Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Election law (2)
- Equality before the law (2)
- Race discrimination (2)
- Shelby County v. Holder (2)
- African Americans--Civil rights (1)
-
- Apportionment (Election law) (1)
- Birth control--Law and legislation (1)
- Civil rights (1)
- Constitution. 2nd Amendment (1)
- Constitutional law (1)
- Criminal procedure (1)
- Democracy (1)
- District of Columbia v. Heller (1)
- Due process of law (1)
- Equality (1)
- Fair trial (1)
- Federal government (1)
- Firearms ownership (1)
- Firearms--Law and legislation (1)
- Griswold v. Connecticut (1)
- Jurors—Attitudes (1)
- Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Holder (1)
- Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado (1)
- Political questions and judicial power (1)
- Reynolds v. Sims (1)
- Ruth Bader Ginsburg (1)
- Self-defense (Law) (1)
- United States (1)
- Voting (1)
- Voting Rights Act of 1965 (1)
Articles 1 - 7 of 7
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
Brief For Amici Curiae Professors Of Law In Support Of Petitioner, Barbara Allen Babcock, Jeffrey Bellin, Robert P. Burns, Sherman J. Clark, James E. Coleman Jr., Lisa Kern Griffin, Robert P. Mosteller, Deborah Tuerkheimer, Neil Vidmar
Brief For Amici Curiae Professors Of Law In Support Of Petitioner, Barbara Allen Babcock, Jeffrey Bellin, Robert P. Burns, Sherman J. Clark, James E. Coleman Jr., Lisa Kern Griffin, Robert P. Mosteller, Deborah Tuerkheimer, Neil Vidmar
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Barriers To Entry And Justice Ginsburg’S Criminal Procedure Jurisprudence, Lisa Kern Griffin
Barriers To Entry And Justice Ginsburg’S Criminal Procedure Jurisprudence, Lisa Kern Griffin
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Contraception As A Sex Equality Right, Neil S. Siegel, Reva B. Siegel
Contraception As A Sex Equality Right, Neil S. Siegel, Reva B. Siegel
Faculty Scholarship
Challenges to federal law requiring insurance coverage of contraception are occurring on the eve of the 50th Anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Griswold v. Connecticut. It is a good time to reflect on the values served by protecting women’s access to contraception.
In 1965, the Court ruled in Griswold that a law criminalizing the use of contraception violated the privacy of the marriage relationship. Griswold offered women the most significant constitutional protection since the Nineteenth Amendment gave women the right to vote, constitutional protection as important as the cases prohibiting sex discrimination that the Court would …
Race, Federalism, And Voting Rights, Guy-Uriel E. Charles, Luis Fuentes-Rohwer
Race, Federalism, And Voting Rights, Guy-Uriel E. Charles, Luis Fuentes-Rohwer
Faculty Scholarship
In Shelby County v. Holder, the Court struck down an important provision of the Voting Rights Act, section 4, on federalism grounds. The Court argued that Congress no longer had the power to enact section 4 because of the “federalism costs” imposed by the Act and because the Act violated "basic principles" of federalism. Unfortunately, the Court failed to articulate the costs to federalism imposed by the Act, much less conduct a cost-benefit analysis in order to determine whether the benefits of the Act outweighed its costs. Moreover, the Court failed to discuss whether the Reconstruction Amendments ought to matter …
New Approaches To Old Questions In Gun Scholarship, Joseph Blocher
New Approaches To Old Questions In Gun Scholarship, Joseph Blocher
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Reynolds Reconsidered, Guy-Uriel E. Charles, Luis Fuentes-Rohwer
Reynolds Reconsidered, Guy-Uriel E. Charles, Luis Fuentes-Rohwer
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
The Voting Rights In Winter: The Death Of A Superstatute, Guy-Uriel Charles, Luis Fuentes-Rohwer
The Voting Rights In Winter: The Death Of A Superstatute, Guy-Uriel Charles, Luis Fuentes-Rohwer
Faculty Scholarship
The Voting Rights Act (“VRA”), the most successful civil rights statute in American history, is dying. In the recent Shelby County decision, the U.S. Supreme Court signaled that the anti-discrimination model, long understood as the basis for the VRA as originally enacted, is no longer the best way to understand today’s voting rights questions. As a result, voting rights activists need to face up to the fact that voting rights law and policy are at a critical moment of transition. It is likely the case that the superstatute we once knew as the VRA is no more and is never …