Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 8 of 8
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
Dehumanization 'Because Of Sex': The Multiaxial Approach To The Title Vii Rights Of Sexual Minorities, Shirley Lin
Dehumanization 'Because Of Sex': The Multiaxial Approach To The Title Vii Rights Of Sexual Minorities, Shirley Lin
Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications
Although Title VII prohibits discrimination against any employee “because of such individual’s . . . sex,” legal commentators have not yet accurately appraised Title VII’s trait and causation requirements embodied in that phrase. Since 2015, most courts assessing the sex discrimination claims of LGBT employees began to intentionally analyze “sex” as a trait using social-construction evidence, and evaluated separately whether the discriminatory motive caused the workplace harm. Responding to what this Article terms a “doctrinal correction” to causation within this groundswell of decisions, the Supreme Court recently issued an “expansive” and “sweeping” reformulation of but-for causation in Bostock v. Clayton …
The Glass Half Full: Envisioning The Future Of Race Preference Policies, Leslie Yalof Garfield
The Glass Half Full: Envisioning The Future Of Race Preference Policies, Leslie Yalof Garfield
Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications
Justice Breyer's concern that the Court's June 2007 ruling in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District. No. 1 "is a decision the Court and nation will come to regret" is not well founded. Far from limiting the constitutionally permissible use of race in education from its present restriction to higher education, the case may allow governmental entities to consider race as a factor to achieve diversity in grades K-12. In Parents Involved, which the Court decided with its companion case, McFarland v. Jefferson County Public Schools four justices concluded that school boards may never consider race when …
Adding Colors To The Chameleon: Why The Supreme Court Should Adopt A New Compelling Governmental Interest Test For Race-Preference Student Assignment Plans, Leslie Yalof Garfield
Adding Colors To The Chameleon: Why The Supreme Court Should Adopt A New Compelling Governmental Interest Test For Race-Preference Student Assignment Plans, Leslie Yalof Garfield
Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications
When the Supreme Court ordered the City of Birmingham to desegregate its schools in 1954, it failed to consider the long range implications of its mandate. School districts across the country responded to the Court’s order by adopting race-preference school assignment plans, created to designate the particular public elementary or secondary school a student should attend. Now that these plans have successfully achieved their goals of desegregating classrooms, the question has become whether the continuation of the very programs that helped achieve those goals remain legal? In other words, as Justice Ginsburg recently said in arguments before the Supreme Court, …
Use Of Race In "Stop-And-Frisk": Stereotypical Beliefs Linger, But How Far Can The Police Go?, Bennett L. Gershman
Use Of Race In "Stop-And-Frisk": Stereotypical Beliefs Linger, But How Far Can The Police Go?, Bennett L. Gershman
Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications
The power of police to detain persons for a brief period to investigate suspected criminal activity--commonly known as “stop-and-frisk”--has always been one of the most contentious issues in law enforcement. Although there is general consensus that street stops are an important weapon in crime prevention, the belief has always existed that stop-and-frisk tactics are often used indiscriminately and abusively against minority groups.
The Voting Rights Act And The "New And Improved" Intent Test: Old Wine In New Bottles, Randolph M. Mclaughlin
The Voting Rights Act And The "New And Improved" Intent Test: Old Wine In New Bottles, Randolph M. Mclaughlin
Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications
Since the Supreme Court injected the issue of intent into the voting rights arena in Mobile v. Bolden,1 there has been a long and persistent struggle to reverse that decision. In 1982, Congress thought it had put the question of the quantum and quality of proof required to establish a violation of section 2 of the Voting Rights Act to rest when Congress amended that section. However, the courts quickly began a rear guard action to undermine congressional efforts to eliminate the intent requirement as an element of a plaintiff's claim. Both the Supreme Court and the circuit courts have …
Operation Rescue Versus A Woman's Right To Choose: A Conflict Without A Federal Remedy?, Randolph M. Mclaughlin
Operation Rescue Versus A Woman's Right To Choose: A Conflict Without A Federal Remedy?, Randolph M. Mclaughlin
Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications
This article discusses the need for federal protection of women seeking abortion-related services and the denial of protection of those women by the Supreme Court's narrow holding in Bray. Part II examines the precedents leading up to the Bray decision. A review of these cases demonstrates that Operation Rescue is a national conspiracy aimed at eliminating the right to abortion. The group uses physical force and blockades clinics in order to deny women and health care workers access to these facilities. In light of the inability or unwillingness of local law enforcement agencies to provide access to the clinics and …
Chisom V. Roemer: Where Do We Go From Here?, Randolph M. Mclaughlin
Chisom V. Roemer: Where Do We Go From Here?, Randolph M. Mclaughlin
Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications
In Chisom and Houston Lawyers' Association, the Court declined to address two substantive issues critical for pending and future litigation challenging the at-large election of state judges. The Court expressly stated that it would not decide the elements that must be proved to establish a violation of section 2 or the remedy that would be appropriate for a violation proven in the context of a judicial election. Part II will discuss the Chisom and Houston Lawyers' Association decisions. Analysis of these decisions, combined with a review of the legislative history, supports the Court's view of the amended section 2. In …
Gideon V. Wainwright Revisited: What Does The Right To Counsel Guarantee Today?, Michael B. Mushlin
Gideon V. Wainwright Revisited: What Does The Right To Counsel Guarantee Today?, Michael B. Mushlin
Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications
In Gideon v. Wainwright, the Supreme Court unanimously held that indigent state felony defendants are constitutionally entitled to the appointment of trial counsel. The opinion aroused wide support, and even enthusiasm, almost from the moment it was announced in 1963. Two and a half decades later this support has not diminished. However, are the words of praise only lip service to the noble idea of the right to counsel? Has Gideon really made a difference? Has its promise of a fair shake for poor criminal defendants been kept, or has Gideon meant only that defendants are provided with the fleeting …