Digital Commons Network^™

Correcting A Fatal Lottery: A Proposal To Apply The Civil Discrimination Standards To The Death Penalty, Joseph Thomas

Joseph Thomas

Claims of discrimination are treated differently in the death penalty context. Discrimination in employment, housing, civil rights and jury venire all use a burden-shifting framework with the preponderance of the evidence as the standard. Discrimination that occurs in death penalty proceedings is the exception to the rule -- the framework offers less protections; there is only one phase of argumentation, with a heightened evidentiary standard of “exceptionally clear proof.” With disparate levels of protections against discrimination, the standard and framework for adjudicating claims of discrimination in the death penalty is unconstitutional.

Death is different as a punishment. But does discrimination …

Pre-Crime Restraints: The Explosion Of Targeted, Non-Custodial Prevention, Jennifer Daskal

Jennifer Daskal

This Article exposes the ways in which non-custodial, pre-crime restraints have proliferated over the past decade, focusing in particular on three notable examples – terrorism-related financial sanctions, the No Fly List, and the array of residential, employment, and related restrictions imposed on sex offenders. Because such restraints do not involve physical incapacitation, they are rarely deemed to infringe core liberty interests. Because they are preventive, not punitive, none of the criminal law procedural protections apply. They have exploded largely unchecked – subject to little more than bare rationality review and negligible procedural protections – and without any coherent theory as …

Saving Disparate Impact, Lawrence Rosenthal

Lawrence Rosenthal

No abstract provided.

Civil Rights Litigation From The October 2007 Term, Martin A. Schwartz

Martin A. Schwartz

No abstract provided.

2002 U.S. Supreme Court Term Includes Zoning Referendum Case, Patricia E. Salkin

Patricia E. Salkin

No abstract provided.

Workers’ Compensation And The Right To Interstate Travel – Schatz V Interfaith Care Centre, Mel Cousins

Mel Cousins

In Schatz, the Minnesota supreme court considered the interesting question of the right to interstate travel as it affects workers’ compensation. While we know that durational residence requirements for welfare benefits and medical care are likely to be found to be unconstitutional, the US courts have to date not greatly explored where other conditions of social security, workers compensation or welfare schemes may impinge on the right to interstate travel. In order to set the groundwork, Part 1 of this note sets out the Supreme Court’s decisions concerning benefits and the right to travel, focusing on the aspects of most …

Amicus Brief: State V. Glover (Maine Supreme Judicial Court), Adam Lamparello, Charles Maclean

Adam Lamparello

When law enforcement seeks to obtain a warrantless, pre-arrest DNA sample from an individual, that individual has the right to say “No.” If silence is to become a “badge of guilt,” then the right to silence—under the United States and Maine Constitutions—might become a thing of the past. Allowing jurors to infer consciousness of guilt from a pre-arrest DNA sample violates the Fourth Amendment to the United States and Maine Constitutions.

Suspect Classification And Its Discontents, Susannah W. Pollvogt

Susannah W Pollvogt

Suspect classification analysis and the associated tiers of scrutiny framework are the primary doctrinal features of contemporary equal protection jurisprudence. How plaintiffs fare under these twin doctrines determines the ultimate fate of their equal protection claims. But neither doctrine finds firm footing in precedent or theory. Rather, a close examination of the United States Supreme Court’s equal protection jurisprudence reveals these doctrines as historically contingent and lacking in any principled justification. But rather than disregard the contributions of these cases altogether, this Article mines that same body of law not for the discrete doctrinal mechanisms developed in each case, but …

Persons Who Are Not The People: The Changing Rights Of Immigrants In The United States, Geoffrey Heeren

Geoffrey Heeren

Non-citizens have fared best in recent Supreme Court cases by piggybacking on federal rights when the actions of states are at issue, or by criticizing agency rationality when federal action is at issue. These two themes-federalism and agency skepticism-have proven in recent years to be more effective litigation frameworks than some individual rights-based theories like equal protection. This marks a substantial shift from the Burger Court era, when similar cases were more likely to be litigated and won on equal protection than on preemption or Administrative Procedure Act theories. This Article describes this shift, considers the reasons for it, and …