Citizens All Along: Derivative Citizenship, Unlawful Entry, and the Former Immigration and Nationality Act

This Case Note argues that categorizing college athletes as employees would, under a faithful application of Title IX and the court’s reasoning in Johnson, take wage payments outside the purview of Title IX’s equal opportunity requirement for athletes. Instead, Title IX as applied to college employees would govern, along with the other relevant employment discrimination laws. Under these statutes, it would likely be permissible for colleges to pay athletes in revenue-generating sports more than those athletes in nonrevenue sports.

This Case Note explores the possibility that, in a world where TikTok is banned or heavily regulated, individual TikTok users could sue states under a Takings Clause theory. Any such cases would have to wrestle with two core questions (1) whether the account holders hold an actionable property interest in their accounts; and (2) if so, whether permanently and totally depriving users of access to their accounts constitutes a taking.

District courts should consider the value of percolation in a given case as part of their analysis in deciding whether to grant a § 1404(a) motion. The value of doing so is even more pronounced in cases with a clear pattern of repeat-player defendants moving for transfer for no apparent reason other than convenience—and perhaps a more amenable court. In such cases, district courts should directly weigh the benefits of percolation against those of judicial economy.