Since the Supreme Court's announcement of the Lindke test in Lindke v. Freed (2024), lower courts have begun to apply the test on their own. This Case Note analyzes how those courts have applied the first prong of the Lindke test to determine whether public actors possessed actual authority to post on social media and considers open questions regarding the finding of actual state authority to post on social media.
In 2021, Congress passed the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (EFAA). Notably, the EFAA assigns courts, rather than an arbitrator, the responsibility for determining the sufficiency of a plaintiff’s allegations. This has led to disagreements between federal district courts over the appropriate pleading standard when determining whether the EFAA applies. This Essay argues that courts should adopt the “nonfrivolous” pleading standard because it better ensures access to justice for victims of sexual misconduct.
In this Article, Yaron Covo argues that disability rights law in the United States is shaped not only by civil rights statutes but also by contract law doctrines. Contract law surfaces in the disability rights context through judicial determinations of accommodations negotiations and spending clause language in disability rights statutes. The Article argues that this intertwining has eroded rights under statutes meant to promote equality and protect vulnerable classes. The Article concludes with two recommendations: replacing the “individualized” negotiation model with a uniform model and adding certain mandatory rules and defaults in the disability rights context.
In this Comment, Sabrina Huang argues that courts should eliminate the subjective malice requirement for Fourth Amendment malicious prosecution claims. She draws on other constitutional torts that arise during encounters with actors in the criminal justice system to show that a plaintiff-friendly objective standard is more appropriate than a subjective standard. If courts are unwilling to eliminate the malice requirement, the Comment proposes an alternative to the requirement: a burden-shifting test. The intended effects of both proposals are to expand relief to more litigants across jurisdictions, harmonize Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, and deter police and prosecutorial misconduct.
At first glance, the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Isaacson v. Mayes (2023) set the stage for the perfect law review student comment. It called out the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Bankshot Billiards, Inc. v. City of Ocala (2011) by name. And the Congressional Research Service listed Bankshot and Isaacson among 2023’s circuit splits. By all accounts, the two circuits had split over a significant issue. They disagreed over whether a party needs to connect its injury to a constitutional right in order to establish standing for claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Only one problem remained: the courts were on the same page. What emerged was the specter of a circuit split.
In 1980, Congress enacted the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act (CWA), which added Title IV-E to the Social Security Act (SSA).
