Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
Congress Needs To Repair The Court's Damage To § 1983, Ivan E. Bodensteiner
Congress Needs To Repair The Court's Damage To § 1983, Ivan E. Bodensteiner
Law Faculty Publications
Today it is not unusual for a § 1983 plaintiff to establish a violation of the U.S. Constitution and resulting injuries, yet be denied damages because of the Supreme Court's misinterpretation of the 1871 statute. This anomaly is the result of several defenses created by the Court, including absolute and qualified immunity, the rejection of respondeat superior liability for municipalities, and the expansion of sovereign immunity, based, in part, on a misinterpretation of the Eleventh Amendment. Several other rulings of the Court narrow the circumstances under which private parties are subject to § 1983 liability, refuse to exempt § 1983 …
Time To Bury The Shocks The Conscience Test, Rosalie Berger Levinson
Time To Bury The Shocks The Conscience Test, Rosalie Berger Levinson
Law Faculty Publications
The Supreme Court has acknowledged that "the Due Process Clause, like its forebear in the Magna Carta, was 'intended to secure the individual from the arbitrary exercise of the powers of government'...to prevent governmental power from being 'used for purposes of oppression.'"1 Historically, Magna Carta was aimed a·t limiting the power of the king. Today, substantive due process is invoked to challenge arbitrary deprivations of life, liberty, and property by officials, such as police officers, jail guards, public-school educators, public employers, and members of zoning boards. However, the Supreme Court has emasculated its efficacy as a limitation on executive …
Shift Happens: The U.S. Supreme Court's Shifting Antidiscrimination Rhetoric, Theresa M. Beiner
Shift Happens: The U.S. Supreme Court's Shifting Antidiscrimination Rhetoric, Theresa M. Beiner
Faculty Scholarship
The United States Supreme Court’s discourse on discrimination affects how fundamental civil rights - such as the right to be free from gender and race discrimination - are adjudicated and conceptualized in this country. Shortly after Congress passed Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Court established precedent that assumed discrimination, absent some other compelling explanation for employer conduct. While the Court was more reluctant to presume such discrimination by governmental actors, it was deferent to Congress’s ability to set standards that would presume discrimination. Over time, however, that presumption and the Court’s deference to Congress has …
The Future Of Disparate Impact, Richard A. Primus
The Future Of Disparate Impact, Richard A. Primus
Articles
The Supreme Court's decision in Ricci v. DeStefano foregrounded the question of whether Title VIl's disparate impact standard conflicts with equal protection. This Article shows that there are three ways to read Ricci, one of which is likely fatal to disparate impact doctrine but the other two of which are not.