Digital Commons Network^™

The Origin Of The Compelling State Interest Test And Strict Scrutiny, Stephen A. Siegel

ExpressO

This article argues that strict scrutiny did not originate in equal protection cases. Rather, it originated in the First Amendment in the late 1950s and early 1960s and migrated from there to the Equal Protection Clause in the late-1960s. The Article begins by discussing strict scrutiny analytically, situating it as one of many doctrines through which the Supreme Court gives heightened protection to favored constitutional interests. It then traces the origin of strict scrutiny’s compelling state interest requirement to the First Amendment. It shows that the compelling state interest test initially appeared in First Amendment litigation in 1957 and that …

Finding The Constitutional Right To Education In San Antonio School District V. Rodriguez, John H. Ryskamp

ExpressO

In Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court abolished the scrutiny regime because it impermissibly interfered with an important fact, liberty. And yet, even in earlier cases which ostensibly upheld the scrutiny regime, it is difficult to see that the Court ever did so to the detriment of facts it considered important. In short, the Court often (always?) found itself raising the level of scrutiny for a fact in the same case it upheld the regime, leaving us to wonder if the scrutiny regime ever actually had any effect at all, or even whether the Court felt it was relevant. As …

Buried Online: State Laws That Limit E-Commerce In Caskets, Jerry Ellig, Asheesh Agarwal

ExpressO

Consumers seeking to purchase caskets online could benefit from the Supreme Court’s 2005 decision that states cannot discriminate against interstate direct wine shipment. Federal courts have reached conflicting conclusions when asked whether state laws requiring casket sellers to be licensed funeral directors violate the U.S. Constitution’s Due Process Clause. In Powers v. Harris, the 10th Circuit even offered an unprecedented ruling that economic protectionism is a legitimate state interest that can justify otherwise unconstitutional policies. In Granholm v. Heald, however, the Supreme Court declared that discriminatory barriers to interstate wine shipment must be justified by a legitimate state interest, and …

Choice In Government Software Procurement: A Winning Combination, Mclean Sieverding

ExpressO

Governments are such significant purchasers of IT products and services that their purchasing decisions have a substantial impact on the world’s IT marketplace. This fact calls into question the wisdom of decisions by a few policymakers (on national, state, and local levels) around the world that have sought to require that governmental procurement officials give varying degrees of preference to open source software (OSS) when evaluating competing software solutions, claiming, among other things, that such preferences are justified because OSS is cheaper and more interoperable than proprietary software and needs government handicapping in order to enter the market to compete …

Quantifying Reasonable Doubt: A Proposed Solution To An Equal Protection Problem, Harry D. Saunders

ExpressO

In this article we present the case that the Reasonable Doubt standard is in urgent need of repair. Our research reveals that a previously-recognized phenomenon arising from vagueness of the standard is more consequential than thus far realized and creates a serious equal protection problem. We show that the only legally feasible solution to this problem is to quantify the definition of the standard. While others have examined quantified standards, we make a direct case for it and overcome previous objections to it by offering a way to make it practical and workable.

The solution we envision will require new …

When Equality Leaves Everyone Worse Off: The Problem Of Leveling Down In Equality Law, Deborah L. Brake

ExpressO

Existing case law and legal scholarship assume that inequality may be remedied in one of two ways: improving the lot of the disfavored group to match that of the most favored group, or lowering the level of treatment for the favored group until their members fare as badly as the persons complaining of inequality. The term “leveling down” refers to the latter response. The 1971 case of Palmer v. Thompson provides the classic example of the typical judicial response to leveling down: the Supreme Court accepted the decision of Jackson, Mississippi, to close its swimming pools, rather than operate them …