Digital Commons Network^™

Department Of Justice Oversight: Preserving Our Freedoms While Defending Against Terrorism: Hearing Before The S. Comm. On The Judiciary, 107th Cong., Dec. 6, 2001 (Statement Of Neal Kumar Katyal, Prof. Of Law, Geo. U. L. Center), Neal K. Katyal

Testimony Before Congress

No abstract provided.

“Closet Case”: Boy Scouts Of America V. Dale And The Reinforcement Of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, And Transgender Invisibility, Darren Lenard Hutchinson

UF Law Faculty Publications

This Article argues that the Supreme Court's decision in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale misapplies and ignores controlling First Amendment precedent and incorrectly defines “sexual identity” as a clinical or biological imposition that exists apart from expression or speech. This Article provides a doctrinal alternative to Dale that would protect vital interests in both equality and liberty and that would not condition, as does Dale, sexual “equality” upon the silencing of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender individuals.

This Article proceeds in five parts. Part I provides an introduction to the case and issues.Part II discusses the evolution of the …

Racial Purity Laws In The United States And Nazi Germany: The Targeting Process, Judy Scales-Trent

Journal Articles

No abstract provided.

A Paradigm For Equality: The Honorable Damon J. Keith, Blanche Bong Cook

Law Faculty Research Publications

No abstract provided.

"Closet Case": Boy Scouts Of America V. Dale And The Reinforcement Of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, And Transgender Invisibility, Darren L. Hutchinson

Faculty Articles

This Article argues that the Supreme Courts decision in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale misapplies and ignores controlling First Amendment precedent and incorrectly dermes "sexual identity" as a clinical or biological imposition that exists apart from expression or speech. This Article provides a doctrinal alternative to Dale that would protect vital interests in both equality and liberty and that would not condition, as does Dale, sexual "equality" upon the silencing of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender individuals.

Don't Ask Us To Explain Ourselves, Don't Tell Us What To Do: The Boy Scouts' Exclusion Of Gay Members And The Necessity Of Independent Judicial Review, Taylor Flynn

Faculty Scholarship

In Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, the U.S. Supreme Court held by a five to four majority that the Boy Scouts of America is entitled to ban gay persons from membership despite New Jersey's prohibition against sexual orientation discrimination. The Dale majority sharply departed from the Court's long line of expressive association cases, in which it has rejected the claims of private clubs that application of civil rights laws to their membership policies violates their associational rights. This Author argues that by "reading" the plaintiff in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale as a cipher for gay sex, and …

Secrecy, Guilt By Association, And The Terrorist Profile, David Cole

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

In this essay, I will argue that the use of secret procedures and guilt by association in immigration trials is not only unconstitutional but counterproductive. I will begin with a case study, then discuss in turn the practices of secret evidence and guilt by association, and finally conclude with a consideration of how these two tactics perpetuate invidious stereotypes about Arabs and Muslims.

Proportional Equality: Readings Of Romer, Nan D. Hunter

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

One of the great enigmas of equal protection law is Romer v. Evans. In finding sufficient power in the rational basis test to invalidate a state constitutional amendment enacted by popular vote, the Supreme Court left legal scholars in its doctrinal dust, puzzled over the answers to multiple questions. Was this a new rational basis test? If so, how could one know when to apply it? Had the standard of review for state acts adversely affecting lesbian, gay and bisexual Americans changed? If so, to what? Had Bowers v. Hardwick been overruled? If so, why?