In this essay, Professor Brian Clarke examines the Supreme Court's various articulations of the proper standard for determining causation in employment discrimination cases. Professor Clarke then proposes a novel solution that the Court should adopt in its opinion in University of Texas Southwest Medical Center v. Nassar, in order to resolve its past ambiguous formulations and to bring clarity to this area of law.     

The regulation of domestic drone use has been the subject of much media attention.  In addition to how much domestic drones should be regulated, scholars and policymakers are debating a more complex question, which is who should regulate drones. In this Essay, Margot Kaminski, Executive Director of the Yale Information Society Project,  suggests that civilian drone use should be regulated by states rather than the federal government. She argues that because civilian drone use implicates privacy issues that states have previously regulated through statutes and common-law torts, and because there is a tension between privacy and First Amendment concerns that states will navigate better than the federal government, state law should - at least for now - be the primary means of governing civilian drone overflights.    

In this Book Review, Professor Glenn H. Reynolds looks to both the past and the future of space law. Drawing from his experience co-authoring one of the first comprehensive legal texts on outer-space law and legal issues, Professor Reynolds provides an expert's evaluation of The Laws of Spaceflight: A Guidebook for New Space Lawyers.    

Current CLR member Keagan D. Buchanan previews the Supreme Court's upcoming decision in Maryland v. King, which will decide whether Maryland's expansion of its DNA collection and analysis procedures to felony arrestees is constitutional.

This note is one of seven written by California Law Review members for Circuit's first annual Case Note Review.