Law Commons^™

The Constitutional Rhetoric Of White Innocence

Cecil J. Hunt II

This article discusses the Supreme Court’s use of the rhetoric of white innocence in deciding racially inflected claims of constitutional shelter. It argues that the Court’s use of this rhetoric reveals that it has adopted a distinctly white-centered-perspective which reveals only a one-sided view of racial reality and thus distorts its ability to accurately appreciate the true nature of racial reality in contemporary America. This article examines the Court’s habit of consistently choosing a white-centered-perspective in constitutional race cases by looking at the Court’s use of the rhetoric of white innocence first in the context of the Court’s concern with …

Drug Exceptionalism, Erik Luna

Erik Luna

No abstract provided.

Thurgood Marshall, The Race Man, And Gender Equality In The Courts, Taunya Banks

Taunya Lovell Banks

Renowned civil rights advocate and race man Thurgood Marshall came of age as a lawyer during the black protest movement in the 1930s. He represented civil rights protesters, albeit reluctantly, but was ambivalent about post-Brown mass protests. Although Marshall recognized law's limitations, he felt more comfortable using litigation as a tool for social change. His experiences as a legal advocate for racial equality influenced his thinking as a judge. Marshall joined the United States Supreme Court in 1967, as dramatic advancement of black civil rights through litigation waned. Other social movements, notably the women's rights movement, took its place. The …

The Irrational Woman: Informed Consent And Abortion Decision-Making, Maya Manian

Maya Manian

In Gonzales v. Carhart, the Supreme Court upheld a federal ban on a type of second-trimester abortion that many physicians believe is safer for their patients. Carhart presented a watershed moment in abortion law, because it marks the Supreme Court’s first use of the anti-abortion movement’s “woman-protective” rationale to uphold a ban on abortion and the first time since Roe v. Wade that the Court denied women a health exception to an abortion restriction. The woman-protective rationale asserts that banning abortion promotes women’s mental health. According to Carhart, the State should make the final decisions about pregnant women’s healthcare, because …

Licensing Speech: The Case Of Vanity Plates, Marybeth Herald

Marybeth Herald

Vanity license plates qualify as protected speech under the First Amendment, and denying plate requests because of their content contradicts traditional principles of free speech. State motor vehicle departments are almost as creative as applicants when it comes to ferreting out offensive license plate requests through the use of computer programs and linguists. Offensiveness, however, remains an elusive concept to capture and often lies in the eyes of a single viewer. When the government takes on the role of arbiter of good taste, it leads to arbitrary decision making and chaotic results.

Under traditional First Amendment doctrine, vanity license plates …

Equal Protection’S Antinomies And The Promise Of A Co-Constitutive Approach, Julie Nice

Julie A. Nice

This article explores how a central insight of Law and Society scholarship – that law and society are mutually constitutive – explains and informs Equal Protection jurisprudence. Professor Nice describes the state of equal protection discourse as caught in perpetual antinomic debates, with courts typically endorsing the more conservative alternative within such debates, including: (1) adopting assimilation (not anti-subordination) as the goal; (2) treating subordinated persons the same as (not different than) dominant persons; (3) looking backward toward remediation (not forward toward substantive equality); (4) requiring blindness (not consciousness) of the relevant trait; (5) focusing on the classifying trait (not …

The Emerging Third Strand In Equal Protection Jurisprudence: Recognizing The Co-Constitutive Nature Of Rights And Classes, Julie Nice

Julie A. Nice

This article posits the emergence of a third strand in Equal Protection jurisprudence, one that expands conventional two-strand Equal Protection analysis, which applies heightened scrutiny if a right is fundamental or a class is suspect by treating the interaction between rights and classes as mutually constitutive. This development Professor Nice closely examines a prominent trilogy of “outlier” Supreme Court decisions, Romer v. Evans, Plyler v. Doe, and M.L.B. v. S.L.J., and argues these decisions effectively endorsed a co-constitutive understanding to justify the invalidation of governmental discrimination. In each decision, the Court departed from its conventional focus on a fundamental right …

Welfare Servitude, Julie Nice

Julie A. Nice

In Welfare Servitude, Professor Nice considers whether mandating work as a condition for receiving welfare violates the Thirteenth Amendment’s prohibition of involuntary servitude and also explores the recurring intersection between race and class. She first describes the redoubling of efforts to increase enforcement of welfare work requirements once racial minorities were no longer excluded from receiving welfare benefits. Next she analyzes judicial decisions construing what constitutes involuntary servitude, including historic cases addressing indentured servitude, the padrone system, peonage, and the surety system, as well as modern cases challenging various welfare work requirements. Professor Nice distills three doctrinal types of involuntary …