This thesis examines how the Biden Administration’s recent effort to extend Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 to include LGBTQ+ rights aligned with and diverged from established legal precedents and societal norms. My analysis contributes to a broader literature aiming to understand the conditions that shape the success or failure of expansions of civil rights for minority groups. I conclude that executive actions aiming to broaden protections are less likely to be enduring when they conflict with constitutional principles and do not reflect public opinion. My analysis centers on the January 2025 decision by the U.S. District Judge Danny C. Reeves that enjoined the Biden Administrations rule expanding Title IX protections to cover sexual orientation and gender identity. I use Judge Reeves’ opinion as an example of how the judiciary responds to major civil rights policy changes. I argue that Judge Reeves’ ruling reflects judicial precedent that favors a restrained approach to the expansion of civil rights. Judge Reeves declared that the Biden Administration’s extension of Title IX protections to LGBTQ+ students as an overreach of executive power, lacking sufficient legislative backing. Judge Reeves rejected the Biden Administration’s reliance on executive and administrative mechanisms, rather than legislative action, to implement significant policy changes. Judge Reeves’ opinion concludes that the Biden Administration’s proposed rule raises serious separation of powers concerns, indicating a potential usurpation of Congress’s role in enacting the law. My analysis explains why Judge Reeves’ ruling aligns with a broader pattern of judicial restraint and a consistent preference for state autonomy over federal mandates. Additionally, I find that judges are more likely to be skeptical of civil rights expansions when the Executive Branch tries to bypass Congress and thereby risks provoking legal or societal backlash. Broader public support and less controversy tend to mitigate judicial skepticism, as expansions then appear less controversial and more reflective of societal will. Judges view the expansion of civil rights by Congress as a reflection of broad public support and social consensus, whereas executive and agency action are more likely to be viewed as a form of partisan overreach. My research shows that this resistance is especially strong in the context of LGBTQ+ rights, where substantial public division and legal ambiguity confirm the judicial perception that there is a lack of social consensus on rights expansion. My research shows that the expansion of civil rights is unlikely to survive judicial scrutiny when those expansions lack legal clarity, broad public consensus, and legislative support. Courts are more likely to view the expansion of civil rights as overreaching when the Executive Branch sidesteps legislative approval or appears to compromise protections originally established for other groups under existing law, such as sex-based protections that some argue could be diluted by the inclusion of gender identity without explicit legislative endorsement. Moreover, the absence of legislative approval and risk of undermining existing protections for other groups often suggests to judges that public opinion has not yet converged to support civil rights expansion. Crucially, my findings challenge the prevalent notion that opposition of conservative judges to the Executive Branch’s effort to expand civil rights through administrative action is disconnected from public sentiment. Whether public opinion has reached consensus on civil rights expansion is actually an important feature of conservative judges’ legal analysis. Conservative responses to such administrative actions often reflect their views about broader public concerns about the pace and implications of the expansion of civil rights — concerns which my research suggests often align more closely with public opinion than is commonly perceived. At the same time, my research also examines the inconsistency in support for constitutional norms across the political spectrum, and takes into account how both proponents and opponents of civil rights expansion may prioritize political objectives over legal consistency. This thesis demonstrates that for future civil rights expansions to be enduring, they must be anchored in clear legislative mandates, supported by constitutional provisions, and backed by significant public consensus. Such grounding not only helps withstand judicial scrutiny but also guards against political backlash, as illustrated by the fact that President Trump successfully campaigned on the argument that the Biden Administration’s unilateral actions were an overreach, leading to his Administration’s reversal of these policies once back in office. My thesis demonstrates that for future civil rights expansions to be enduring, they must be carefully anchored in clear legislative mandates, supported by constitutional provisions, and backed by a significant degree of public consensus.

This study examines how pharmaceutical companies strategically adjust their lobbying activities in response to regulatory threats, explicitly focusing on the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) of 2022. Using a difference-in-differences methodology comparing firms directly affected by Medicare price controls against less-affected peers, the research demonstrates that companies with products subject to IRA price negotiations significantly increased their lobbying expenditures by approximately $636,460 per quarter following the legislation's passage. Analysis of quarterly lobbying data from 2018-2025 for the top 20 U.S. pharmaceutical firms reveals that affected companies concentrated their lobbying efforts after the IRA's enactment, emphasizing ex-post influence over implementation details rather than prevention. A detailed case study comparing Pfizer and Sanofi illustrates how lobbying intensity directly correlates with regulatory exposure: Pfizer, with multiple products targeted for price negotiations, dramatically escalated its political engagement across multiple channels, while Sanofi, facing minimal immediate impact, maintained relatively stable lobbying activities. These findings contribute to understanding corporate political strategy by demonstrating that regulatory exposure drives lobbying intensity in a proportional, targeted manner. The research suggests that pharmaceutical pricing reform triggers sophisticated multi-channel political mobilization to shape implementation to mitigate financial impacts. This explains historical difficulties in achieving meaningful drug pricing reform and has implications for designing more effective healthcare policy that minimizes vulnerability to industry influence.

How do state-level political structures, party affiliations, and committee memberships shape oil and gas lobbying and policy outcomes? While federal lobbying has been widely studied, state-level dynamics remain underexplored despite its critical role in energy regulation. This paper hypothesizes that oil and gas lobbying strategies vary across state legislatures, dependent on party affiliation, committee memberships, and legislative tenure. Moreover, this thesis suggests that higher campaign contributions correlate with industry-friendly votes with energy committee members receiving higher contributions. Using a comparative case study of Texas, Pennsylvania, California, and Michigan, this study analyzes campaign contributions, legislative votes, and policy outcomes. Findings show that party affiliation is the strongest predictor of voting behavior, with Republicans consistently favoring industry policies. Contributions correlate with support, but outliers highlight limits to lobbying influence. Additionally, energy committee members receive substantially more funding indicating strategic lobbying efforts, while the impact of tenure varies depending on state political ideology.

Following the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022, scholars have debated the growing cooperation between China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea that some have dubbed the “Axis of Upheaval.” Many observers have argued that these countries do not share an ideology and are solely united by shared animosity towards the United States. This study challenges these observations and demonstrates the existence of a shared ideology between the Axis of Upheaval consisting of support for multipolarity, anti-imperialism, and viewing the world through a civilizational lens. Using a mixed method approach, this study conducts a quantitative analysis of speeches by the leaders of the Axis of Upheaval, namely Xi Jinping of China, Vladimir Putin of Russia, Ali Khamenei of Iran, and Kim Jong-un of North Korea. It also conducts case studies of state-controlled media coverage across the Axis of conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza. The results demonstrated consistent rhetoric and emphasis on ideologies of multipolarity, anti-imperialism, and civilizationism. The study further revealed that state-controlled media in China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea interpret global events the same way, further suggesting the existence of ideologically driven narratives. Meanwhile, a comparative analysis with speeches by former U.S. President Joe Biden and American mainstream media reveals ideological division between the United States and the Axis of Upheaval. These findings challenge observations that the Axis of Upheaval is purely bound by opposition to the United States and not ideology. These findings also challenge the assertion that the conflict between the United States and countries like China and Russia is not ideological

This thesis explores how three U.S. states—Colorado, California, and New York—have pioneered legislative approaches to address the societal impacts of artificial intelligence. Focusing on algorithmic discrimination, data privacy, and job displacement, it analyzes why each state prioritized different policy dimensions. Colorado’s Senate Bill 24-205 tackles bias in AI decision-making, establishing transparency standards and requiring bias audits. California’s Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) underscores comprehensive data protection, aiming to grant consumers control over their personal information. New York’s legislative efforts target job displacement, proposing task forces, disclosure requirements, and taxes on automated systems that replace human labor. Through comparative case studies and legislative analysis, the thesis identifies key drivers behind these varied approaches, including public opinion, interest group influence, and partisan dynamics. Although the U.S. lacks a unified AI regulatory framework, state-level laws offer critical insight into emerging governance models.

The rising prevalence of far-right rhetoric on mainstream social media sites poses an ever-increasing danger towards American society. This thesis explores one potential cause of that mainstreaming, that being the use of memetic iconography by both the public and political elites. Through an in-depth content analysis of one of the most prevalent memes used by the far-right today, the wojak, as well as a quantitative and qualitative analysis measuring the engagement surrounding tweets of several political elites, I show that a) memetic iconography is an integral part of the mainstreaming of far-right rhetoric due to its ability to normalize such content and b) political elites use memetic iconography to signal support to those with silent far-right preferences, emboldening them to express their views on mainstream social media sites. These findings have implications for theories on political persuasion, radicalization, political normalization, and network amplification.

How can states overcome collective action problems to secure broad, deep, durable cooperation vis-à-vis freshwater? This thesis contributes to the literature by presenting a theory of integrated water resources management (IWRM), emphasizing the configuration of state preferences and information as key variables influencing state behavior. I argue that the interdependent issue scope of interstate relations, or “mix of issue salience”, incentivizes cooperation, while the logic of issue-linkage is a means of resolving the problem of credible commitment. Statistical analyses reveal that while issue scope and linkage does not always make water cooperation more successful, the linkage of water issues embedded within a larger non-water context does. This thesis contributes to the scholarly debate on the effectiveness of the ‘integrated’ versus ‘functional’ models of freshwater resource management and provides additional practical information for policymakers in their respective institutional design choices. The strengths and shortcomings of each model has significant implications for global water cooperation as the scale and complexity of environmental challenges confront governments around the world.

This study examines the environmental consequences of border wall construction along the U.S./Mexico border, with a focus on air quality. The framing of illegal immigration as a national security threat has motivated the U.S. government to increase border securitization measures, and in turn has caused border infrastructure development to be expedited using waiver authority. This research explores whether the construction of pedestrian fences and vehicle barriers, following the Secure Fence Act of 2005, contributed to elevated levels of PM2.5, a key air pollutant that holds detrimental effects to living organisms while also being a product of construction activities. This study examines mean PM2.5 concentrations across construction and control sites before and after construction activities. Two regression models were developed: model one uses a binary construction treatment variable across a longer time frame (2005-2012), and model two distinguishes by construction types (pedestrian fences, vehicle barriers, and control) and shows short-term effects (2007-2008). Both models were unable to provide any statistically significant evidence that proved construction activities caused an increase in PM2.5 levels. Nonetheless, this study contributes to previous work that explores the negative effects of border securitization on borderland environments and highlights the importance of integrating ecological considerations into policy planning.

This thesis aims to explain what normative obligations obtain when the government- in-exile representing an oppressed minority seeks international recognition. When recognition as a government is sought by an entity lacking authoritative control over a region and its residents, it is by no means clear how we ought to discern whether legitimacy should (or even can) be awarded or withheld, what form that "legitimacy" would take, and who or what actor is in a position to be able — or obligated — to do the awarding. This paper will review several politically and morally significant aspects of exile governments' claims to recognition, as well as the corresponding considerations for peer governments upon whom these claims are made.

Particular attention will be paid to the exile governments whose claims concern Tibet, East Turkistan, and Taiwan. These three organizations' origins, assertions, rights, and obligations represent with considerable breadth the diversity of forms and aims which modern exile governments have adopted, each of which deserves more complete consideration than it has so far received in the literature on exile politics. Far from limiting the conclusions of this analysis to a Chinese context, I argue that these examples help to clarify morally relevant factors applicable to a much broader set of social and political circumstances, including those likely to define arguments around statehood and legitimacy in the near future.

Ultimately, I conclude that the recognition of legitimate exile governments by peer states can amount to a moral obligation, not simply a sovereign prerogative. This contradicts established thinking about state sovereignty and recognition, and introduces certain problems which I attempt to address as best I can. I provide, after extensive review of the cases, several important factors for the consideration of peer states with regard to the recognition of the governments-in-exile of Tibet, East Turkistan, and Taiwan. Finally, I make recommendations as to future applicability of this normative theory.

This paper investigates the divergent energy transition pathways of Southeast Asian nations, with a deep focus on two nations in particular, Cambodia and Indonesia, in order to explore how structural factors, governance, and foreign investment shape national responses to climate change. The two nations have also taken very different approaches to the adoption of renewable energy, even though they are both exposed to international climate commitments and Chinese infrastructure funding under the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Cambodia has quickly expanded its capacity for renewable energy, especially in solar and hydro power, by utilizing Chinese investment, international partnerships, and the absence of legacy fossil fuel industries to build a green energy system from the ground up, while Indonesia continues to prioritize coal because of its well-established coal industry, strong lobbying groups, and the complexity of its geography as an archipelago, which creates major infrastructure barriers to the integration of clean energy. Drawing on policy reports, energy data from years between 2000–2023, and case studies on foreign direct investment (also known as FDI), this paper argues that economic development alone does not determine a country's energy trajectory. Instead, legacy industries, governance capacity, and geographic realities critically mediate the impact of foreign capital and climate frameworks like the Paris Agreement. Additionally, my analysis will shed light on how Cambodia’s institutional flexibility and weak fossil fuel incumbency allowed room for rapid green transition, while Indonesia’s deep-rooted coal legacy industry sector and regulatory stagnation have prevented pro-green energy reforms. I also aim to include policy recommendations emphasizing transition strategies, regional cooperation, and targeted green finance which are all imperative for Southeast Asia’s sustainable future.

This thesis investigates Japan’s contemporary immigration policies and exclusionary practices. By situating Japan’s approach within broader political theories of nationalism and immigration, the study explores how their state policy is shaped by an enduring narrative of national identity that resists multicultural integration. Drawing on both historical context and present-day policy analysis, this research develops a framework from literature on nationalism and immigration theories to evaluate Japan’s restrictive immigration policies.

This thesis examines how the legacies of colonialism and Cold War geopolitics have shaped Guyana’s fiscal policy, institutional architecture, and enduring patterns of ethnic inequality. Through a historically grounded analysis, it traces how British colonial governance fostered extractive institutions and racialized labor divisions, while Cold War interventions entrenched authoritarianism and ethnic clientelism within the state apparatus. The result was a political economy in which fiscal policy became a tool not of redistribution or development, but of patronage and division. With the discovery of vast offshore oil reserves and the influx of petroleum revenues, Guyana now stands at a pivotal juncture: oil wealth offers the unprecedented potential to reverse historical inequalities—or to deepen them under new conditions of resource dependency. Employing a multidisciplinary framework that draws on Dependency Theory, Rentier State Theory, and Participatory Democracy, this thesis interrogates whether Guyana’s emerging oil regime has thus far fostered inclusion or exacerbated existing divides. Ultimately, it argues that without radical institutional reform and meaningful civic engagement, the country risks reproducing its past under the guise of petro-futurism.

This paper aims to analyze China’s Belt and Road Initiative and the investments it has made into several key countries. The countries that will be used as a case study for this research paper are Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. These countries were selected as key pieces to China’s Belt and Road Initiative’s success. This research paper aims to show how connected China is to these countries' economies and the massive investments China has made. Ultimately, the main focus is on how China uses the economy's dependence and leverages the massive investment as political leverage. The research surrounding this primarily claims that China hasn’t been successful in gaining political leverage through investments from the Belt and Road Initiative. Although this is true in some instances, most of the research has been on European countries. This paper will show that certain qualities, such as economic dependency and relationships with the United States, determine if China can gain political leverage. Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates all meet specific criteria for China to gain political leverage. To see if political leverage is achieved in these countries, UN voting data will be analyzed between the countries and China. This will encompass years before and after the investment from China. Then, all the data will be taken and compiled into a graph showing whether or not UN voting alignment increases after the investment. This will indicate whether or not China has gained political influence, as the more aligned the country is with China on political issues, the more influence they have. In addition to this, there will be a qualitative study of each of the countries, as UN voting alone can’t give the full influence China has.

This thesis interrogates the exclusionary dimensions of the American Dream by centering the voices, struggles, and political agency of undocumented migrants in the United States. Drawing from political theory, legal studies, and ethnographic research, it challenges meritocratic and citizenship-based narratives that define belonging, success, and civic participation. The work examines how undocumented communities redefine the Dream through acts of resistance, digital activism, and storytelling, reimagining it as a collective pursuit grounded in dignity, inclusion, and justice. In doing so, the thesis illuminates how the American Dream, often wielded as a tool of exclusion, can be reclaimed by those historically denied access to it.

When the Supreme Court first met in 1790, the greatest issue before the young Court was retaining enough justices to maintain a quorum. Today, federal courts are larger, better-staffed, more well-funded, and decide more cases with higher political stakes than they have at almost any other point in American history. How did the federal judiciary transform from a backwater of American politics to occupying a position at center stage? This thesis explores the expansion of federal judicial power through studies of the institutional and administrative growth of the federal judiciary over American history, the criminal caseload of the federal courts, and the role of the federal judiciary in administrative law. Chapter One argues that westward expansion, the Civil War and Reconstruction, and the Taft Court drove the institutionalization and consolidation of federal judicial power, presenting updated data on the jurisdiction, caseload, size, and budget of the federal courts in a new light. Chapter Two turns to the role of the courts in criminal law, where periods of federalization have prompted federal courts to exercise greater power in criminal law, and surging criminal caseloads have, in turn, driven the growth of federal courts. Chapter Three, the empirical heart of this thesis, considers administrative law as central to the modern period of federal judicial power. As Congress has increasingly relied on administrative agencies to implement their policies, the Administrative Procedure Act has enabled broad judicial review of agency actions, allowing federal courts to shape policy with profound political ramifications. The time series analysis finds weak causal evidence to support the claim that congressional delegations to administrative agencies have driven judicial review of agency regulations, bringing the federal courts into new areas of American life, from the environment to the workplace, with important theoretical implications for understanding how the courts, Congress, and the executive branch interact.