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.

With cannabis legal in 38 states, 5 territories, and the District of Columbia as of 2023, the legal cannabis industry has become a major emerging industry that will continue to grow rapidly as continuing support for legalization drives both states and the federal government toward relaxing and even repealing prohibitions on both medical and recreational cannabis. However, the patchwork of conflicting state and federal laws surrounding cannabis create a legal and economic quagmire that severely limit the growth and success of legal cannabis businesses while aggravating longstanding socioeconomic disparities. In this thesis, I offer an evaluation of the history of cannabis in the US, current cannabis policy at the state and federal level, as well as offer a selection of federal and state policy options to promote a dramatic overhaul of current federal cannabis policy. These proposals aim to effectively and efficiently address the state/federal divide in cannabis law while simultaneously addressing key socioeconomic disparities aggravated by federal cannabis prohibition.

The perception that homosexuality is an immoral affliction and an innovation from Western cultures is prevalent throughout Africa, specifically in six case countries: Togo, Nigeria, Senegal, Uganda, Zimbabwe, and Namibia. This thesis seeks to demonstrate that homophobia, not homosexuality, is the true Western import. Additionally, it will analyze the background and colonial histories of my six dossier countries, their current laws surrounding LGBT+ rights, the social and legal repercussions of being LGBT+, and the consequences of state-sponsored homophobia in terms of justice, international law, and the future of each country. Based on my research, all these case countries use colonial-era provisions, penal codes, and religious norms to discriminate against homosexuals, which operate under legally-mandated “morality,” a notion inherently subjective. Additionally, the most targeted groups are gay men and transgender people, while lesbians and bisexual women are rarely targeted and convicted compared to homosexual men. This is due to various social, legal, and religious factors regarding the high importance of patriarchy and masculinity. Ultimately, this thesis concludes that European colonization in Togo, Nigeria, Senegal, Uganda, Zimbabwe, and Namibia introduced new legal norms that persecuted pre-colonial practices of homosexuality under the guise of morality. Now, the repercussions are rampant and dangerous (especially for homosexual men and transgender people) and cannot be overcome without radical changes to local legal and social systems.

The relationship between science and religion in the modern day is complex to the point that the lines between them are often blurred. We have a need to distinguish the two from each-other for a variety of practical reasons. Various philosophies, theories, and tests have been suggested on the interaction between the two and how they are subdivided. One of the sets of criteria which has been shown to work was originally introduced in the opinion of Judge Overton in the case of McLean v Arkansas. McLean v Arkansas is a pivotal case in that it gave us a useful definition of what science is and isn’t in the context of the law. It used the already established Lemon test to show what counts as the establishment of religion. Given the distinction by Judge Overton, there are questions as to whether or not there is even overlap or tension between science and religion, such as in the theory of Stephen Jay Gould’s Nonoverlapping Magisteria (NOMA). What we find in this thesis is that the NOMA principle is doubtful at best. Through the discussion of McLean v. Arkansas, NOMA, and the commentaries of Professors Larry Laudan and Michael Ruse, this thesis develops a contextualization principle that can be used as a guide to develop further theories, particularly regarding the divisions between science and religion.