Law Commons^™

Opportunity Gap: A Survey Of State Sourceof-Income Protection Laws And How They Address The Challenges Facing The Federal Housing Choice Voucher Program, Jamie H. Wood

University of Richmond Law Review

In 1968, the United States Congress enacted the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”) with the stated purpose of “prevent[ing] segregation and discrimination in housing, including in the sale or rental of housing . . . .” The FHA prohibits landlords from refusing to rent to members of certain protected classes, including race, color, national origin, sex, religion, disability, and familial status.2 Notably absent from this list is what is commonly referred to as “source-of-income” (“SOI”) protection, which extends antidiscrimination statutes to recipients of federal public assistance.

The federal government’s primary housing public assistance program is the Housing Choice Voucher (“HCV”) Program …

The Preemption Of Collective State Antitrust Enforcement In Telecommunications, Jacob P. Grosso

University of Richmond Law Review

The dichotomy between the levels of government provided murky guidance to telecommunications firms on what behavior is anticompetitive and what decisions firms will have to spend years defending. Despite T-Mobile and Sprint agreeing to sell off several subsidiaries, helping to create a new competitor, and surviving a gamut of regulatory reviews, these companies still could not merge. At this point, preventing the deal would cause irreversible harm to the merging parties.

The conflicts that arose in the T-Mobile-Sprint merger could have been solved through the preemption of collective state antitrust enforcement in the telecommunications market, which would balance the twin …

Table Of Contents

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Trade Secrets And Personal Secrets, Lital Helman

University of Richmond Law Review

This Article aims to examine the different ways in which the law protects commercial and private secrets. The most fundamental difference is that the trade secrets regime forbids the unauthorized use of a business’s confidential information, while privacy law does not forbid the unauthorized use of a person’s confidential information. If a firm takes measures to protect information of value, the law forbids the use of this information. Yet, as to personal secrets, the mere fact that someone has taken measures to protect their privacy does not create an obligation to avoid misappropriation of their in- formation.

This asymmetry of …