University of Baltimore Law Review

The Courthouse Ethics and Transparency Act: The Congressional Solution for Financial Conflicts in Federal Court

*Jeffrey Neuman

I. Introduction

Judges have a duty to ensure that all citizens, no matter their race, religion, background, or bank account, get a fair shot at justice.[1] Federal litigation amplifies the importance of this duty due to the nature of disputes litigated at the federal level.[2] The holdings of federal judges can have far-reaching effects that reverberate throughout the country.[3] Thus, it is crucial that the moral character of judges be beyond reproach. Anything less erodes trust in the judicial system and frustrates the pursuit of justice. However, a recent bombshell report by the Wall Street Journal casts light on the systematic failure of the federal justice system to properly handle financial conflicts of interest.[4]

Citizen Bounty Hunters: The New Method for Evading Judicial Enforcement

*Peri Leanna Schuster

Introduction

On September 1, 2021, the Texas legislature enacted Senate Bill 8 (S.B. 8), a new law that restricts the right to an abortion six weeks after pregnancy,[1] contravening precedent of the United States Supreme Court.[2] The Texas legislature drafted S.B. 8 to avoid enforcement by state actors.[3] S.B. 8 specifically states that:

[a]ny person, other than an officer or employee of a state or local government entity in this state, may bring a civil action against any person who: (1) performs or induces an abortion . . . [or] (2) knowingly . . . aids or abets the performance or inducement of an abortion . . . .[4]

Instead of enforcing the law themselves, Texas lawmakers financially incentivize enforcement through private civil action or “citizen bounty hunters.”[5] S.B. 8 awards bounty hunters who prevail in a civil action “(1) injunctive relief . . . (2) statutory damages in an amount of not less than $10,000 for each abortion that the defendant performed or induced . . . and (3) costs and attorney’s fees.”[6] This private enforcement scheme allows Texas to completely avoid judicial review.[7]

Better Left Unsent: Real Estate “Love Letters” and Fair Housing Violations

*Alina Pargamanik

I. Introduction

A highly competitive real estate market with low inventory and intense bidding wars means that buyers are willing to do anything in their attempts to persuade sellers to sell, including resorting to “love letters.”[1] Love letters are letters that buyers write to sellers describing the reasons why the seller should pick them.[2] The letters often include emotional narratives revealing the buyer’s familial status, religion, and other personal characteristics in hopes that the seller will be moved enough to sell the house to the buyer.[3] Despite their seemingly harmless nature, the letters revealing protected characteristics could prompt serious violations of the Fair Housing Act (the “FHA”).[4]

II. Fair Housing Act

The FHA makes it unlawful to “discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith, because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.”[5] A seller choosing a buyer for their property based on a love letter revealing protected characteristics of the buyer could violate the FHA because, under the statute, the seller is discriminating based on protected characteristics.[6]

Go Back to Bed, America, Your Government is Watching Over You: What is a “Reasonable Expectation of Privacy” if Modern Surveillance Tools are in “General Public Use”?

*Bradley Rosen

I. Privacy Protections Under the Fourth Amendment

The Fourth Amendment of the Federal Constitution protects the people’s right “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.”[1] The Supreme Court of the United States recognizes that “[t]he ‘basic purpose of [the Fourth] Amendment’ . . . ‘is to safeguard the privacy and security of individuals against arbitrary invasions by government officials.’”[2] Historically, courts analyzed whether a search was reasonable by determining whether the police obtained the information “‘by physically intruding on a constitutionally protected area.’”[3]

However, whether a search involves a physical trespass is “‘not the sole measure of Fourth Amendment violations.’”[4] In Katz v. United States, the Court went beyond its traditional property-based Fourth Amendment jurisprudence to establish that “the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places.”[5] That decision linked “certain expectations of privacy” to protection from unreasonable searches.[6] As a result of Katz, the Court now holds that police officers violate a person’s Fourth Amendment rights not only through warrantless invasions of traditional property rights, but through intrusions upon that person’s “‘reasonable expectation of privacy’” as well.[7] To determine if someone has a reasonable expectation of privacy, the Court looks to whether that person sought “‘to preserve something as private,’” and if that person’s “expectation of privacy is ‘one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable[.]’”[8]

Personal Jurisdiction in Light of Ford Motor Co.: Revolution or Evolution?

*Joseph Canner

I. Personal Jurisdiction: A Brief Review

As every first-year civil procedure student knows, defendants can only be sued in states where the courts have jurisdiction over that defendant.[1] This concept is known as personal jurisdiction. In most garden-variety product liability or breach of contract cases there are two requirements for a court to have personal jurisdiction over a defendant: (1) the defendant has at least minimum contacts with the forum state,[2] and (2) that the cause of action arises out of or relates to those minimum contacts (the nexus requirement).[3]

Typically, a plaintiff satisfies the minimum contacts requirement when a company sells a product in a state and is sued in that state.[4] However, if a company sells a product in one state and the product somehow ends up in another state and causes an injury there, it is less clear whether there is personal jurisdiction over the defendant in the state where the injury occurred. For example, in J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro,the defendant’s product ended up in the forum state via a third-party distributor rather than as the result of direct contacts with the forum state by the defendant.[5] In a 6-3 decision, the United States Supreme Court held that the forum state lacked jurisdiction;[6] however, the Court disagreed on what kinds of contacts would be necessary to permit jurisdiction.[7]