Law Commons^™

Critical Error, Bryan L. Adamson

Bryan L Adamson

Critical Error raises a novel double standard: while fact-specific trial court findings of actual malice are reviewed under the “independent judgment” standard (a wholesale re-weighting of the trial court record and decision) on appeal, intentional race discrimination findings are reviewed under the far more deferential Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52 clear error standard. Both legal concepts are arrived at through assessing state-of-mind determinations; both directly trigger constitutional proscriptions. Only actual malice, however, is classified as a constitutional fact, thus taking it out of the more deferential standard of review. The Supreme Court has failed to clarify this important procedural …

Focus On Batson: Let The Cameras Roll, Mimi Samuel

Mimi Samuel

While the Supreme Court outlawed discrimination in jury selection over 40 years ago, both empirical studies and candid interviews show that lawyers routinely rely on characteristics such as race, gender, and religion in striking prospective jurors. In large part, this practice continues because, when challenged, attorneys proffer non-verbal factors such as facial expressions, inattentiveness, eye contact (or lack thereof), or even laughing or coughing to justify their peremptory strikes. Without a way to assess the validity of these reasons, the trial judge and then the appellate court on review, have little ability to enforce the anti-discrimination prohibition set forth in …

Antisubordination Of Whom? What India’S Answer Can Tell Us About The Meaning Of Equality In Affirmative Action, Sean A. Pager

Seattle University

Who should be the beneficiaries of race-conscious affirmative action? Conspicuous by its absence in the US affirmative action debate, this question takes us beyond conventional majority/minority discourse and forces us to confront questions of comparative entitlement. Asking the “Who Question” serves to illuminate a much larger debate over the nature of equality itself. Two paradigms of equal protection compete in modern scholarship: antidiscrimination vs. antisubordination. Yet, neither offers a satisfactory method to select affirmative action beneficiaries on its own.

The Supreme Court’s current antidiscrimination approach to affirmative action remains incomplete. In focusing solely on remedying particularized underrepresentation, the Court tells …

Antisubordination Of Whom? What India’S Answer Tells Us About The Meaning Of Equality In Affirmative Action, Sean A. Pager

Seattle University

Who should be the beneficiaries of race-conscious affirmative action? Conspicuous by its absence in the US affirmative action debate, this question takes us beyond conventional majority/minority discourse and forces us to confront questions of comparative entitlement. Asking the “Who Question” serves to illuminate a much larger debate over the nature of equality itself. Two paradigms of equal protection compete in modern scholarship: antidiscrimination vs. antisubordination. Yet, neither offers a satisfactory method to select affirmative action beneficiaries on its own.

The Supreme Court’s current antidiscrimination approach to affirmative action remains incomplete. In focusing solely on remedying particularized underrepresentation, the Court tells …