Digital Commons Network^™

Padilla V. Kentucky: Immigration Consequences Due To The Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel, Evangeline Pittman

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

No abstract provided.

The Sit-Ins And The State Action Doctrine, Christopher W. Schmidt

All Faculty Scholarship

By taking their seats at “whites only” lunch counters across the South in the spring of 1960, African American students not only launched a dramatic new stage in the civil rights movement, they also sparked a national reconsideration of the scope of the constitutional equal protection requirement. The critical constitutional question raised by the sit-in movement was whether the Fourteenth Amendment, which after Brown v. Board of Education (1954) prohibited racial segregation in schools and other state-operated facilities, applied to privately owned accommodations open to the general public. From the perspective of the student protesters, the lunch counter operators, and …

Recent Decisions, Phoebe A. Haddon

Phoebe A. Haddon

No abstract provided.

Broun Is Mere Opportunist, James M. Donovan

James M. Donovan

Only Congressman Paul Broun could compress so many misleading statements and factual errors into such a brief space, beginning with his appeal to the Founding Fathers.

Online version available at http://www.onlineathens.com/stories/051509/let_439920953.shtml

The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act Of 2008: A Case Study Of The Need For Better Congressional Responses To Federalism Jurisprudence, Harper Jean Tobin

Harper Jean Tobin

The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA) is the first new civil rights statute enacted since the “federalism revolution” of 1995-2001, in which the Supreme Court announced new limitations on congressional authority. Among other things, these decisions invalidated civil rights remedies against states, declaring that Congress had failed to amass sufficient evidence of the need for legislation. Although passed in the shadow of these decisions, GINA’s limited legislative history makes it vulnerable to attack – potentially limiting its protections for millions of state employees. States will likely attack GINA on two grounds: first, that Congress relied only on its …

Ricci V. Destefano: “Fanning The Flames” Of Reverse Discrimination In Civil Service Selection, Lauren Klein

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

No abstract provided.

Safford Unified School District No. 1 V. Redding: Balancing Students’ Rights Against The Governments Interest In Protecting The Educational Process, Chris Suedekum

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

No abstract provided.

Ashcroft V. Iqbal: The Question Of A Heightened Standard Of Pleading In Qualified Immunity Cases, Michelle Spiegel

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

No abstract provided.

Gross V. Fbl Financial Services, Inc.: Determining The Evidentiary Requirements For Bringing A Non-Title Vii Mixed-Motive Case, Matthew Brod

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

No abstract provided.

Snyder V. Louisiana: Demand For Judicial Scrutiny Of The Use Of Peremptory Challenges, Jennifer Ross

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

No abstract provided.

Boumediene V. Bush: Another Chapter In The Court’S Jurisprudence On Civil Liberties At Guantanamo Bay, Amanda Mcrae

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

No abstract provided.

Harbison V. Bell, Sarah Rutledge

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

No abstract provided.

The Problems Of Self-Execution: Medellin V. Texas, Taryn Marks

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

No abstract provided.

Louisiana V. Kennedy, Caroline Stevenson

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

No abstract provided.

Melendez-Diaz V. Massachusetts: Laboratory Testing And The Confrontation Clause, David Mansfield

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

No abstract provided.

Symposium: The Civil Rights Roots Of Tinker's Disruption Tests, Kristi L. Bowman

American University Law Review

This past spring marked the fortieth anniversary of Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, the landmark student speech case in which the Supreme Court held that three students were protected by the First Amendment when they wore black armbands in their Des Moines, Iowa public schools to protest the Vietnam War. Looking at Supreme Court precedent alone, it would seem as though the Tinker tests were created out of whole cloth: the substantial or material disruption, reasonable anticipation of such disruption, and rights of others tests did not have much of a basis in earlier Supreme Court decisions. …

Abolishing The Time Tax On Voting, Elora Mukherjee

Elora Mukherjee

A “time tax” is a government policy or practice that forces one citizen to pay more in time to vote compared with her fellow citizens. While few have noticed the scope of the problem, data indicate that, due primarily to long lines, hundreds of thousands if not millions of voters are routinely unable to vote in national elections as a result of the time tax, and that the problem disproportionately affects minority voters and voters in the South. This Article documents the problem and offers a roadmap for legal and political strategies for solving it. The Article uses as a …

La Incidencia De La Acción De Tutela En La Implementación De Las Políticas Públicas, Fernando Castillo Cadena

Fernando Castillo Cadena

The presente article in the light of constitutional economy, and using some conventional law and economics tools, the 'Acción de Tutela' (Constitutional Action or Action for the Tutelage of Rights) as a mechanism of protection of fundamental rights seeking to show its incidence over the implementation of public policies in favor of all citizens

Culture, Religion, And Indigenous People, David S. Bogen, Leslie F. Goldstein

David S. Bogen

The Constitution treats culture, religion, and government as separate concepts. Different clauses of the First Amendment protect culture and religion from government. For several decades, the Supreme Court of the United States interpreted the First Amendment as offering religion greater protection against interference than was offered to culture, but the Supreme Court largely dissolved these constitutional differences when confronted with issues posed by the religious practices of Native Americans. With some indigenous Americans, the lines between culture, religion, and even government blur – challenging the Supreme Court’s assumptions about the Constitution. The uniqueness of the claims of Native Americans pushed …