Law Commons^™

Who’S In And Who’S Out? Can India’S Answer Help Us Determine Who Qualifies For Affirmative Action? , Sean A. Pager

ExpressO

Who should be the beneficiaries of racially targeted affirmative action? In its Croson decision, the Supreme Court answered part of the “Who Question” when it conditioned affirmative action eligibility on underrepresentation. What the Court did not tell us was underrepresentation of whom? The Court thus instructs us to select beneficiary groups by counting heads, but leaves open which heads get counted where and what categories to use.

By artificially separating what are necessarily related inquiries, the Court left a definitional lacuna that lower courts have struggled to fill. Such definitional issues matter because they often determine who benefits from affirmative …

Multiracial Identity And Affirmative Action, Nancy Leong

ExpressO

No abstract provided.

Race Nuisance: The Politics Of Law In The Jim Crow Era, Rachel D. Godsil

ExpressO

This article explores a startling and previously unnoticed line of cases in which state courts in the Jim Crow era ruled against white plaintiffs trying to use common law nuisance doctrine to achieve residential segregation. These “race-nuisance” cases complicate the view of most legal scholarship that state courts during the Jim Crow era openly eschewed the rule of law in service of white supremacy. Instead, the cases provide rich social historical detail showing southern judges wrestling with their competing allegiance to precedent and the white plaintiffs’ pursuit of racial exclusivity. Surprisingly to many in the academy, the allegiance to precedent …