The Boston College Journal of Law & Social Justice (founded in 1978 and publishing its first thirty-one volumes as the Third World Law Journal) was a unique periodical that filled the need for a progressive, alternative legal perspective on issues both within the United States and in the developing world. The Journal's scope included issues affecting underrepresented populations, human and civil rights, immigration, women's and children's issues, and issues of disproportionate economic impact. The founders of the Journal envisioned it as a forum for discussing legal issues affecting people, cultures, and institutions that share a common history of colonialism, oppression, under-representation, and marginalization in the political and economic processes.

In 2017, the journal, along with three of Boston College Law School's other student-edited journals was consolidated into a single, larger journal published under the title Boston College Law Review.

Boston College Journal of Law & Social Justice

In 2011, the city of Munroe Falls, Ohio sought to prevent Beck Energy Corporation from drilling for gas or oil within its city limits until the company complied with the city’s relevant municipal ordinances. Pursuant cases sought to resolve whether Munroe Falls’ municipal ordinances were a valid exercise of the city’s home-rule power. The Ohio Supreme Court determined that the local ordinances conflicted with state law, which regulated oil and gas production within Ohio. The court held that the state law preempted the local ordinances as they sought to regulate oil and gas production in a similar manner. In response, the concurring and dissenting opinions expressed concern that the plurality opinion demonstrated a rigid deference towards preemption at the expense of traditionally recognized areas of municipal authority. This Comment argues in favor of the concurring and dissenting opinions, which rightly cautioned against the preemption of all local regulations by state law when dealing with ultrahazardous and locally impactful activity.

No Fracknation Without Representation: Stripping Away a City’s Right to Regulate the Stripping Away of Its Natural Resources in State Ex Rel. Morrison v. Beck Energy Corp.

In 2013, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, following a United States Supreme Court case, Miller v. Alabama, held that all juvenile homicide offenders would have an opportunity for parole after serving fifteen years in prison. Subsequently, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, in Diatchenko v. District Attorney for the Suffolk District, held that juvenile homicide offenders are entitled to representation by counsel at parole hearings, funds for expert witnesses, and can be granted judicial review of parole board decisions. The majority afforded these additional procedures with the intention of providing juvenile homicide offenders with a meaningful opportunity for release. The dissent argued that the majority overstepped their judicial boundaries and entered the executive realm by combining criminal sentencing with parole hearing procedures. This Comment argues that the majority appropriately granted juvenile homicide offenders parole hearing procedural protections.

From Homicidal Youths to Reformed Adults: Parole Hearing Procedures for Juvenile Homicide Offenders in Diatchenko v. District Attorney for the Suffolk District

On May 7, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, sitting en banc, held in favor of Reya C. Boyer-Liberto, an African American cocktail waitress employed by defendant Fontainebleau Corporation, who claimed racial harassment in violation of Title VII by fellow employee, Trudi Clubb. In Boyer-Liberto v. Fontainebleau Corp., the majority based its analysis on Clubb’s use of a racial epithet, twice in a twenty-four hour period, which they determined was severe or pervasive enough to create a racially hostile work environment, even in isolation. The separate concurring and dissenting opinions emphasized the majority’s departure from precedent established in Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc. and Faragher v. City of Boca Raton. Both the concurrence and dissent were concerned that the majority’s decision would increase segregation in the workplace, which would be counterproductive to Title VII’s purpose, and would lead to an increase in frivolous employment litigation.

“Slurring” the Lines Between Insensitivity and Hostility: Boyer-Liberto v. Fontainebleau Corp. and the Evaluation of Title VII Racial Harassment Claims

On March 11, 2015, the Supreme Court of Minnesota affirmed a lower court decision against David Ford McMurray, who was found guilty of third-degree possession of a controlled substance and sentenced to twenty-four months. McMurray was charged after Hutchinson, Minnesota police searched through his garbage and found evidence of methamphetamine. The majority held that a warrantless search of the defendant’s garbage was reasonable under the federal and state constitutions because a person has no reasonable expectation of privacy in garbage set out for collection on the side of a public street because garbage is readily accessible to other members of the public. The dissenting judge persuasively opined that there is, in fact, a reasonable expectation of privacy when an individual places his or her garbage at the curb for collection because household waste contains personal information that most individuals expect will remain private. This Comment argues that the dissent’s approach better understands the private nature of waste, the opinion’s troubling repercussions for disadvantaged communities, and the potential for broader government intrusion.

The Big Stink About Garbage: State v. McMurray and a Reasonable Expectation of Privacy

On June 23, 2015, the Wisconsin Supreme Court allowed representatives of deceased employees of a tire manufacturing facility to use the “discovery rule” to extend the statute of limitations for their wrongful death and survival suits associated with the decedents’ forced benzene exposure at the facility, provided they could show the information necessary for making their claims had not been available upon diligent effort within the statute’s timeframe. The majority reasoned that public policy is in favor of allowing meritorious claims to be heard, there is no significant difference between direct victims and representatives to render an extension untenable, and the preservation of existing barriers to stale claims being heard will allow for the smooth extension of the discovery rule. This Comment argues in favor of the majority’s approach, as it best protects the ability of all tort victims to recover damages they are owed.

A Tort Report: Christ v. Exxon Mobil and the Extension of the Discovery Rule to Third-Party Representatives of Decedents in Wrongful Death and Survival Suits

Boston College Journal of Law & Social Justice (Vol. 36, Iss. 3)

Items in this collection

No Fracknation Without Representation: Stripping Away a City’s Right to Regulate the Stripping Away of Its Natural Resources in State Ex Rel. Morrison v. Beck Energy Corp.

From Homicidal Youths to Reformed Adults: Parole Hearing Procedures for Juvenile Homicide Offenders in Diatchenko v. District Attorney for the Suffolk District

“Slurring” the Lines Between Insensitivity and Hostility: Boyer-Liberto v. Fontainebleau Corp. and the Evaluation of Title VII Racial Harassment Claims

The Big Stink About Garbage: State v. McMurray and a Reasonable Expectation of Privacy

A Tort Report: Christ v. Exxon Mobil and the Extension of the Discovery Rule to Third-Party Representatives of Decedents in Wrongful Death and Survival Suits

Front Matter

.repo-1h6ne0y{background:#ffffff;text-transform:uppercase;padding-right:1.5rem;}.repo-1h6ne0y:after{content:'';position:absolute;background:#adadad;transform:translateY(-50%);top:50%;left:0;width:100%;height:0.1rem;z-index:-1;}Items in this collection

From Homicidal Youths to Reformed Adults: Parole Hearing Procedures for Juvenile Homicide Offenders in Diatchenko v. District Attorney for the Suffolk District

“Slurring” the Lines Between Insensitivity and Hostility: Boyer-Liberto v. Fontainebleau Corp. and the Evaluation of Title VII Racial Harassment Claims

The Big Stink About Garbage: State v. McMurray and a Reasonable Expectation of Privacy

A Tort Report: Christ v. Exxon Mobil and the Extension of the Discovery Rule to Third-Party Representatives of Decedents in Wrongful Death and Survival Suits

Front Matter

Items in this collection