Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Constitutional Law (2)
- Equal Protection (2)
- Abortion (1)
- Bond v. United States (131 S. Ct. 2355 (2011)) (1)
- Circumcision (1)
-
- Citizenship (1)
- Discrimination Against Gays (1)
- Due Process of Law (1)
- Erie Railroad v. Tompkins (304 U.S. 64 (1938)) (1)
- Exemptions (1)
- Federalism (1)
- Flores-Villar v. United States (131 S. Ct. 2312 (2011)) (1)
- Gay Adoption (1)
- Immigration Law (1)
- Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (1)
- Lawrence v. Texas (539 U.S. 558 (2003)) (1)
- Overbreadth Doctrine (1)
- Parent and Child (1)
- Religion and Law (1)
- Remedies (1)
- Same-Sex Marriage (1)
- Separate but Equal Doctrine (1)
- Sexual Orientation (1)
- Standing (1)
- United States Constitution 14th Amendment (1)
- United States v. Virginia (518 U.S. 515 (1996)) (1)
- Women's Rights (1)
Articles 1 - 8 of 8
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
Reproductive Injustice In The New Millennium, Sybil Shainwald
Reproductive Injustice In The New Millennium, Sybil Shainwald
William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice
A reexamination of the history of abortion law in the United States is essential to an understanding of recent changes. Part I of this Article will provide a synopsis of the early Anglo-American view of abortion at common law, the early anti-abortion statutes, and the state of abortion during the early twentieth century. Part II will discuss the liberalization of abortion laws, as well as the ways in which the law pertaining to a woman’s right to choose has evolved since 1973. Finally, Part III will analyze the constitutionality of the current wave of restrictions.
Constitutional Remedies And Public Interest Balancing, John M. Greabe
Constitutional Remedies And Public Interest Balancing, John M. Greabe
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
The conventional account of our remedial tradition recognizes that courts may engage in discretionary public interest balancing to withhold the specific remedies typically administered in equity. But it generally does not acknowledge that courts possess the same power with respect to the substitutionary remedies usually provided at law. The conventional account has things backwards when it comes to constitutional remedies. The modern Supreme Court frequently requires the withholding of substitutionary constitutional relief under doctrines developed to protect the perceived public interest. Yet it has treated specific relief to remedy ongoing or imminent invasions of rights as routine, at least when …
Social Science Studies And The Children Of Lesbians And Gay Men: The Rational Basis Perspective, Carlos A. Ball
Social Science Studies And The Children Of Lesbians And Gay Men: The Rational Basis Perspective, Carlos A. Ball
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
This Article seeks to determine whether the social science literature on the children of lesbians and gay men precludes the government from relying on child welfare considerations to justify same-sex marriage bans and parenting restrictions affecting lesbians and gay men under the highly deferential rational basis test. Under that test, courts must uphold laws and regulations that have any conceivable basis of fact which is rationally related to a legitimate state interest. After comprehensively reviewing the social science literature, the Article concludes that the empirical evidence showing the lack of an association between parental sexual orientation and the psychological and …
To Cut Or Not To Cut?: Addressing Proposals To Ban Circumcision Under Both A Parental Rights Theory And Child-Centered Perspective In The Specific Context Of Jewish And Muslim Infants, Andrew E. Behrns
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
No abstract provided.
Lawrence's Stealth Constitutionalism And Same-Sex Marriage Litigation, Eric Berger
Lawrence's Stealth Constitutionalism And Same-Sex Marriage Litigation, Eric Berger
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
Constitutional law scholarship often focuses on two taxonomies: doctrinal categories and interpretive methodologies. Consequently, constitutional scholars sometimes neglect other important facets of constitutional decisionmaking, particularly extra-doctrinal stealth determinations that courts render frequently in constitutional opinions. The U.S. Supreme Court regularly confronts the questions underlying these determinations, but despite their centrality to constitutional decisionmaking, these issues often escape careful scrutiny.
Lawrence v. Texas exemplifies the phenomenon. Lawrence framed its central question at a broad level of generality; relied on hybrid reasoning, using equal-protection rationales to support a substantive due process holding; declined to identify a level of scrutiny; and invoked changing …
Crossing The Final Border: Securing Equal Gender Protection In Immigration Cases, Michelle L. Sudano
Crossing The Final Border: Securing Equal Gender Protection In Immigration Cases, Michelle L. Sudano
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
No abstract provided.
Sex Segregation In Public Schools: Separate But Equal?, Lily A. Saffer
Sex Segregation In Public Schools: Separate But Equal?, Lily A. Saffer
William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice
No abstract provided.
Valid Rule Due Process Challenges: Bond V. United States And Erie's Constitutional Source, Kermit Roosevelt Iii
Valid Rule Due Process Challenges: Bond V. United States And Erie's Constitutional Source, Kermit Roosevelt Iii
William & Mary Law Review
No abstract provided.