The web edition of the California Law Review.
CLR Online
The Conflict Between Social Media Discovery and User Privacy
In Forman v. Henkin, the First Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York clarified New York’s rules for social media discovery. The court held that if a party seeks to gain access to a private social media account as part of the discovery process, that party must first make a threshold showing of…
The Constitutional Price for Affordable Housing
The California Supreme Court held, in the landmark case California Building Industry Association v. City of San Jose, that the City of San Jose’s inclusionary housing ordinance is a valid exercise of the City’s police power. In the context of legal precedent, the California Supreme Court decided the case correctly by applying a lenient standard…
Subverting the Communications Decency Act
This Comment discusses J.S. v. Village Voice Media Holdings, arguing that the Washington Supreme Court erodes the safe harbor provision of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996 in this decision. As affirmed by several circuits, the CDA exempts websites and other interactive computer services from liability over third-party content so long as they…
More Money, No Problem
This Comment discusses the implications of McCutcheon v. FEC, arguing that Justice Roberts’s opinion, coupled with Citizens United v. FEC, eviscerates campaign finance laws. The plurality’s position drastically contravenes public policy, overlooks its own precedent, and erroneously ignores McCutcheon‘s inevitable effects.
Judicial Limits in Addressing Homelessness
This comment examines the recent Ninth Circuit case, Desertrain v. City of Los Angeles. The Ninth Circuit seeks to establish a standard that prohibits discretionary enforcement of city municipal codes against homeless people, removing one tool that cities use to keep homeless people out of public spaces. However, the court does not provide cities…
Integral and Indispensable?
In Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk, the Supreme Court held that post-work security screenings were noncompensable under the FLSA because they were neither the primary activity that the employees were hired to perform nor “integral and indispensable” to that activity. Following a discussion of the Court’s decision, this Comment calls for a reconsideration of…
Public Performance Rights for Pre-1972 Sound Recordings
Historically, radio broadcasters have never paid royalties to rightsholders in sound recordings made before 1972 because it was assumed that there were no public performance rights for such recordings. This was challenged recently when former Turtles members, Flo & Eddie, brought suit in California against Sirius XM, successfully arguing that state law confers a public…
Commentary: Exploiting Mixed Speech
The Supreme Court has been taking advantage of mixed speech “speech that is both private and governmental” to characterize challenged speech in the way that permits the government to sponsor Christian speech. In Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, a free speech case where the government accepted a Christian Ten Commandments monument but rejected a Summum Seven Aphorisms…
Redefining the Standard in Loss Causation Arguments
The Ninth Circuit recently ruled that a company announcement of an internal investigation is insufficient to establish a loss causation theory in a securities fraud action under section 10(b) of the Exchange Act. Specifically, it stated that an announcement of an investigation is not a corrective disclosure“”an event that discloses a company’s fraud. This Comment…
<em>In re Sanders</em> and the Resurrection of <em>Stanley v. Illinois</em>
In 1972, the Supreme Court in Stanley v. Illinois declared that parents are entitled to a hearing on their fitness before the state places their children in foster care, but for decades family courts would not apply this precedent to non-offending parents in child protection cases. Without even citing Stanley, courts held that finding…
The Limits of Academic Freedom
Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, the Supreme Court’s 2014 decision on race in university admissions, attracted considerable attention due to the sharp disagreement about race consciousness between Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Sonia Sotomayor. But behind the evident division on the Court about the race, a close reading of Schuette indicates…