Senate Bill 8, otherwise known as the ‘Texas Heartbeat Act’, went into effect on the 1st of September 2021. This newly passed Texan abortion law offers a bounty of $10,000 USD to anyone suing clinics, doctors, nurses, abortion providers and other residents who knowingly or intends to ‘aid or abet’ the performance or inducement of an abortion.

When Justice Stevens, writing for the majority in Chevron U. S. A Inc. v Natural Resources Defence Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984), laid down the principles of what later became known as Chevron deference, he likely did not consider that the Court was doing anything remarkable. However, contrary to that assumption, the Chevron decision has since become a bedrock of American jurisprudence. In addition, there exists another less well-known, yet equally significant doctrine, that compels courts to give the federal agency the highest deference when interpreting its own regulations—this is the Auer deference

Ex-president Donald Trump’s recent nomination of US Court of Appeals judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court following the death of Justice Ginsburg sparked global concern of a reversal of progressive decisions in many landmark US cases. In particular, the media has homed in on cases which deal with current social-political issues—such as Roe v Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)—as decisions that might be reconsidered. Yet, while these cases are undoubtedly important, there are many significant decisions which, though targeted by conservatives since they were decided, remain overlooked by the international community. Most notably is Chevron U. S. A Inc. v Natural Resources Defence Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984), a case long criticised by the American right, and which will be the focus of this article.

This piece explores the extra-legal basis of China’s social credit system and the recent proposals to reform the scheme through a progressive vision of legality, consistency and clarity. However, the proposed developments struggle to substantiate how such ideals will be achieved in practice without any legislative mandate.

Content warning: rape, sexual violence

‘Rape culture’ thrives in an environment in which sexual violence and assault is freely perpetrated. In our modern and globalised society, it is shocking to notice the prominence of rape culture increasing despite the call to action to reduce such instances. From personal experience, the attitude of ‘boys will be boys’ normalises sexually promiscuous comments, jokes, inappropriate touching, and similar to continue. Unfortunately, most readers of this article would have experienced or been in close contact with some form of sexual harassment or violence during their lives. Such instances have the impact of diminished mental health outcomes including anxiety, depression, trauma, and others.

It was difficult to ignore the controversy this statement stirred within the legal community two months ago. In his first White House address regarding the George Floyd Riots, the President threatened to invoke the powers provided in 10 U.S.C. § 251-255 ‘Insurrection Act’. This allows a President to deploy the US Military or federalised National Guard into states where insurrection has threatened constitutionally protected rights or legal order. While the debate was focused on whether the Insurrection Act could be used against the riots, little attention was given to another law which limits the President’s ability to domestically deploy the military for law enforcement.

More than 200 years after Immanuel Kant called for the protection of human rights under international law, the United Nations adopted a Charter unprecedented in human history, determined to save successive generations from the scourge of war. However, since its founding in 1945, the world has been plagued by war. The twentieth century saw two World Wars, a Cold War, and the mass extermination of six million Jews. If there was a chronicle on world history, the twentieth century would be its darkest chapter. From Syria, the worst humanitarian crisis since World War II, to Yemen, home to more than 12 million children on the brink of starvation, recent world events have reignited the hotly contested debate on humanitarian intervention.

The Mabo (No 2) decision in the High Court of Australia is a fixture of any law student’s studies. Its evocative language of rights and the overturning of terra nullius occupies a prodigious space in our understanding of Australian native title. But the story is not over, nor the fight won.

The closure of the campus means that in the foreseeable future we may not be able to catch up with friends at Taste or listen to the carillon chiming as we walk through the Quad, but for many, these are the least of our issues. A proportion of non-local students have taken the option of leaving Sydney and returning home; most of them are still paying the rent for their no-longer-occupied accommodation.

Kiran Gupta talks to Associate Professor Nicole Graham, Associate Dean of Education at Sydney Law School about the rapid shift to take-home exams at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic and the plans for the take-home exam in the Law School’s future.

Many students may have little idea of what sort of career they would like to pursue after graduating from their degree. Others may have some sort of idea. Why not pursue a career in refugee rights and migration? Here are some highlights of a discussion Joseph Black had with Mitchell Skipsey, Lawyer at The Refugee Advice & Casework Service (RACS), on the field.

Moving to a new state alone to start the JD this year came with fears and many expectations. I had a mental checklist of things I strived to do, including trying to get out of my comfort zone and get involved at USYD. I figured this would allow me to meet new people and start fresh. However, life is unpredictable and before I knew it I was on a flight back home merely 2 months later. Reflecting back, I have now come to accept the situation but at the time, I was distraught, my mind was constantly racing and I couldn’t sleep for months

Every year, thousands of students across Australia enter their first ever law lecture feeling a mix of excitement and nervousness. Some feel it is the long-awaited beginning of their journey to becoming Australia’s next leading barrister, while others view it as just another boring day at university. One thing that is common among most students, however, is a desire to have a unique impact on the world, and to be more than just an average student.

Someone that has certainly exemplified what it means to be more than just a law student is Milan Gandhi. Milan is the Founder and National Director of The Legal Forecast, a not-for-profit run by early-career professionals who are entrepreneurially-minded and promote the importance of technology for effective legal practice.

The desire to be selected for a clerkship seems to be shared ubiquitously among law students and aspiring lawyers in Australia. At the same time, because so many people end up applying for clerkships, not all applicants, including excellent applicants, can be accepted. This can create quite a bit of heartbreak and sorrow.

Joseph Black explores some alternatives for law students this break.

For every law student, we pride ourselves for being a part of Sydney Law School, from the high ATAR cut-off that creates so much tension on USyd Rants, to the sleek, modern, glass architecture of New Law and New Law Annex making landmarks on Eastern Avenue, to the vibrant SULS and the supportive teaching staff, no matter how much we complain about law school, we really love being a part of it.

As we enter a different phase of our university education amidst rapid changes in our personal, social and academic lives, many of us have been forced to rethink our study routines and how we do uni. With the news and government regulations changing by the hour, it can be an overwhelming experience for many of us. Here are some tips and tricks to make this sudden transition easier for you.

It is normal to feel like we are all constantly in motion, struggling to stay afloat. The analogy often thrown around is that law school can be like a duck floating on top of the water. People give the impression that everything is under control, but underneath the surface they are scrambling. There is no doubt that ambition and drive is essential to get ahead in this world.