Felon Disenfranchisement: A Historical Weapon for Racial Discrimination

By: Ameera Hamadeh

Edited by: Jack Pacconi and Haley Kleinman

On Monday, January 27th, 2025, The Supreme Court of the United States declined to hear a challenge to Mississippi's lifetime ban on voting for individuals who have previously committed a felony. [1] SCOTUS justices turned away an appeal requested from a lower court’s decision to reject a lawsuit against the ban. The appeal argued that the provision of the Mississippi Constitution which prevents a felon from voting after their sentence is completed violates the U.S. Constitution's 8th and 14th Amendments, sections which respectively bar cruel and unusual punishments and ensure equal protection under the law. [2]

The case had been previously tried in 2023 by Black Mississippi residents who lost their voting privileges indefinitely after being convicted of felonies listed in section 241 of the Mississippi Constitution. [3] Within the state of Mississippi, a felony can range from convicted murder or rape to minor cases of theft; the voting restrictions apply to the citizens no matter the severity or context of their crime. [4] An individual may restore their voting rights by receiving a pardon from their governor or permission from two-thirds of the State Congress; however, very few citizens have actually obtained this restoration in the past several years. [5]

Felony disenfranchisement within the United States has a complicated history deeply rooted in racial discrimination. Following the era of Reconstruction after the Civil War, leaders of the Southern states created barriers to civic participation for Black people who recently gained equal voting rights. The restrictions placed on felon’s ability to vote, specifically in the state of Mississippi, trace back to the implementation of Jim Crow laws within state legislation. [6] Section 241 of Mississippi’s constitution, one which permanently bars felons from voting, was amended in 1890 with the goal of adding crimes more commonly committed by Black citizens to the document. Supporters of this amendment openly admitted that they aimed to “keep Black men away from the ballot box.” [7] The provision was amended again in 1950, to remove the act of burglary, and in 1968, to add murder and rape. The addition of these crimes had been historically delayed on the premise that they were “not considered crimes a black person was prone to commit,” and therefore, did not have merit in disenfranchising eligible black voters. [8]

The effects of the provision continue to disproportionately target Black citizens of Mississippi today, a population that represents “nearly 60% of individuals convicted of disenfranchising felony offenses, but make up approximately 37% of the state’s population.” [9] Of the nationwide African American population, 4.5% is disenfranchised in comparison to that of the non-African American population being only 1.3%. [10] In the 2024 Presidential Election, an estimated 4 million Americans were ineligible to vote due to felony conviction laws, with an overwhelming majority of this population being previously eligible citizens of color. [11]

The recent order from SCOTUS is not the only time justices refused to consider the issue of felony voting rights in Mississippi. In June of 2023, the Court refused to hear a similar case challenging the same provision of Section 241 with respect to the context of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The rejection of this case resulted in a dissent from Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor, the former noting that the Court had “missed yet another opportunity to learn from its mistakes.” [12]

Ultimately, the systemic preservation of  voting rights restrictions for convicted felons works to further racial injustice within predominantly white regions of the United States. As the highest court of the land, it is imperative that SCOTUS works to correct these injustices by ensuring equal protection and barring cruel and unusual punishment for all citizens, as promised in the US Constitution.

Notes:

1. Chung, Andrew. “US Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to Mississippi Lifetime Ban on Voting by Felons.” Reuters.com, January 25, 2025. https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-rejects-challenge-mississippi-lifetime-ban-voting-by-felons-2025-01-27/.

2. Ibid. 

3. Golde, Kalvis. “Mississippi’s Permanent Felony Voting Ban Returns to the Court.” scotusblog.com, January 25, 2025.. https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/01/mississippis-permanent-felony-voting-ban-returns-to-the-court/.

4. ncsl.org. “Felon Voting Rights,” October 18, 2024. https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-campaigns/felon-voting-rights.

5. Sherman, Mark. “Supreme Court Leaves in Place Mississippi’s Voting Ban for People Convicted of Some Crimes.” apnews.com, January 27, 2025. https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-voting-rights-mississippi-felon-disenfranchisement-66e42dfdc5106d40ed5fcb6a62ed06af.

6. Chung, Andrew. “US Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to Mississippi Lifetime Ban on Voting by Felons.” Reuters.com, January 25, 2025. https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-rejects-challenge-mississippi-lifetime-ban-voting-by-felons-2025-01-27/.

7. Golde, Kalvis. “Mississippi’s Permanent Felony Voting Ban Returns to the Court.” scotusblog.com, January 25, 2025. https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/01/mississippis-permanent-felony-voting-ban-returns-to-the-court/.

8. Berry, Patrick. “Court Strikes Down Mississippi’s Lifetime Felony Voting Ban.” brennancenter.org, July 18, 2024. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/court-strikes-down-mississippis-lifetime-felony-voting-ban.

9. Selzer, Rachel. “SCOTUS Declines to Review Mississippi’s Jim Crow-Era Felony Disenfranchisement Law.” democracydocket.com, January 27, 2025. https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/scotus-declines-to-review-mississippis-jim-crow-era-felony-disenfranchisement-law/.

10. Uggen, Christopher, Ryan Larson, Sarah Shannon, Robert Stewart, and Molly Hauf. “Locked Out 2024: Four Million Denied Voting Rights Due to a Felony Conviction.” sentencingproject.org, October 10, 2024. https://www.sentencingproject.org/reports/locked-out-2024-four-million-denied-voting-rights-due-to-a-felony-conviction/.

11. Ibid.

12. Selzer, Rachel. “SCOTUS Declines to Review Mississippi’s Jim Crow-Era Felony Disenfranchisement Law.” democracydocket.com, January 27, 2025. https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/scotus-declines-to-review-mississippis-jim-crow-era-felony-disenfranchisement-law/.

Bibliography:

Berry, Patrick. “Court Strikes Down Mississippi’s Lifetime Felony Voting Ban.” brennancenter.org, July 18, 2024. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/court-strikes-down-mississippis-lifetime-felony-voting-ban.

Chung, Andrew. “US Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to Mississippi Lifetime Ban on Voting by Felons.” Reuters.com, January 25, 2025. https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-rejects-challenge-mississippi-lifetime-ban-voting-by-felons-2025-01-27/.ncsl.org. “Felon Voting Rights,” October 18, 2024. https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-campaigns/felon-voting-rights.

Golde, Kalvis. “Mississippi’s Permanent Felony Voting Ban Returns to the Court.” scotusblog.com, January 25, 2025. https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/01/mississippis-permanent-felony-voting-ban-returns-to-the-court/.

Selzer, Rachel. “SCOTUS Declines to Review Mississippi’s Jim Crow-Era Felony Disenfranchisement Law.” democracydocket.com, January 27, 2025. https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/scotus-declines-to-review-mississippis-jim-crow-era-felony-disenfranchisement-law/.

Sherman, Mark. “Supreme Court Leaves in Place Mississippi’s Voting Ban for People Convicted of Some Crimes.” apnews.com, January 27, 2025. https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-voting-rights-mississippi-felon-disenfranchisement-66e42dfdc5106d40ed5fcb6a62ed06af.

Uggen, Christopher, Ryan Larson, Sarah Shannon, Robert Stewart, and Molly Hauf. “Locked Out 2024: Four Million Denied Voting Rights Due to a Felony Conviction.” sentencingproject.org, October 10, 2024. https://www.sentencingproject.org/reports/locked-out-2024-four-million-denied-voting-rights-due-to-a-felony-conviction/.

Trump’s Tariff Threats: The Case of Colombia

By: Alison Booth

Edited by: Eleanor Bergstein and Faith Magiera

A government exists, in part, to protect its people. Tariffs are a central tool of protection in terms of the domestic producers in the economy. Generally, tariffs tax imports to drive up the price of internationally produced goods. In turn, the domestically produced goods become more affordable to the domestic consumer. [1]

While the primary goal of tariffs is to generate revenue for the government, wealthy countries also focus on using tariffs to shield domestic industries and correct trade imbalances. The associated tax payments are ostensibly paid by international producers, but the situation is much more complex. [2]

Originally, for the United States, the founding fathers intended for Congress to determine tariff rates. However, during the Great Depression, presidential power was expanded. Currently, Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 allows the president to impose tariffs as a response to national security threats. [3]

Consumers, either individuals or companies purchasing inputs, of an economy with tariffs see higher prices. As the price of exporting the good to the buyer directly rises due to increases in tariff rates, all international sellers see a higher cost in production. Because the formerly cheaper imported goods now cost more for the producers, they pass off the cost to the consumers via increased prices. Currently, domestic consumers see a higher exchange rate as a direct result of declining trade. [4] As intended, trade falls.

Alternatively, if the country imposing tariffs is a sufficiently large consumer of a certain product, international producers must reduce their prices to remain competitive. In this case, consumers pay a post-tariff price roughly equivalent to that of domestic production. Assistant Professor of Economics and USC Dornsife Monica Morlacco comments on a specific example: “This price reduction, known as a ‘terms of trade gain’ for the U.S., ensures that the domestic price of imported coffee does not rise by the full amount of the tariff.” [5]

Nonetheless tariffs still cause damage to domestic industries. An increase of just 3.6% results in a decline in gross domestic product (GDP) of 0.4% for five years following the change. [6] As labor productivity falls under tariffs and imported part prices rise; domestic consumers are harmed by tariffs. The impact worsens over time as the tariffs are maintained.

Beyond the domestic lens, countries impacted impose retaliatory tariffs. According to Morlacco, “[Retaliatory tariffs] can compound the direct effects by reducing access to foreign markets and raising prices for other goods.” [7] During President Trump’s first term in office, tariffs were met with targeted retaliatory measures designed to impact products produced by strong supporters of the GOP. [8]

In the current day, President Donald Trump is using tariffs to address his key initiatives to reduce the rate of illegal immigration to the United States. As such, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has been rapidly detaining individuals under his direction. When the Colombian government refused military flights of deportees, Trump threatened a combination of tariffs and sanctions. [9]

The threats included a 25% tariff on Colombian goods. The rate would increase to 50% one week after institution, amongst other restrictions. With 4% of the Colombian GDP dependent on U.S. exports, President Gustavo Petro was forced to allow the aircraft to transport the illegal immigrants even as Petro critiqued the use of a military plane and relevant conditions. [10]

Trump has similar concerns around illegal immigration and fentanyl transportation related to Mexico and Canada. Further, his agenda extends to global competition with China. On February 1st, he followed through on previous threats, placing a 25% tariff on Mexico and Canada and a 10% tariff on China and Canadian energy, a significant change from the previous rates of roughly 2%. [11] [12]

Such high rates on close trade partners of the US would likely drive up domestic inflation. In response to the tariffs, Canada and Mexico have begun to set similar rates for US exports to their countries. Specifically, according to Josh Boak of AP News, “The premier of the Canadian province of British Columbia, David Eby, specifically called on residents to stop buying liquor from U.S. ‘red’ states and said it was removing American alcohol brands from government store shelves as a response to the tariffs.” [13] Top economists such as William Reinsch, the adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and a former U.S. trade official, heavily critique taxation of raw material imports claiming, “It doesn’t make much economic sense.” [14]

With the retaliation by Mexico and Canada, economists estimate households would lose $1,439 annually, on average. The tariffs alone would contribute 0.76% to an inflation rate Americans are already frustrated with. [15]

Looking forward, insurance company Nationwide’s economics division predicted economic growth falling by 0.7 percentage points, not accounting for the retaliatory tariffs. Tariff payments from the transport sector alone would rise from $4 billion to $68 billion. [16] 

The Trump administration’s new tariffs went into place at midnight on March 3rd. All three countries impacted–China, Canada, and Mexico–plan or have already placed retaliatory measures in place. China responded to the 10 percent tariff with 10 and 15 percent tariffs on a variety of American food products. The 25 percent tariffs against Canada were immediately matched while identical tariffs against Mexico will receive a response by March 9th. [17] Further threats against the European Union loom. [18][19] American consumers should hope for the tariff war to end peacefully to avoid further increases to the inflation rate.

Notes:

1. Joy, Darrin S. “Tariffs: What are they, who pays for them and who do they benefit?” USC Dornsife, 2 Feb. 2025, https://dornsife.usc.edu/news/stories/tariffs-explained-by-economics-professor-trade-expert/.

2. Joy, Darrin S. “Tariffs: What are they, who pays for them and who do they benefit?” USC Dornsife, 2 Feb. 2025, https://dornsife.usc.edu/news/stories/tariffs-explained-by-economics-professor-trade-expert/.

3. Loftis, Emily. “Who has the Authority to Impose Tariffs and how does this Affect International Trade?” National Library of Medicine, May 2019, https://yeutter-institute.unl.edu/who-has-authority-impose-tariffs-and-how-does-affect-international-trade/.

4. Furceri, Davide, Swarnali A Hannan, Jonathan D Ostry, Andrew K Rose. “Are tariffs bad for growth? Yes, say five decades of data from 150 countries.” National Library of Medicine, 12 Apr. 2020, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7255316/.

5. Joy, Darrin S. “Tariffs: What are they, who pays for them and who do they benefit?” USC Dornsife, 2 Feb. 2025, https://dornsife.usc.edu/news/stories/tariffs-explained-by-economics-professor-trade-expert/.

6. Furceri, Davide, Swarnali A Hannan, Jonathan D Ostry, Andrew K Rose. “Are tariffs bad for growth? Yes, say five decades of data from 150 countries.” National Library of Medicine, 12 Apr. 2020, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7255316/.

7. Joy, Darrin S. “Tariffs: What are they, who pays for them and who do they benefit?” USC Dornsife, 1 Oct. 2024, https://dornsife.usc.edu/news/stories/tariffs-explained-by-economics-professor-trade-e.

8. Stewart, Phil, Oliver Griffin. “US, Colombia reach deal on deportations; tariff, sanctions put on hold.” Reuters, 27 Jan. 2025, https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/colombias-petro-will-not-allow-us-planes-return-migrants-2025-01-26/.

9. Stewart, Phil, Oliver Griffin. “US, Colombia reach deal on deportations; tariff, sanctions put on hold.” Reuters, 27 Jan. 2025, https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/colombias-petro-will-not-allow-us-planes-return-migrants-2025-01-26/.

10. Boak, Josh, Zeke Miller, Rob Gillies, Christopher Sherman. “Trump puts tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China, spurring trade war as North American allies respond.” AP News, 2 Feb. 2025, https://apnews.com/article/trump-tariffs-trade-china-mexico-canada-inflation-753a09d56cd318f2eb1d2efe3c43b7d4.

11. “Industrial Tariffs.” Office of the United States Trade Representative, 2 Feb. 2025, https://ustr.gov/issue-areas/industry-manufacturing/industrial-tariffs#:~:text=The%20United%20States%20currently%20has,the%20United%20States%20duty%20free

12. Boak, Josh, Zeke Miller, Rob Gillies, Christopher Sherman. “Trump puts tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China, spurring trade war as North American allies respond.” AP News, 2 Feb. 2025, https://apnews.com/article/trump-tariffs-trade-china-mexico-canada-inflation-753a09d56cd318f2eb1d2efe3c43b7d4.

13. Boak, Josh, Zeke Miller, Rob Gillies, Christopher Sherman. “Trump puts tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China, spurring trade war as North American allies respond.” AP News, 2 Feb. 2025, https://apnews.com/article/trump-tariffs-trade-china-mexico-canada-inflation-753a09d56cd318f2eb1d2efe3c43b7d4.

14. “The Economic and Fiscal Effects of the Trump Administration’s Proposed Tariffs.” The Budget Lab at Yale, 31 Jan. 2025, https://budgetlab.yale.edu/sites/default/files/2025-01/The%20Economic%20and%20Fiscal%20Effects%20of%20the%20Trump%20Administration_1.pdf.

15. “Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Imposes Tariffs on Imports from Canada, Mexico and China.” The White House: Fact Sheets, 1 Feb. 2025, https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/02/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-imposes-tariffs-on-imports-from-canada-mexico-and-china/.

16. “Canada Follows Mexico in Reaching Deal to Delay U.S. Tariffs.” The New York Times, 3 Feb 2025, https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/02/03/us/trump-tariffs.

17. “Live Updates: Trudeau, Speaking to Americans, Blames Trump for ‘a Trade War.’” The New York Times, 4 March 2025, https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/03/04/us/tariffs-us-canada-mexico-china?smid=url-share#4c410b47-5a9a-5644-b3da-0e3ba7e17395.

18. “Canada Follows Mexico in Reaching Deal to Delay U.S. Tariffs.” The New York Times, 3 Feb 2025, https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/02/03/us/trump-tariffs.

19. Davidson, Paul. “Trump's tariffs on Canada and Mexico are delayed. Economic turmoil is here.” USA Today, 6 Feb 2025, https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2025/02/06/trump-tariffs-canada-mexico-economic-impact-damage/78244024007/.

Bibliography:

Boak, Josh, Zeke Miller, Rob Gillies, Christopher Sherman. “Trump puts tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China, spurring trade war as North American allies respond.” AP News, 2 Feb. 2025, https://apnews.com/article/trump-tariffs-trade-china-mexico-canada-inflation-753a09d56cd318f2eb1d2efe3c43b7d4.

“Canada Follows Mexico in Reaching Deal to Delay U.S. Tariffs.” The New York Times, 3 Feb 2025, https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/02/03/us/trump-tariffs.

Davidson, Paul. “Trump's tariffs on Canada and Mexico are delayed. Economic turmoil is here.” USA Today, 6 Feb 2025, https://www.usatoday.com/story//2025/02/06/trump-tariffs-canada-mexico-economic-impact-damage/78244024007/.

“Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Imposes Tariffs on Imports from Canada, Mexico and China.” The White House: Fact Sheets, 1 Feb. 2025, https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/02/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-imposes-tariffs-on-imports-from-canada-mexico-and-china/.

Furceri, Davide, Swarnali A Hannan, Jonathan D Ostry, Andrew K Rose. “Are tariffs bad for growth? Yes, say five decades of data from 150 countries.” National Library of Medicine, 12 Apr. 2020, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7255316/.

“Industrial Tariffs.” Office of the United States Trade Representative, 2 Feb. 2025, https://ustr.gov/issue-areas/industry-manufacturing/industrial-tariffs#:~:text=The%20United%20States%20currently%20has,the%20United%20States%20duty%20free.

Joy, Darrin S. “Tariffs: What are they, who pays for them and who do they benefit?” USC Dornsife, 1 Oct. 2024, https://dornsife.usc.edu/news/stories/tariffs-explained-by-economics-professor-trade-expert/.

Loftis, Emily. “Who has the Authority to Impose Tariffs and how does this Affect International Trade?” National Library of Medicine, May 2019, https://yeutter-institute.unl.edu/who-has-authority-impose-tariffs-and-how-does-affect-international-trade/.

Stewart, Phil, Oliver Griffin. “US, Colombia reach deal on deportations; tariff, sanctions put on hold.” Reuters, 27 Jan. 2025, https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/colombias-petro-will-not-allow-us-planes-return-migrants-2025-01-26/.

“The Economic and Fiscal Effects of the Trump Administration’s Proposed Tariffs.” The Budget Lab at Yale, 31 Jan. 2025, https://budgetlab.yale.edu/sites/default/files/2025-01/The%20Economic%20and%20Fiscal%20Effects%20of%20the%20Trump%20Administration_1.pdf.

The Menendez Brothers: Decades Later, a New Fight for Freedom

By: Jaenney Lee

Edited by: Ananya Chag and Anna Dellit

The Menendez brothers, Lyle and Erik, have remained a fixture of America’s true-crime consciousness since their conviction in the 1990s for the murder of their parents, José and Kitty Menendez. Over 34 years after the infamous killings, new developments—including fresh evidence and legal reconsiderations—have reignited debates about the case, highlighting potential flaws in their trial and the broader implications for justice.

A Crime That Captivated the Nation

On August 20, 1989, Lyle and Erik Menendez shot their parents in the family’s Beverly Hills mansion. In an attempt to create an alibi, the brothers drove to Mulholland Drive to discard their weapons before purchasing movie tickets. Lyle later called 911, crying, “Somebody killed my parents!” As Beverly Hills is an extremely wealthy area with almost zero crime rates, the shocking event of two brothers murdering their own parents captivated the nation and immediately drew attention from the press. [1]

Initially, investigators pursued other leads, but Erik’s guilt eventually led him to confess to his psychotherapist, Dr. L. Jerome Oziel. In a controversial twist, Oziel recorded their sessions and shared the details with his mistress, who reported them to authorities. The tapes became a focal point in the case, ultimately leading to the brothers' arrests in 1990. Legal battles over the tapes’ admissibility delayed the trial, which finally began in 1993. [2]

During the trial, the brothers claimed they acted in self-defense, alleging they had endured years of sexual, physical, and emotional abuse by their father. The first trial ended in a mistrial due to deadlocked juries. In a 1995 retrial, with stricter limitations on discussing the abuse, both were convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life without parole. [3]

Revelations and Legal Reconsiderations

In May 2023, former Menudo band member Roy Rosselló alleged that José Menendez had sexually assaulted him as a teenager. This claim provided external corroboration for the brothers' long standing allegations, prompting them to file a petition in court to overturn their convictions. [4]

In October 2024, the case was again revisited, especially following the Netflix documentary The Menendez Brothers, which shed new light to the brothers’ allegations of abuse through direct interviews.. Following the documentary, Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascón announced a review of the case, acknowledging the new evidence and recommending a resentencing that could make the brothers eligible for parole. Gascón stated, "I believe that they have paid their debt to society, and I do believe the brothers were subjected to a tremendous amount of dysfunction in the home and molestation.” [5]

In addition to Gascón’s efforts in passing a motion to resentence the brothers to 50 years , attorneys for the brothers submitted requests for clemency to Gov. Gavin Newsom by the end of October 2024. This clemency would allow the brothers to be released immediately and is separate from the resentencing effort. Gascón also expressed his support for the clemency, stating “I strongly support clemency for Erik and Lyle Menendez.” Moreover, the district attorney’s effort to reduce their sentence from life in prison without parole to life in prison with parole would make the brothers immediately eligible as they were 26 or younger when they committed their crimes, under California law. A hearing for the resentencing request has been set for December 11, according to a court official and Holly Baird, a spokesperson for the brothers’ lawyer, Mark Geragos. [6][7]

Most Recent Developments

However, Nathan Hochman recently defeated incumbent George Gascón for Los Angeles County district attorney, which altered the trajectory of the Menendez brothers’ case. Hochman decided to delay the hearing, stating, “Before I can make any decision about the Menendez brothers’ case, I will need to become thoroughly familiar with the relevant facts, the evidence and the law.” Hochman is expected to assume office on December 2nd, while the hearing is currently scheduled for December 11th, which means there is limited time for Hochman to thoroughly view the case, increasing the possibility of a further  delay in the hearing. [8]

In response to the fans that are passionate about the resentencing of theMenendez brothers, Hochman stated “If you decide this case based on just reviewing a Netflix documentary, you're doing a disservice to the Menendez brothers, to the victims' family members, to the public.” He added that he has been avoiding watching the Netflix movie as doing so would only blind his investigations to re-read the documents and hinder his effort to l understand the case. Amid endorsements from celebrities  such as Kim Kardashian and Cooper Koch, Hochman emphasized that he would not be influenced by online opinions, stating “I’d rather read the book.” [9]

Although the high possibility of a delay of in the hearing may be disappointing for the fans hoping that the brothers would be released from the prison by Thanksgiving, Hochman stated that the Menendez case would be his ‘high priority,’ leaving some hope that the brothers, now 53 and 56, to possibly be released by the end of the year or early 2025. [10]

Notes:

1. Sullivan,Missy.2009.“TheMenendezBrothersMurderTheirParents.” HISTORY. November 13, 2009.

2. Sullivan,Missy.2009.“TheMenendezBrothersMurderTheirParents.” HISTORY. November 13, 2009.

3. Sullivan,Missy.2009.“TheMenendezBrothersMurderTheirParents.” HISTORY. November 13, 2009.

4. Albert,Victoria,andJosephPisani.2024.“DistrictAttorneytoAskCourtto Resentence Menendez Brothers.” WSJ. The Wall Street Journal. October 24, 2024.

5. McAllister,Anna.2024.“TestimonyofFormerLatinBoyBandMemberPlays Critical Role in Menendez Brothers’ Release.” Cbsnews.com. CBS Miami. October 25, 2024.

6. Helsel,Phil.2024.“L.A.CountyDAGascónSupportsClemencyRequestfor Menendez Brothers.” NBC News. October 31, 2024.

7. Friedman,MatthewJ,andKarinaTsui.2024.“LACountyDistrictAttorneySends Letters Requesting Clemency for Menendez Brothers.” CNN. October 31, 2024.

8. Friedman,MatthewJ.2024.“IncomingLosAngelesCountyDistrictAttorney Could Ask to Delay Menendez Brothers’ Resentencing.” CNN. November 6, 2024.

9. Whitworth, Kayna, and EmilyShapiro.2024.“NewLADANathanHochman Speaks out on Menendez Brothers’ Fight for Freedom.” ABC News. November 14, 2024

10. Guzman, Alyssa. 2024. “New Los Angeles DA Issues Stern Menendez Brothers Case Update on Possible Freedom ahead of Bombshell...” Mail Online. Daily Mail. November 16, 2024.

Bibliography:

Albert, Victoria, and Joseph Pisani. 2024. “District Attorney to Ask Court to Resentence Menendez Brothers.” WSJ. The Wall Street Journal. October 24, 2024.

Friedman, Matthew J. 2024. “Incoming Los Angeles County District Attorney Could Ask to Delay Menendez Brothers’ Resentencing.” CNN. November 6, 2024.

Friedman, Matthew J, and Karina Tsui. 2024. “LA County District Attorney Sends Letters Requesting Clemency for Menendez Brothers.” CNN. October 31, 2024.

Guzman, Alyssa. 2024. “New Los Angeles DA Issues Stern Menendez Brothers Case Update on Possible Freedom ahead of Bombshell...” Mail Online. Daily Mail. November 16, 2024.

Helsel, Phil. 2024. “L.A. County DA Gascón Supports Clemency Request for Menendez Brothers.” NBC News. October 31, 2024.

McAllister, Anna. 2024. “Testimony of Former Latin Boy Band Member Plays Critical Role in Menendez Brothers’ Release.” Cbsnews.com. CBS Miami. October 25, 2024.

Sullivan, Missy. 2009. “The Menendez Brothers Murder Their Parents.” HISTORY. November 13, 2009.

Whitworth, Kayna, and Emily Shapiro. 2024. “New LA DA Nathan Hochman Speaks out on Menendez Brothers’ Fight for Freedom.” ABC News. November 14, 2024. 

The Peace on the Korean Peninsula Act: A Path to Ending a 70-Year Deadlock

By: Alan Hunchan Jeong

The Korean Peninsula is one of the most heavily militarized regions in the world, with an armistice rather than a formal peace treaty marking the fallible pause of the 1950–1953 Korean War. While the 1953 Armistice Agreement halted active hostilities, it did not officially end the war. As a result, the United States, South Korea, and North Korea remain technically at war. Most notably, South Korea requires every male citizen—many of whom can be easily encountered on U.S. college campuses – to serve in the military, highlighting the seriousness and urgency of geopolitical tensions in a divided nation amid the unresolved war. Decades of hostilities and diplomatic setbacks have left the region in a prolonged state of limbo.

To promote a peaceful resolution regarding the hostile conditions on the Korean Peninsula, Representative Brad Sherman (D-CA) has repeatedly introduced the Peace on the Korean Peninsula Act since the 117th Congress. Congressman Sherman emphasizes that the ongoing conflict on the Korean Peninsula is not in the best interests of the United States or its citizens with familial ties in North and South Korea, stressing the urgent need for serious diplomatic efforts to establish peace between the two Koreas. [1] The legislation promotes dialogue and a binding peace agreement between the United States, South Korea, and North Korea. It calls for reassessing U.S. policies that currently impose strict limits on engagement with North Korea.

The bill proposes several key initiatives aimed at promoting peace on the Korean Peninsula. Firstly, it seeks to advance diplomatic efforts among South Korea, North Korea, and the United States to formally end the Korean War and to establish U.S.-North Korea liaison offices. [2] The legislation requires the U.S. Department of State to submit a report to Congress outlining “a clear roadmap for achieving permanent peace on the Korean Peninsula;” this report would include diplomatic strategies and recommendations for advancing engagement with both North Korea and South Korea to reach a “binding peace agreement constituting a formal and final end to the state of war between North Korea, South Korea, and the United States.” [3] By providing a framework for dialogue and permanent peace, the bill seeks to reinvigorate diplomatic efforts for engagement with North Korea that have largely stalled since the breakdown of the 2019 U.S.-North Korea talks in Hanoi, Vietnam. The failed attempt of the U.S.-North Korea Hanoi Summit reinforces the need for a detailed framework on how to approach North Korea. The backdrop for improving relations still exists, however, as the U.S.-North Korea joint statement signed in Singapore in 2018 included an agreement to “establish new U.S.-DPRK relations in accordance with the desire of the peoples of the two countries for peace and prosperity.” [4] A binding peace agreement and the respective liaison offices would not only enhance U.S.-North Korea relations by facilitating engagement that serves U.S. national interests but also advance greater humanitarian causes.

A second provision of the bill calls for a review of the travel restrictions currently in place for U.S. nationals wishing to visit North Korea. [5] Since 2017, the U.S. government has imposed stringent travel bans preventing Americans from entering North Korea due to security concerns, particularly following the tragic case of Otto Warmbier, a U.S. college student who died after being detained by North Korean authorities. [6] While these restrictions were enacted for citizen’s safety, the bill recognizes the “compelling humanitarian considerations” to reunite U.S. citizens with family members left in North Korea, as around 100,000 Americans have relatives there – at least to allow them to attend a funeral, burial, or commemoration of their loved ones. [7]

Despite its grand initiatives, the bill faces significant challenges. Opponents have argued that the legislation is premature and poses serious security risks to South Korea, as it could lead to the withdrawal of U.S. troops stationed in South Korea, the weakening of the U.S.-ROK alliance, the dissolution of the United Nations Command, and the easing of sanctions on North Korea without ensuring its denuclearization. [8] To address critics’ concerns that the bill’s enactment could lead to the withdrawal of U.S. troops from South Korea, the updated version of the legislation introduced in the 118th Congress includes Section 6, Rule of Construction: “Nothing in this Act may be construed to affect the status of United States Armed Forces stationed in South Korea or any other foreign country.” [9] Accordingly, Seoul’s stances on engagement with North Korea and a peace agreement are determining factors. While past South Korean administrations – particularly under Presidents Kim Dae-jung, Roh Moo-hyun, and Moon Jae-in – actively pursued engagement with North Korea through several summit meetings with its leaders, the current conservative administration has taken a hawkish stance on North Korea. [10]

However, it is important to consider that engagement does not necessarily mean appeasement; rather, it provides an invaluable opportunity to manage tensions, prevent conflict, and gradually build trust – an essential strategy for resolving geopolitical conflicts worldwide in the name of national interest and realpolitik. A notable example is the U.S.-China rapprochement during the Sino-Soviet split of the Cold War, which advanced U.S. national interests and contributed to the eventual decline of the Soviet Union. Policymakers must carefully navigate these diplomatic dynamics to ensure that any peace initiative aligns with the greater security interests, as losing security means losing everything.

As the bill continues to progress through Congress – it has garnered bipartisan support with 52 cosponsors by the end of the 118th Congress – its success will depend on bipartisan cooperation, strategic diplomatic efforts, and public advocacy. [11] The legislation reflects a growing recognition that the status quo – where the Korean War remains unresolved – may no longer be a sustainable long-term approach. If passed, the Act could mark a grand step toward achieving peace not only on the Korean Peninsula but also across the greater Indo-Pacific, highlighting that diplomacy remains a feasible path even in the face of long-standing geopolitical challenges. While challenges remain, the bill underscores the importance of shifting U.S. policy from one of confrontation to one of pragmatic diplomacy and engagement.

Notes:

1. “Congressman Brad Sherman Leads Colleagues in Re-Introducing the Peace on the Korean Peninsula Act,” Congressman Brad Sherman, March 1, 2023, accessed February 15, 2025, https://sherman.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/congressman-brad-sherman-leads-colleagues-in-re-introducing-the-peace-on.

2. “Text - H.R.1369 - 118th Congress (2023-2024): Peace on the Korean Peninsula Act,” Congress.gov, March 3, 2023, accessed February 15, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/1369/text.

3. Ibid.

4. Ibid.

5. Ibid.

6. Department of State, “United States Passports Invalid for Travel To, In, or through the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK),” Federal Register, August 8, 2024, accessed February 15, 2025, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/08/08/2024-17519/united-states-passports-invalid-for-travel-to-in-or-through-the-democratic-peoples-republic-of-korea.

7. “Text - H.R.1369.”

8. Hyeon-seok Gang, “[bareondae] ‘hanbando pyeonghwabeobane’un sigisangjo [[Speakers’ Corner] The ‘Peace on the Korean Peninsula Act’ Is Premature],” Koreatimes.com, February 12, 2025, accessed February 15, 2025, http://www.koreatimes.com/article/20250212/1551631.

9. “Text - H.R.1369.”

10. Gagan Hitkari, “Why South Korea Needs to Reassess Its Hardline Stance against Pyongyang,” South China Morning Post, November 10, 2024, accessed February 15, 2025, https://www.scmp.com/opinion/asia-opinion/article/3285856/why-south-korea-needs-reassess-its-hardline-stance-against-pyongyang.

11. “Cosponsors - H.R.1369 - 118th Congress (2023-2024): Peace on the Korean Peninsula Act,” Congress.gov, March 3, 2023, accessed February 15, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/1369/cosponsors.

Bibliography:

Congress.gov. “Cosponsors - H.R.1369 - 118th Congress (2023-2024): Peace on the Korean Peninsula Act,” March 3, 2023, accessed February 15, 2025. https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/1369/cosponsors.

Congress.gov. “Text - H.R.1369 - 118th Congress (2023-2024): Peace on the Korean Peninsula Act,” March 3, 2023, accessed February 15, 2025. https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/1369/text.

Congressman Brad Sherman. “Congressman Brad Sherman Leads Colleagues in Re-Introducing the Peace on the Korean Peninsula Act,” March 1, 2023, accessed February 15, 2025. https://sherman.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/congressman-brad-sherman-leads-colleagues-in-re-introducing-the-peace-on.

Department of State. “United States Passports Invalid for Travel To, In, or through the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK).” Federal Register, August 8, 2024, accessed February 15, 2025. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/08/08/2024-17519/united-states-passports-invalid-for-travel-to-in-or-through-the-democratic-peoples-republic-of-korea.

Gang, Hyeon-seok. “[bareondae] ‘hanbando pyeonghwabeobane’un sigisangjo [[Speakers’ Corner] The ‘Peace on the Korean Peninsula Act’ Is Premature],” Koreatimes.com, February 12, 2025, accessed February 15, 2025. http://www.koreatimes.com/article/20250212/1551631.