascism is attendant to the fall of imperialism, which is produced by intractable crises of capital. Thus, domination is not the defining feature of fascism, especially since fascism arrives to power through popular consent and emerges to enforce the empire’s last remaining frontiers of capital accumulation. I apply the analysis presented in Part I to modern legal documents, including Supreme Court decisions and executive orders. Legal historical methodology exposes rule of law liberalism as fascism’s fellow traveler, not the greatest bulwark against U.S. fascism. I conclude by offering some preliminary remedies to challenge its rise. Part II, which will be published in the Winter 2026 issue of the CUNY Law Review, constructs a preliminary archive of U.S. fascism.

Continue reading

People ex rel. King v. Gallagher and the Forgotten Legal Struggle over Racial Segregation in New York State Public Schools

David A. Weinstein

Volume 28.1 (download PDF)

Abstract

In 1883, in People ex rel. King v. Gallagher, the New York Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit brought on behalf of an eleven-year-old African American girl who sought admission into her neighborhood public school in Brooklyn and thereby challenged the legal segregation regime governing New York’s public education system. The case, largely forgotten today, had a profound impact on subsequent legal efforts at school desegregation. This article examines the development of African American legal rights to public education in New York State in the nineteenth century and early efforts to challenge the exclusion of Black students from public schools. It describes the King litigation and its place in the development of civil rights law, focusing on its role in entrenching the “separate but equal” doctrine.

Continue reading

No Remedy for Colonization

Sígrid Vendrell-Polanco

Volume 28.1 (download PDF)

Abstract

The United States purports to maintain a democratic relationship with its inhabited territories, yet the Supreme Court continues to uphold twentieth century laws that affirm rather than abrogate colonial policies. The gap between how the United States idealizes democracy and its real world application, especially in its five colonized territories (Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, the United States Virgin Islands, and American Samoa), is not just growing – it is becoming a chasm. These colonies are currently referred to as United States territories. In 2023, the U.S. territory of Puerto Rico experienced a controversial sovereignty challenge surrounding the Supreme Court’s ruling in Financial Oversight & Management Board for Puerto Rico v. Centro de Periodismo Investigativo, Inc. In 2023, the Puerto Rican people expressed national outrage at the implementation and supervision of the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act (“PROMESA”) congressional statute due to its exclusion of Puerto Rican constituents from equal collaboration in debt crisis resolution and pronounced refusal of government transparency. This article contributes to the scholarly literature on United States territorial law by condemning the oppressive application of federal laws to the territories and contends that the Court has cut off any viable remedy for Puerto Rico to redress governance grievances. The Court continues to affirm colonial rule without a viable remedy for self-governance.

Continue reading

Mailing It In: Due Process Requires Technology-Driven Safeguards in Public Benefits

Eric Lukoff

Volume 28.1 (download PDF)

Abstract

Due process in safety net public benefit programs requires agencies to employ modern technology in providing notice that is reasonably likely to reach participants. The Supreme Court has held that due process is dependent on the time, place, and circumstances in which it operates. Scholars have further argued that due process is adaptable to changing facts and circumstances over time. Yet, mailed paper notices remain the standard in providing notice to participants in public benefit programs.

Continue reading

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act: Evaluating Its Promise and Navigating Regulatory Challenges in a Post-Chevron Era

Rebecca B. Stein

Volume 28.1 (download PDF)

Abstract

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (“PWFA”) establishes the first federal standard to protect pregnant workers by explicitly granting them the right to reasonable workplace accommodations. Historically, pregnant workers have faced challenges in receiving the necessary accommodations due to limited legal protections, often forcing them to choose between income and health. Previous legislation, such as the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 and the Americans with Disabilities Act, provided insufficient protection.

Continue reading

The Imperceptibility of Muslim Identity

Nadia B. Ahmad

Volume 28.1 (download PDF)

Abstract

This article examines the challenges facing Muslim Americans, particularly Muslim women, as they confront systemic bias, intersectional oppression, and the racialization of religion in the United States. Through personal narrative and critical legal scholarship, it explores the pervasive nature of Islamophobia in political, academic, and societal spaces, highlighting its deep entrenchment in media and public policy. The author recounts a gendered Islamophobic attack during the 2024 Democratic National Committee’s Convention as an example of how prejudice and political intimidation intersect to marginalize Muslims. Using this experience as a foundation, the article critiques structural inequities reinforced through diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives that fail to disrupt entrenched systems of racism. It draws on emerging MusCrit scholarship, which situates Muslim identity within critical race theory, to advocate for counter-narratives that challenge reductive and racialized depictions of Islam.

Continue reading

In Search of Solid Gound: Constitutional Standing In Challenges to Corporate Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (“DEI”) Programs

Ally Coll

Volume 27.2 (download PDF)

Abstract

This term, in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, the Supreme Court invalidated Harvard and the University of North Carolina’s (“UNC”) race-conscious admissions programs as unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In a significant departure from past precedent, the Court concluded that Harvard and UNC’s programs “cannot be reconciled with the guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause.” In anticipation of and in the wake of this decision, individuals and organizations who oppose similar workplace diversity programs brought lawsuits challenging the legality of various corporate diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”) programs under a range of federal civil rights statutes. Lower courts considering these claims have thus far largely declined to adjudicate them on the merits, instead dismissing them for lack of Article III standing. While much attention has been placed on the implications of the Court’s substantive reasoning in Students for Fair Admissions for corporate DEI programs, this Article argues that the Court’s standing analysis this term, both in the affirmative action case and in other key decisions, is equally important to the outcome of pending challenges to such initiatives.

Continue reading

The Opportunity Presented By the End of Race-Conscious Admissions in Higher Education

Mohamed Akram Faizer

Volume 27.2 (download PDF)

Abstract

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to invalidate race-based admissions will problematically make it more difficult for underrepresented minorities’ to gain admission to elite colleges and universities. However, it offers an opportunity to finally address racial inequality in access to preschool and K-12 education, by removing the political cover that allowed elite credentialing to perpetuate social advantage and ignore distributional justice. To create a more inclusive admissions process, cultural competence experts should collaborate with civil society to develop policies that consider all perspectives. This approach, inspired by administrative law’s notice-and-comment framework, can help institutions prioritize factors like resilience over regressive metrics tied to socioeconomic status. In the long term, this shift could encourage elite schools to engage with marginalized communities to address the racial opportunity gap from the ground up. It might also challenge the country’s excessive focus on hyper-elite credentials as a pathway to success, and recognize that there are many highly capable students and graduates from less selective schools that merit consideration for prestigious jobs. This change could promote socioeconomic mobility and foster a more inclusive and equitable society.

Continue reading

Between a River and a Wall: An Impossible Choice for Migrants Living Under Operation Lone Star and S.B. 4

Salimah Khoja & Paulina Leyva Hernandez

Volume 27.2 (download PDF)

Abstract

In 2023 the Texas legislature passed Senate Bill 4 (“S.B. 4”), which empowers state and local law enforcement agencies to engage in immigration enforcement by arresting and deporting migrants who are suspected of crossing the southern border. Anti-immigrant state laws like Texas’s S.B. 4 and Arizona’s Senate Bill 1070 (“S.B. 1070”) were created to test the limits of state power and limit the reach of federal immigration enforcement within the states. Legal challenges to state laws like S.B. 4 and S.B. 1070 demonstrate the ongoing tension between federal and state governments related to authority over immigration matters, even though immigration has been within the federal government’s purview since the early days of the United States, as recognized by the judiciary for more than a century. This Note focuses on the immigration preemption doctrine and argues that the Supreme Court should declare S.B. 4 unconstitutional, while protecting states’ ability to continue creating humane, immigrant-inclusive policies without impermissibly disrupting the fabric of federal immigration enforcement actions.

Continue reading