Digital Commons Network^™

The Pocahontas Exception: The Exemption Of American Indian Ancestry From Racial Purity Law, Kevin Noble Maillard

ExpressO

“The Pocahontas Exception” confronts the legal existence and cultural fascination with the eponymous “Indian Grandmother.” Laws existed in many states that prohibited marriage between whites and nonwhites to prevent the “quagmire of mongrelization.” Yet, this racial protectionism, as ingrained in law, blatantly exempted Indian blood from the threat to white racial purity. In Virginia, the Racial Integrity Act of 1924 made exceptions for whites of mixed descent who proudly claimed Native American ancestry from Pocahontas. This paper questions the juridical exceptions made for Native American ancestry in antimiscegenation statues, and analyzes the concomitant exemptions in contemporary social practice. With increasing …

Who’S In And Who’S Out? Can India’S Answer Help Us Determine Who Qualifies For Affirmative Action? , Sean A. Pager

ExpressO

Who should be the beneficiaries of racially targeted affirmative action? In its Croson decision, the Supreme Court answered part of the “Who Question” when it conditioned affirmative action eligibility on underrepresentation. What the Court did not tell us was underrepresentation of whom? The Court thus instructs us to select beneficiary groups by counting heads, but leaves open which heads get counted where and what categories to use.

By artificially separating what are necessarily related inquiries, the Court left a definitional lacuna that lower courts have struggled to fill. Such definitional issues matter because they often determine who benefits from affirmative …

Broken Borders: Decanas V. Bica, And The Standards That Govern The Validity Of State Measures Designed To Deter Undocumented Immigration, Joshua J. Herndon

ExpressO

No abstract provided.

Boy Scouts & Burning Crosses: Bringing Balance To The Court’S Lopsided Approach To The Intersection Of Equality And Speech, Russell K. Robinson

ExpressO

This article identifies a previously-ignored pattern of Supreme Court decisions that privilege one competing constitutional value, either speech or equality, and subordinate the other—with little or no reasoning explaining its choice. In adjudicating such cases, including two cases decided last term, the Supreme Court has steadfastly treated these disputes as either a basic equality case or a simple speech case. This dichotomy is a problem because once the Court places a case within either a speech or equality paradigm, it is constrained by certain rigid analytical presumptions. These presumptions threaten to stunt the analysis and to deprive the Court of …

In The Name Of National Security Or Insecurity?: The Potential Indefinite Detention Of Non-Citizen Certified Terrorists In The United States And The United Kingdom In The Aftermath Of September 11, 2001, Dana L. Keith

ExpressO

No abstract provided.