The United States Supreme Court decided Ramos v. Louisiana in 2020, requiring all states to convict criminal defendants by a unanimous jury. However, this case only applied to petitioners on direct, and not collateral, appeal. In this thesis, I argue that the Ramos precedent should apply to people on collateral appeal as well, exploring the implications of such a decision and the criteria that should be used to make the decision in the case before the court, Edwards v. Vannoy (2021). Ultimately, I find that because the criteria currently used to determine retroactivity of new criminal precedents does not provide a clear answer to the question posed in Edwards, the Court should give more weight to the defendant's freedoms pursuant to the presumption of innocence while considering the potential for any disastrous outcomes.

This project offers an argument that isolates several major forces that it contends pose a critical threat to the endurance of modern American democracy. It evaluates modern and classic political philosophy to identify the prerequisites for a stable democracy, identifying and defining voter education and participation as necessary contributors to civic engagement. It provides a socio-legal framework for evaluating four phenomena that have shifted in their impact on politics over the past 20 years: the roles of money and media in politics, as well as disenfranchisement by gerrymandering and by felon voting restrictions. It demonstrates how each has a new and worsening impact on voter education and/or participation, thus threatening the continued existence of modern American democracy.

In the 1970’s, the United States was revolutionized by second-wave feminism as conversations about sex and contraception reached the forefront of the political stage. Roe v. Wade (410 US 113-178, Supreme Court of the United States) reshaped how the Constitution protects privacy and autonomy, while also taking a stance on the cultural war between "pro-choice" and "pro-life" advocates. Since 1973, the conservative movement has launched a coordinated campaign to create pro-life policies at the state and federal levels. Since Roe was decided, access to reproductive care has faced continuous attacks, with Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Center (No. 19-1392, 597 U.S Supreme Court (2022)) representing a definitive tipping point in the ongoing battle for reproductive rights. The Dobbs decision now leaves millions of Americans in limbo as state legislatures are left to battle what abortion will look like in their state. Driven by political objectives, the Supreme Court employed an originalist interpretation to advance a specific and narrow understanding of the Constitution, ultimately subjectively overturning precedent. This analysis aims not only to offer an exact critique of the logic weaponized by the court and the hypocrisy wielded by the conservative judges on the court, but also to situate this case in the national and historical context. The fight to overturn Roe was a coordinated effort and was by no means accidental or coincidental. Evaluating this critique without acknowledging the context is naïve because to do so is to miss half of the picture. Understanding why this case was brought to the Supreme Court when it was is just as important as the content of the decision.