Digital Commons Network^™

At Home In The Outer Limits: Daimlerchrysler V. Bauman And The Bounds Of General Personal Jurisdiction, Todd W. Noelle

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

This commentary previews an upcoming Supreme Court case, DaimlerChrysler v. Bauman, in which the Court may decide whether maintaining a wholly-owned subsidiary in a forum state can render a foreign parent corporation "essentially at home" in that state, thereby permitting the forum state to exercise general personal jurisdiction over the parent corporation.

Why Turner V. Rogers Was And Wasn’T Correctly Decided: How The Fourteenth Amendment Should Be Read For Child Support Contemnors, Gina Rose Lauterio

Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Is Brown The New Black?: American Muslims, Inherent Propensity For Violence, And America’S Racial History, Amara S. Chaudhry-Kravitz

Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Overcoming Obstacles To Religious Exercise In K-12 Education, Lewis M. Wasserman

Lewis M. Wasserman

Overcoming Obstacles to Religious Exercise in K-12 Education Lewis M. Wasserman Abstract Judicial decisions rendered during the last half-century have overwhelmingly favored educational agencies over claims by parents for religious accommodations to public education requirements, no matter what constitutional or statutory rights were pressed at the tribunal, or when the conflict arose. These claim failures are especially striking in the wake of the Religious Freedom Restoration Acts (“RFRAs”) passed by Congress in 1993 and, to date, by eighteen state legislatures thereafter, since the RFRAs were intended to (1) insulate religious adherents from injuries inflicted by the United States Supreme Court’s …

Saving Disparate Impact, Lawrence Rosenthal

Lawrence Rosenthal

No abstract provided.

Is The Antidiscrimination Project Being Ended?, Michael J. Zimmer

Indiana Journal of Law and Social Equality

No abstract provided.

The Voting Rights Act's Fight To Stay Rational: Shelby County V. Holder, Sudeep Paul

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

This commentary previews an upcoming Supreme Court case, Shelby County v. Holder, in which the Court may decide whether Congress's 2006 reauthorization of Section 5 and Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act was constitutional.

How Quickly We Forget: The Short And Undistinguished Career Of Affirmative Action, Robert Parrish

Robert Parrish

Diversity initiatives in higher education, also known as affirmative action are nearing their nadir. For those who have been watching the jurisprudence and the progression of events closely this should come as little surprise. These initiatives have been under attack since their very inception and now sit teetering on the brink of being declared unconstitutional as the United States Supreme Court considers Fisher v. Texas. Beginning with Regents of California v. Bakke in 1978, the Supreme Court has gradually and consistently whittled away these higher education diversity programs, leaving them currently in a vulnerable and legally precarious position. The Court’s …

Maryland V. King: The Fourth Amendment Spirals Down The Double Helix, Sitara V. Witanachchi

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

This commentary previews an upcoming Supreme Court case, Maryland v. King, in which the Court may decide whether requiring an arrestee to submit to a buccal swab for identification purposes violates the arrestee's privacy interests under the Fourth Amendment.

Hollingsworth V. Perry: Expressive Harm And The Stakes Of "Marriage", Corinne Blalock

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

This commentary previews an upcoming Supreme Court case, Hollingsworth v. Perry, in which the Court may decide whether Proposition 8 violates either the Equal Protection Clause or the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Mcburney V. Young: Testing The Limits Of Citizens-Only Freedom Of Information Laws, Patrick Jamieson

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

This commentary previews an upcoming Supreme Court case, McBurney v. Young, in which the Court will decide whether the citizens-only provision of Virginia's Freedom of Information Act violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause or the dormant Commmerce Clause.

Testimony Before The U.S. Commission On Civil Rights, Briefing On Peaceful Coexistence: Reconciling Non-Discrimination Principles With Civil Liberties, Michael A. Helfand

Michael A Helfand

No abstract provided.

Proposition 8 Is Unconstitutional, But Not Because The Ninth Circuit Said So: The Equal Protection Clause Does Not Support A Legal Distinction Between Denying The Right To Same-Sex Marriage And Not Providing It In The First Place, Nathan Rouse

Seattle University Law Review

In Perry v. Brown, the Ninth Circuit held that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional. But in doing so, the court stepped back from the breadth of the district court’s decision. The Ninth Circuit did not address whether same-sex marriage is a fundamental constitutional right. Nor did the Ninth Circuit address whether the Equal Protection Clause categorically prevents states from limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples. Instead, the Ninth Circuit reached the narrow conclusion that Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause because it withdrew a preexisting legal right from a marginalized group without any legitimate purpose. The Ninth Circuit should have held …

The Prying Nose: Florida V. Jardines And Warrantless Dog-Sniff Tests On Private Property, Ali Mirsaidi

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

This commentary previews an upcoming Supreme Court case, Florida v. Jardines, in which the Court will decide whether a dog-sniff test at the front door of a home constitutes a Fourth Amendment search. The case asks the Court to resolve its prior decisions holding that dog-sniff tests are minimally intrusive when conducted in public with its decisions affording higher protections for searches of private residences.

Clapper V. Amnesty International: Who Has Standing To Challenge Government Surveillance?, Elisa Sielski

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

This commentary previews an upcoming Supreme Court case, Clapper v. Amnesty International, in which the Court will examine whether plaintiffs have standing to challenge possible government surveillance under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. In so doing, the Court will have to revisit the standards for standing in surveillance cases in light of Laird v. Tatum and a circuit split stemming from that case.

Evans V. Michigan: The Impact Of Judicial Error On Double Jeopardy Protection, Zi-Xiang Shen

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

This commentary previews an upcoming Supreme Court case, Evans v. Michigan, in which the Court has an opportunity to clarify the bounds of the prohibition on double jeopardy. More specifically, the Court will determine what, if any, impact judicial error has on double jeopardy protection under the Fifth Amendment.

Take The Money And Run: Detainment Incident To A Search Warrant In Bailey V. United States, Alexander Hall

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

This commentary previews an upcoming Supreme Court case, Bailey v. United States, in which the Court will examine the scope of permissible non-arrest seizures in the context of a detainment incident to a search warrant. The case offers the Court an opportunity to clarify its holding in Michigan v. Summers--that occupants of premises being searched pursuant to a valid warrant may be detained during the search--by determining whether such a detainment is permissible when the occupants have left the premises.

Section 1983 Is Born: The Interlocking Supreme Court Stories Of Tenney And Monroe, Sheldon Nahmod

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

E Pluribus Unum: Liberalism's March To Be The Singular Influence On Civil Rights At The Supreme Court, Aaron J. Shuler

Aaron J Shuler

Rogers Smith writes that American political culture can best be understood as a blend of liberal, republican and illiberal ascriptive ideologies. The U.S. Supreme Court’s constitutional jurisprudence has largely reflected this thesis. While the Court moved away from permitting laws that explicitly construct hierarchies in the 20th century and made tepid references to egalitarian principles during the Warren Court, liberalism has prevailed in the majority of the Court’s decisions. Gains in civil rights through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection and Substantive Due Process clauses were achieved primarily through liberal notions of de-regulation, a market economy and individual freedom. Conversely, State …

The Legal Impact Of Emerging Governance Models On Public Education And Its Office Holders, Robert A. Garda Jr., David Doty

Robert A. Garda

The idea that changing the formal structure of governance can lead to better schools is rooted in American political and intellectual history. Politicians, career educators, parents, business leaders, and investors continue to wrangle over the control of public schools all across the country. With these battles for control have come more lawsuits, more laws, and more administrative regulations dictating the governance structures of educational institutions. Indeed, one could argue that, in recent years, debates over how schools and school districts should be governed have subsumed the curriculum debates over how and what children should be taught. Leadership matters, and therefore …

Knives And The Second Amendment, David B. Kopel, Claytom E. Cramer, Joseph P. Olson

David B Kopel

This Article is the first scholarly analysis of knives and the Second Amendment. Under the Supreme Court’s standard in District of Columbia v. Heller, knives are Second Amendment “arms” because they are “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes,” including self-defense.

There is no knife that is more dangerous than a modern handgun; to the contrary, knives are much less dangerous. Therefore, restrictions on carrying handguns set the upper limit for restrictions on carrying knives.

Prohibitions on carrying knives in general, or of particular knives, are unconstitutional. For example, bans of knives that open in a convenient way (e.g., …

Mexico's Gun Control Laws: A Model For The United States?, David B. Kopel

David B Kopel

This article explicates Mexico’s constitutional right to arms and Mexico’s main gun-control statute, the Federal Law of Firearms and Explosives (Ley Federal de Armas de Fuego y Explosivos). Along the way, the article notes various proposals to move U.S. gun laws in a Mexican direction.

Part II of this article is an English translation of the Mexican constitution’s guarantee of the right to arms, as well as predecessor versions of the guarantee.

Part III explains the operation of Mexico’s gun-control system and provides some historical and statistical information about gun ownership and gun smuggling in Mexico.

Part IV describes some …

E Pluribus Unum: Liberalism's March To Be The Singular Influence On Civil Rights At The Supreme Court, Aaron J. Shuler

Barry Law Review

This article seeks to apply Rogers Smith’s Multiple Traditions thesis to the United States Supreme Court’s treatment of the Fourteenth Amendment to uncover the influences behind its major civil rights decisions. It will argue that liberalism dominates at the Court after mostly, but not completely, shedding its illiberal tendencies. This article will argue that the Court’s focus on intent over impact and its “color-blind” approach to racial classifications in the era of subterranean prejudice and indifference or ignorance to inequality solidifies and perpetuates the hierarchies created by ascriptive forms of Americanism under the Court’s liberal notions. This article will also …

Does Fair Housing Law Apply To “Shared Living Situations”? Or, The Trouble With Roommates, Tim Iglesias

Tim Iglesias

In 2012, the Ninth Circuit held that to avoid a constitutional conflict with the right to freedom of association neither the federal Fair Housing Act nor California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act apply to persons seeking roommates or to other shared living situations. This article criticizes the opinion as poorly reasoned and overly broad and then offers a more targeted legislative solution to the problem.

This is an abbreviated version of the article that appeared in the JOURNAL OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT LAW (Spring 2014).

Framing Inclusionary Zoning: Exploring The Legality Of Local Inclusionary Zoning And Its Potential To Meet Affordable Housing Needs, Tim Iglesias

Tim Iglesias

Whether local inclusionary zoning (IZ) ordinances can make significant contributions towards meeting affordable housing needs depends in large part on its legality. Courts have not developed a consistent jurisprudence regarding IZ ordinances. The legality of IZ ordinances depends upon how they are framed by the governments who enact them, the opponents who challenge them, and the courts that decide the cases. After a brief introduction, this article explores why framing is possible and likely in judicial review of IZ as well as why it matters. Next, the article analyzes the case law to demonstrate how framing has operated to affect …

Section 1983 Is Born: The Interlocking Supreme Court Stories Of Tenney And Monroe, Sheldon Nahmod

Sheldon Nahmod

No abstract provided.