Note

Black communities have been surveilled by governmental institutions and law enforcement agencies throughout the history of the United States. Most recently, law enforcement has turned to monitoring social media, devoting an increasing number of resources and time to surveilling various social media platforms. Yet this rapid increase in law enforcement monitoring of social media has not been accompanied by a corresponding development in legal protections....

Wildfires throughout the West are a drastic consequence of climate change. In California especially, the costs of wildfires have become unbearable. Current statutory solutions, such as Assembly Bill 1054 (AB-1054), focus on apportioning liability for damages between insurance companies, government programs, and the electric utilities that often spark the fires, but legislation often fails to address the factors that make damages so astronomical...

In 2018, the Supreme Court decided in Carpenter v. United States that the government requires a search warrant to access seven days or more of certain location data that comes from mobile devices. In 2020, however, news broke that different government agencies had purchased location data from data brokers and used them for law enforcement purposes. Because the Fourth Amendment does not regulate open market transactions, it is now an open...

The federal criminal code provides enhanced penalties for offenses that qualify as crimes of violence. This Note concerns a basic question: What qualifies as a crime of violence? The code offers two seemingly clear definitions, classifying as violent any crime that either (1) includes the use of physical force against the person or property of another as an element of the crime or (2) by its nature involves a substantial risk of the use of physical...

Although antitrust scrutiny of “big tech” companies has increased drastically over the past decade, much of the national debate has concerned issues of monopolization and the Sherman Act—the dominant federal antitrust statute. But with rapid developments in artificial intelligence and machine learning, algorithmic price fixing has become an increasingly pressing threat that the Sherman Act is ill-equipped to tackle. Under the current framework,...

Bostock v. Clayton County has been widely recognized as momentous for providing LGBTQ Americans with protection against workplace discrimination, helping to safeguard their economic wellbeing and dignity. But it also has the potential to impact sex discrimination jurisprudence even more broadly. This Note argues that Bostock fundamentally redefined what it means to discriminate because of sex, expanding the definition to include...

In Oregon v. Kennedy, the Supreme Court held that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar the reprosecution of a defendant in cases in which prosecutorial misconduct causes the defendant to move for a mistrial. The Court established only one exception to this rule: If the prosecutor’s misconduct was intended to provoke the defendant into moving for a mistrial, the Double Jeopardy Clause bars the retrial of the defendant. The Kennedy...

In Graham v. Connor, the Supreme Court held that a Fourth Amendment reasonableness standard governed the analysis of any allegation that a law enforcement officer used excessive force during an arrest or investigatory stop. In particular, courts were to evaluate the reasonableness of the need to use force from the perspective of a hypothetical reasonable police officer at the scene. While this test seems straightforward, the Supreme Court...

In 2005, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency enacted a policy sanctioning its civil ICE agents to use strategic deception, known as “ruses,” to facilitate community immigration enforcement operations. This policy provided agents a means to overcome the limitation that civil immigration arrest warrants are administrative as opposed to judicial in nature, which effectively precluded agents from entering a target’s home without...

After President Trump declared a national emergency and diverted funds to build a wall on the southern border, several litigants challenged his action as ultra vires, or beyond his constitutional and statutory authority. The litigants asserted abstract equitable rights of action, implied in federal courts’ equitable powers. The Supreme Court has left unclear, however, whether or not such an implied equitable action for statutory...