Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Publication
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
For Goodness’ Sake: A Two-Part Proposal For Remedying The U.S. Charity/Justice Imbalance, Fran Quigley
For Goodness’ Sake: A Two-Part Proposal For Remedying The U.S. Charity/Justice Imbalance, Fran Quigley
Fran Quigley
The U.S. approach to addressing economic and social needs strongly favors individual and corporate charity over the establishment and enforcement of economic and social rights. This charity/justice imbalance has a severely negative impact on the nation’s poor, who despite the overall U.S. wealth struggle with inadequate access to healthcare, housing, and nutrition. This article suggests a two-part approach for remedying the charity/justice imbalance in the U.S.: First, the U.S. should eliminate the charitable tax deduction, a policy creation that does not effectively address economic and social needs, forces an inequitable poverty relief and tax burden on the middle class, and …
In Defense Of Disparate Impact: An Opportunity To Realize The Promise Of The Fair Housing Act, Valerie Schneider
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 …
The Dangerousness Of The Status Quo: A Case For Modernizing Civil Commitment Law, Daniel A. Moon
The Dangerousness Of The Status Quo: A Case For Modernizing Civil Commitment Law, Daniel A. Moon
Daniel C Moon
The states, private healthcare organizations, and those with psychiatric disorders are poorly served by the vague “dangerousness” standard endorsed by the United States Supreme Court in O’Connor v. Donaldson, as well as the state statutes that adhere to the high bar set in its holding. This paper explores involuntary civil commitment from a variety of perspectives in order to highlight these issues and to identify where improvements can be made. Specifically, this article proposes that the American Law Institute or the American Bar Association promulgate model rules intended to correct the system’s shortcomings and protect the various interested parties.