Issues

H-1B Specialty Occupations Visas allow numerous foreign nationals to obtain a pathway for entry into the United States through their hard-earned efforts and specialized skills. After meeting stringent requirements and completing complex processes, holders of H-1B visas may begin working in America. Unfortunately, when these individuals come to the land of opportunity, they encounter a harsh reality of employment: the incessant discriminatory abuse of H-1B visa holders by their employers. H-1B employees endure severe working conditions, long hours, unattainable deadlines, wage disparities, and racial biases as they navigate an unknown nation. Employers tend to exploit H-1B workers because these visa holders are essentially “handcuffed” to their positions in a role akin to indentured servitude. The law, as it stands, permits employers to continue these inequitable actions and evade liability. H-1B visa holders are humans, too, and merit protections equivalent to those possessed by U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents. This Note highlights this hidden yet extensive issue and argues for more robust protections through the law. While Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 operates as a federal mechanism to hold employers liable for discriminatory acts, it and other existing safeguards fail to adequately shield H-1B employees. To fix this broken system and provide justice for these abusive and pervasive practices, this Note contends that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the enforcer of Title VII, should serve as the gap-filler and utilize its interpretative and administrative powers to keep employers accountable. This Note further articulates four proposed solutions the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission should employ to remedy these egregious harms, including bringing lawsuits in all cases it finds discrimination, amending its definition of national origin discrimination to encompass immigration status, revising its speak-English-only rules, and actively considering applying the equitable estoppel doctrine in untimely charges filed by H-1B visa holders.

The modern U.S. stadium-development model enables “sport-extortion,” a phenomenon in which franchise owners leverage artificial scarcity, antitrust carve-outs, and credible relocation threats to extract public subsidies that deliver negligible public benefits. Owners use the league’s monopoly power and superior negotiating leverage to pit cities against one another and extract public money for new stadiums or upgrades to their existing stadiums. The owners and community leaders who support using public money to finance these projects promise huge economic returns and development for their communities. However, a survey of the empirical literature and examination of recently approved stadium projects reveal that these projects often lead to minimal gains in income or employment from new venues; real-estate effects are localized to the areas immediately surrounding the stadium, and the effects are mixed; and intangible “civic pride” benefits are overvalued due to public-choice problems that favor a vocal minority. If these projects were privately financed, there would be little concern with the minimal return on investment to the community. However, the recent trend of cities providing substantial public funding means that taxpayers are bearing the cost of projects that primarily benefit private interests. This Note evaluates potential policies that could realign the private incentives of the leagues and teams with the public welfare of the communities that the franchises call home. The policies considered in this Note are tightening restrictions on federal tax-exemption for stadium-related municipal bonds and more cautious use of Tax Increment Financing by including robust “but-for” tests and private risk-bearing; restricting the use of eminent domain in stadium projects; and clarifying or expanding league-specific antitrust immunity to impose federally guided relocation criteria. This Note concludes that an approach combining tax reform, disciplined public-finance tools, and calibrated antitrust adjustments offers the most likely path to protect taxpayers while preserving the legitimate community benefits of professional sports.

Every regular internet user in the United States has been exposed to fake news at some point. Most of them, if not all, would agree that this problem needs a solution. Nevertheless, even as fake news has taken on unforeseen prominence in recent years, very little concrete action has been taken to curb its impact on American society. Some scholars have chalked this up to the Supreme Court’s expansive conception of the First Amendment, which makes it incredibly challenging to regulate political speech. Others posit that the problem is Section 230, which allows platforms to profit from fake news without facing any liability for third-party content. Still others see this as a failure of platforms that are fully capable of self-regulation. Until now, however, legal scholarship has largely overlooked the role of human participation in fake news. To rectify this gap, this Note explores the reasons why people believe and spread certain types of fake news, ultimately using them as a framework to propose a novel enhanced disclaimer regime that is constitutional, practical, and responsive to America’s fake news crisis.