By José Bruno-Feliz, Staff Writer

On Sept. 8 New York City began hosting the 81^st United Nations General Assembly, a convention that will continue through the fall of 2027. The General Assembly Debate period began on Sept. 22 and ran through Sept. 28. This period saw heads of state from dozens of countries take the stage at The United Nations Headquarters, presenting important speeches on issues concerning their countries, The United Nations and the international community.

The General Debate keynote speech was given by UN Secretary-General António Guterres on Sept. 22. Secretary-General Guterres addressed the need for civilian aid in affected regions such as the Middle East, calling for a stop of armed conflict and urged world leaders to engage in dialogue rather than conflict. The secretary-general reminded delegates of the push for a two-state solution between Israel and Palestine, while condemning Russia for subjecting Ukraine to what he called “a brutal war in blatant violation of the [United Nations] Charter” and called for attention on Myanmar and Sudan’s respective civil wars. 

On the same day, United States President Donald Trump spoke before the assembly, opening his speech with a focus on domestic themes closely mirroring a State of the Union Address. The president then shifted focus to the ongoing conflict in Iran, reiterating his administration’s longstanding warnings regarding Iran’s nuclear program and touting how, under Operation Epic Fury, the United States Military has suppressed Iran’s defense capabilities. Beyond the Middle East, the president addressed his administration’s operations against drug cartels in the Venezuela region and touted a recent agreement reached with the Republic of Denmark, which grants the United States broad access to Greenland regarding security and military installations.

While President Trump touted his United States to the world, French President Emmanuel Macron opened with a question to the assembly “do we want to live under this state of affairs, with a return to the law of the jungle or do we want to return to civilized international society?” President Macron placed heavy importance on how the UN Charter protects people from being taken advantage of by big powers and reiterated France’s longstanding partnership with the United Nations on tackling issues such as global warming, crises and challenges with “determination, optimism through action.” The French president went on to criticize current world treatment of places such as Gaza and touted France’s commitment to aiding the affected regions and aiming to uphold international humanitarian law. 

In another crucial moment, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas spoke through a pre-recorded video due to his and his delegation’s denial of US visas for a second consecutive year. President Abbas brought a call to the end of the suffering of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and called for a reunification of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. The Israel-Palestinian topic was clearly a headline and tense topic for the assembly, as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu faced a massive walkout by many diplomats and delegates as he reached the podium. In his speech, the prime minister defended Israeli operations in the Gaza strip, calling his war crime charges a “campaign of lies” and pledging to continue Israel’s campaign against the Iranian government.

As Sept. 28 marked the conclusion of the general debate, the stark contrasts in what each country defines as a national priority is present. Now, member states will transition into sessions of committees to work on and negotiate the very topics brought in these speeches, including human rights and global security.

Hailey Whitlock, Editor

On Sept. 3, a lawsuit was formally filed against Dollar Tree, Inc. with the goal of winning customers a share of the large tariff refund settlement the government provided to Dollar Tree. To understand the current state of this lawsuit, it is imperative to take a step back to where it began. Last year, President Trump implemented high tariffs on foreign nations, meaning that to bring these items into the country, the company (or consumer) who wished to do so paid a higher price. This made many of the underlying materials in items more expensive, prompting companies to increase their prices to keep up with rising costs. This ultimately resulted in consumers often bearing these additional costs. 

However, many argued that these tariffs were unconstitutional and therefore should not be allowed to continue. In Aug., the Supreme Court stepped in, stating that the tariffs were in fact unconstitutional. While this indicated quite clearly that these tariffs may no longer continue, a question arose: what was the government to do with the money it had already collected from these tariffs? The government has elected to provide companies a refund for what it believes their portion of the tariff costs was. One such company is Dollar Tree who after requesting $383 million in relief, received $369 million in refunds and an additional $14 million in interest. 

During the second quarterly earnings call for 2026, per the Motley Fool, Daniel Delrosario stated, “Let me turn to tariffs and the tariff refunds we received during the quarter. We received approximately $383 million, giving us a meaningful opportunity to reinvest in the business and further strengthen our value proposition for our customers. We are putting those funds to work in areas where we believe they can have the greatest and most lasting impact. We are focusing those dollars on targeted pricing strategies, marketing, store operations and store conditions, areas that can benefit our customers today while strengthening the business for the long term.” While this may seem positive, it leaves out a major component: customers pay many of these costs and feel entitled to getting some of their money back. 

At the height of the tariffs, Dollar Tree used red stickers, nicknamed “tariff stickers” to indicate items which had higher prices due to tariffs. In doing so, they acknowledged that consumers would be paying this gap between expected cost and actual cost. In light of this, a class action lawsuit has been launched. For now, it consists of 10 plaintiffs, but is likely to expand to 9 states (including Pennsylvania). Anyone who is part of the class may be entitled to a small piece of this large sum, making it worthwhile for customers to further look into. 

Overall, this lawsuit illuminates the difficulties that arise from the abstract pronouncement of unconstitutional tariffs and all of the intricacies that comprise the implementation of this verdict. This case is likely to continue to build and may soon end up in a court room where the plaintiffs argue that a company should not benefit twice from tariffs through higher revenue and the refund, while the Dollar Tree argues that in buying the product, the customer indicated an acceptance of the price. 

Fatu Sesay, Staff Writer

When Philadelphia Mayor Cherelle Parker appointed Shania Bennett as the Director of Youth Engagement in 2024, it signaled a strong bridge between City Hall and the city’s younger generation. Bennett was brought in to give young Philadelphians a direct voice in municipal government. However, Bennett’s  recent announcement that she plans to challenge her former boss in the 2027 mayoral race has turned heads across the city. The dynamic shift from trusted appointee to direct political rival raises crucial questions about youth representation and civic power in Philadelphia.

Bennett’s transition from insider to opponent highlights a growing rift over how city leadership addresses youth priorities. During her time in office, Bennett worked directly under Parker’s administration, navigating the institutional hurdles of city governance. Her decision to step down and launch a primary challenge stems from a desire to address community issues with greater urgency. Rather than working within existing political frameworks, Bennett argues that young Philadelphians need dynamic leadership willing to confront systemic challenges head-on, particularly regarding education, community, safety and economic opportunity.

For young Philadelphians, this matchup presents a distinct political narrative. Youth priorities in the city often revolve around practical, everyday issues: public school funding, safe community spaces, gun violence prevention, affordable housing and access to jobs that provide a liveable wage. While traditional political campaigns tend to focus heavily on older, high-turnout demographics, Bennett’s entry forces candidates to take youth issues seriously. Her campaign aims to frame young people not just as future voters, but as a current, vital voting bloc capable of shaping municipal outcomes.

Despite the significance of local decision-making, local elections historically suffer from low youth turnout compared to presidential races. National elections dominate news cycles, social media feeds and political ad spending, making federal politics feel more immediate or impactful. In contrast, municipal elections suffer from a lack of public awareness, with many young voters feeling disconnected from City Council decisions or mayoral policies. This coverage gap leaves many unaware of how directly municipal offices affect their daily lives, from public transit and school budgets to neighborhood safety initiatives.

Bennett’s bid against Parker brings a unique political drama to the 2027 race, but its broader impact depends on voter engagement. By bridging her background in youth advocacy with a formal campaign for the city’s highest office, Bennett challenges the traditional political timeline for rising leaders. Whether her campaign mobilizes young Philadelphians to turn out at the polls remains to be seen, but it undoubtedly shifts the conversation surrounding youth engagement in local government.

Kelsey McGovern, Staff Writer

Is there a higher risk of encountering fatal drugs in N.J. or P.A.? Some may argue since Pennsylvania illegalizes cannabis, it protects citizens from indulging in other, more dangerous drugs. However, no matter if a substance is legal, people will still get their hands on it. New Jersey, through legalizing cannabis, provides regulation of the drug so their citizens can be sure of the quality of the cannabis they are using. Pennsylvanians need legalization of cannabis to ensure cannabis is being regulated effectively for safety purposes. 

Cannabis Regulation analyzes benefits of the industry. The first subchapter refers to any person or entity “possessing, buying, selling, cultivating, producing, manufacturing, transporting or delivering any cannabis or cannabis items within this State, or engages in any other activity associated with the personal use of cannabis pursuant to the Act.” N.J. Admin. Code § 17:30-1.1 (Lexis Advance through the New Jersey Register, Vol. 58 No. 14, July 20, 2026). Subchapter 2.1, Consumer and license holder criminal protections, states, “Licensed cannabis businesses and testing laboratories and personnel remain subject to criminal prosecution for activities not authorized by the Act, this chapter, or the cannabis business or testing laboratory license.” N.J. Admin. Code § 17:30-2.1 (Lexis Advance through the New Jersey Register, Vol. 58 No. 14, July 20, 2026).

Cannabis laboratories and businesses in New Jersey are held accountable in producing cannabis, which protects the general public from having easy access to other drugs. Due to Pennsylvania deeming cannabis as illegal, the public searches for cannabis in nonregulated businesses, therefore increasing their risk of exposure to other dangerous drugs within cannabis. If Pennsylvania had designated businesses for the production and selling of cannabis, the public would exercise personal use of cannabis in a safer way, knowing the chances of being laced are much less. No matter if a substance is illegal, people will still find a way to satisfy themselves. However, when cannabis shops are not regulated by the state, business owners have more room to sell various drugs that are more addictive and dangerous.

Pennsylvania is not keeping the public safe from what they call a “gateway drug,” but instead allowing unregulated drugs to be transported through the state, especially within Philadelphia. In New Jersey, stricter guidelines regarding cannabis are imposed like stricter identification and permit processes. 

Within Subchapter 3.1, Powers, duties, and responsibilities, the state owns the right to request information and test laboratories to ensure the Act is effective. In Pennsylvania, there are no regulations regarding the impact of the drug; instead, government officials turn a blind eye to protecting their citizens from harmful cannabis. In legalizing any substance, more regulations are employed, benefitting the individual and the state.

The Municipal authority has the right to establish limits on production, number of businesses, and license requirements. The municipality can govern where cannabis businesses are located and times of operation. They are able to impose civil penalties for any violation of regulations. They can provide zoning approvals, prohibiting cannabis businesses in certain distances from schools, churches, etc. In states like Pennsylvania refusing to legalize cannabis, there could be smoke shops distributing cannabis illegally in close proximity to schools, putting children at risk.

Section 5.1 highlights the revenue aspect of allowing the production of cannabis legally, stating, “A municipality may adopt an ordinance imposing a transfer tax or user tax on the sale of any usable cannabis or cannabis products by a cannabis establishment located within the municipality pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:48I-1, which may include: sales between cannabis establishments, sales of cannabis items to consumers, or any combination thereof.” N.J. Admin. Code § 17:30-5.1 (Lexis Advance through the New Jersey Register, Vol. 58 No. 14, July 20, 2026). New Jersey is able to receive tax revenue on the production and purchasing of cannabis. Tax revenue can be used in many beneficial aspects for the state while allowing citizens to engage in recreational or health-related cannabis use.

The specific regulations to produce cannabis are serious, therefore, New Jersey provides resources like cannabis training, identification cards, secure transport, cultivation requirements, recordkeeping, distribution conduct, advertising requirements, laboratory application licensing and testing/inspections. In states like Pennsylvania, there are no safe places to purchase cannabis because they are receiving it from private entities without municipal oversight. 

Again, even though it should not be purchased anywhere in Pennsylvania, it does not stop those looking for it. If Pennsylvania recognizes that cannabis poses no greater risk than other legalized substances like alcohol, the state could generate tax revenue to employ state projects and protect its citizens.

Kelsey McGovern, Staff Writer

Children are held to the same standards as adults when committing heinous crimes. While the severity of the crime committed by the child must be intense, children are not equal to adults regarding brain development standards. Should this scientific factor be considered when sentencing a 15-year-old to jail time? Or should children be expected to know right versus wrong in any given situation? 

Many advocates for the juvenile justice system believe that reform is necessary to reflect accountability and safety measures while also providing rehabilitation for youth offenders. The Juvenile Act implements principles that preserve family unity, child development and supervision while simultaneously ensuring the safety of those around them. 

In New Jersey, the law defines a “child” as a person under the age of 18 or under the age of 21 who committed a delinquent act before turning 18. If the child is at least 15 years old and used a deadly weapon during an offense, they may be sentenced for rape, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, aggravated assault, robbery, robbery of motor vehicle, aggravated indecent assault, kidnapping, voluntary manslaughter, murder attempt, repeat of violent offenses and criminal contempt related to proceedings. 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 6303 (LexisNexis, Lexis Advance through 2026 Regular Session Act 17; P.S. documents are current through 2026 Regular Session Act 17).

For a matter not considered a delinquent act should be transferred to juvenile court all depends on the background of the offender, the impact of the crime on all victims and treatment prospects. The decision-maker has discretion in determining whether a case should be transferred to juvenile court. “Although each juvenile is an individual, he is also a member of a community. The needs of an individual are often at odds with the needs of society. The exercise of discretion routinely requires a balancing of competing concerns.” Commonwealth v. Cotto, 562 Pa. 32, 41, 753 A.2d 217, 222 (2000). Therefore, juvenile discretion is described as complex to reflect the child’s background pertaining to psychological or family issues. 

So the question is, should children be tried in court as adults when committing a horrible crime? Will incarceration work for their benefit or permanently damage their ability to develop? 

The American Bar Association takes a stab at this concern, stating, “Despite the formation of a separate juvenile court system specifically designed to ‘treat, rather than punish’, this over-criminalization and policing has resulted in youth being pushed into the adult criminal system. Although the United States Supreme Court has recognized the differences between youth and adults, courts consistently fail to consider these attributes and the best interests of youth before transferring them to the adult criminal system.” The state’s statutory parameters establish the power to transfer charges from a juvenile court to adult court depending on age, offense, and circumstances. In Wisconsin, children as young as 10 years old are mandated to be transferred for first- and second-degree intentional homicide, and first-degree reckless homicide. Wis. Stat. Ann. §938.183. 

Should a ten-year-old who committed such a horrendous crime be punished for the remainder of their life? Or should a ten-year-old be given support to not engage in this damaging behavior ever again? Some would say ten-year-olds have a conscience and know right from wrong, but is that equivalent to being charged as an adult, a person with much more understanding of how impactful their choices are?

Children being prosecuted in adult prisons are exposed to increased rates of sexual assault, adding to their collateral damage, not decreasing it. A child committing an abhorrent crime may need psychological evaluations to ensure the safety of the public, not isolation within prisons. Children must be treated according to their brain capacities to reflect positive behaviors in the future.