Law Commons^™

Marriage Penalty: How Stacking Income Affects The Secondary Earner’S Decision To Work, Kevin M. Walsh

Kevin M Walsh

Our progressive tax rate structure is aimed at taxing citizens fairly and based on their ability to pay. The rate structure, however, partially loses its purpose when analyzing the income taxation of married individuals. If a married couple decides to file jointly they are sometimes taxed at higher rates than individuals are depending on the incomes of the couple. This has created what we know today as the “marriage penalty,” and it can serve as a deterrent to the secondary earner from working.

There is no simple solution to address how the marriage penalty, in combination with necessary expenses, affects …

Questioning The U.S. Supreme Court’S Legalistic Qualified Immunity Approach And Suggestions For A Better Approach, Robert Weems

Robert Weems

No abstract provided.

In Defense Of Disparate Impact: An Opportunity To Realize The Promise Of The Fair Housing Act, Valerie Schneider

Valerie Schneider

Abstract:

Twice in the past three years, the Supreme Court has granted certiorari in Fair Housing cases, and, each time, under pressure from civil rights leaders who feared that the Supreme Court might narrow current Fair Housing Act jurisprudence, the cases settled just weeks before oral argument. Settlements after the Supreme Court grants certiorari are extremely rare, and, in these cases, the settlements reflect a substantial fear among civil rights advocates that the Supreme Court’s recent decisions in cases such as Shelby County v. Holder and Fisher v. University of Texas are working to dismantle many of the protections of …

Marriage Equailty: Why Laws Restricting Same-Sex Couples' Rights Should Be Subject To Heightened Scrutiny Under Equal Protection Challenges., Cory A. Delellis

Cory A DeLellis

This thesis discusses why laws that restrict marital rights and recognition, on the basis of the couple’s sexual orientation, should be subject to a heightened or intermediate level of judicial scrutiny under Equal Protection challenges. This thesis addresses, analyzes, and suggests why sexual orientation – within the context of same-sex couples – should be considered a quasi-suspect class, rather than a non-suspect class, so that laws negatively impacting couples based on their sexual orientation are subjected to a fairer and more reasonable level of judicial scrutiny.

Tell Us A Story, But Don't Make It A Good One: Resolving The Confusion Regarding Emotional Stories And Federal Rule Of Evidence 403, Cathren Page

Cathren Page

Abstract: Tell Us a Story, But Don’t Make It A Good One: Resolving the Confusion Regarding Emotional Stories and Federal Rule of Evidence 403 by Cathren Koehlert-Page Courts need to reword their opinions regarding Rule 403 to address the tension between the advice to tell an emotionally evocative story at trial and the notion that evidence can be excluded if it is too emotional. In the murder mystery Mystic River, Dave Boyle is kidnapped in the beginning. The audience feels empathy for Dave who as an adult becomes one of the main suspects in the murder of his friend Jimmy’s …

Unfulfilled Promise: Mental Disability Voting Rights And The Halving Of Hava’S Potential, Benjamin Hoerner

Benjamin O Hoerner

In 2012, the heated presidential election between President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney reanimated the debate surrounding the voting rights of mentally disabled citizens in the United States. A decade earlier, in October 2002, President George W. Bush signed into law the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA), aiming to protect the voting rights of the country’s disabled population. At the time of its enactment, legislators and commentators lauded HAVA as “the most important voting rights bill since the passing of the Voting Rights Act in 1965.” However, since its passage, HAVA has been subjected to a flurry of …

Montes-Lopez V. Holder: Applying Eldridge To Ensure A Per Se Right To Counsel For Indigent Immigrants In Removal Proceedings, Soulmaz Taghavi

Soulmaz Taghavi

Part I of this Comment reviews the historical and current state of procedural due process and its role in Immigration Law, specifically removal proceedings. Part II extends certain legal arguments in the opinion of Montes-Lopez v. Holder, which held among divided federal Circuit Courts that an immigrant in removal proceedings has a statutory and constitutional right to appointed counsel. Last, Part III demonstrates how a non-citizen in deportation hearing has a per se right to counsel outlined by the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and brought to life by the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause.