Articles
SASPA: THE KEY TO HANDLING SEXUAL ASSAULT ON CAMPUS IN NEW JERSEY
Kelly L. McNaughton
This article argues that New Jersey’s Sexual Assault Survivor Protection Act (SASPA) provides a superior alternative to Title IX proceedings for addressing sexual assault on college campuses. SASPA, enacted in 2015, allows victims of acquaintance sexual assault to obtain final protective orders through family court without requiring criminal charges or domestic violence relationships. The act offers three key advantages over Title IX: no conflict of interest since courts rather than universities conduct proceedings, efficiency with mandatory hearings within ten days, and strong remedies through final protective orders enforceable by police that can permanently bar defendants from campus.
SASPA’s protective scope extends effectively to university settings, as demonstrated in V.M. v. S.G., where a court barred a pastor from his own church to protect a victim. The statute explicitly includes “school” as a protected location, and due process concerns are addressed through required hearings before orders are issued. Since defendants can attend other educational institutions, being barred from one campus does not violate the right to education. For New Jersey college students facing acquaintance sexual assault, SASPA represents an ideal legal remedy that provides comprehensive protection while avoiding the political inconsistencies and potential conflicts of interest inherent in Title IX proceedings.
This article discusses how New Jersey’s prohibition on sports betting for in-state collegiate events and out-of-state events involving New Jersey schools violates the Dormant Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Assembly Bill 4111, enacted after the Supreme Court struck down the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, allows sports betting on most events but specifically excludes collegiate games taking place in New Jersey or involving New Jersey teams. This restriction constitutes an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce because New Jersey’s exclusion from betting on these events directly affects national and international odds. As the nation’s largest sports betting market in 2019, New Jersey’s absence from certain betting markets makes odds less accurate and representative than they would be with full participation.
The law discriminates against articles of commerce originating within the state while favoring those from outside, reversing the typical pattern addressed by Dormant Commerce Clause doctrine. The restriction’s stated purpose of preventing cheating is redundant since the same legislation already prohibits individuals with team connections from betting. Other states like Pennsylvania and Mississippi allow betting on their in-state collegiate teams while implementing similar anti-cheating measures, demonstrating less restrictive alternatives. The prohibition also impacts interstate tourism, as visitors who might travel to New Jersey specifically to bet on certain games are prevented from doing so. By protecting only its own collegiate events while allowing betting on all others, New Jersey engages in local economic protectionism that violates constitutional commerce principles and creates a losing proposition for bettors, sportsbooks, and the broader sports betting market.RetryClaude can make mistakes. Please double-check responses.
KEEPING CRIMINAL ENCOUNTERS CONFIDENTIAL: PREVENTING COLLATERAL CONSEQUENCES FOR YOUNG ADULTS
Gisselly Perez-Astwood
This article discusses the need to extend juvenile confidentiality protections to young adults aged eighteen to twenty-five in the criminal justice system. The author argues that young adults, like juveniles, possess diminished culpability due to three key factors identified in Roper v. Simmons: lack of maturity, vulnerability to negative influences, and transitory character formation. Research demonstrates that young adult brains remain cognitively similar to juveniles rather than fully developed adults, with decision-making and impulse control areas not fully maturing until around age twenty-five. Young adults are particularly susceptible to peer pressure, groupthink, and social media influences that can lead to criminal behavior. Additionally, they face severe collateral consequences from criminal records that impede their reintegration into society, including barriers to employment, education, housing, and other opportunities. The article proposes two solutions: extending general confidentiality protections similar to New York’s youthful offender procedures or implementing automatic expungement provisions after a statutory waiting period, following models from Louisiana and Pennsylvania. The author concludes that automatic expungement would provide the most comprehensive protection while balancing society’s interests in accountability and public safety, effectively giving young adults a “clean slate” after demonstrating good behavior during a reasonable waiting period.
REVIVING CAT WHEN IT’S GONE TO THE DOGS: A NEW LOOK AT THE CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE AFTER MATTER OF A-B-
Sabah Abbasi
In light of recent legal and policy developments that have destabilized settled asylum law in general and diminished relief for gender-based claims in particular, this commentary examines the evolution of refugee law for gender-based claims. As United States caselaw currently stands, administrative and judicial interpretations threaten to bar applicants with gender-based
claims from meeting their burdens to demonstrate eligibility for statutory relief. In exploring the evolution of this caselaw, this commentary argues that where more historically reliable forms
of relief may fail, withholding of removal under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“Convention Against
Torture” or CAT”) can and should fill the gap and provide protection—despite its limitations—for survivors of domestic and gender-based violence seeking to enter the United States.
Comments are closed