Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
Meaningless Dna: Moore’S Inadequate Protection Of Genetic Material, Natalie Alexander
Meaningless Dna: Moore’S Inadequate Protection Of Genetic Material, Natalie Alexander
Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)
Moore v. Regents of the University of California represents the seminal case regarding the protection of genetic material. In this case, the California Supreme Court held that patients do not retain property rights in their excised genetic material; instead, informed consent laws serve as genetic material’s only protection. Many states have accepted the Moore court’s decision not to extend property rights to genetic material, and most states choose to protect genetic material through informed consent alone. Moore and informed consent do not adequately protect genetic material, creating unjust results in which “donors” of genetic material have little to no recourse …
Sex Trait Discrimination: Intersex People And Title Vii After Bostock V. Clayton County, Sam Parry
Sex Trait Discrimination: Intersex People And Title Vii After Bostock V. Clayton County, Sam Parry
Washington Law Review
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees from workplace discrimination and harassment on account of sex. Courts have historically failed to extend Title VII protections to LGBTQ+ people. However, in 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Bostock v. Clayton County changed this. Bostock explicitly extended Title VII’s protections against workplace discrimination to “homosexual” and “transgender” people, reasoning that it is impossible to discriminate against an employee for being gay or transgender without taking the employee’s sex into account. While Bostock is a win for LGBTQ+ rights, the opinion leaves several questions unanswered. The reasoning in …
The Constitutionality Of The Title Ix Religious Exemption, Madelyn Jacobsen, Rebecca Batty, Editor
The Constitutionality Of The Title Ix Religious Exemption, Madelyn Jacobsen, Rebecca Batty, Editor
Brigham Young University Prelaw Review
Petitioners in Hunter v. Department of Education questioned the constitutionality of the Title IX religious exemption as the basis of their 2021 class-action lawsuit. They claimed that more than 30 religious schools maintained discriminatory policies against LGBTQ students under the exemption. The religious exemption, often painted as unconstitutional discrimination, permits religious schools' adherence to sincerely held religious beliefs—and promotes a distinctive religious education that secular schools lack. This paper examines legal precedents relevant to religious freedom, higher education, and discrimination that demand the Title IX religious exemption remains in effect.
Signed, Sealed, Delivered? Problems With The Use Of Signature Matching To Verify Mail Voter Identity
Signed, Sealed, Delivered? Problems With The Use Of Signature Matching To Verify Mail Voter Identity
Florida A & M University Law Review
During the 2020 election, the basic struggle to balance ballot access and election integrity played out in a more public fashion than at any time in recent memory. This begs several important questions. First, how did the American election system get to this point? The legal standards governing election law have long been debated and that uncertainty unleashed a flood of litigation in 2020. Second, why use signature matching—a practice which is methodologically unsound and steadily falling out of use—at all? The use of handwritten signatures to verify identity rather than to evidence attestation is on the decline in other …