Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Series

Duke Law

Constitution. 1st Amendment

Civil Rights and Discrimination

Publication Year

Articles 1 - 3 of 3

Full-Text Articles in Law

The Unsettling ‘Well-Settled’ Law Of Freedom Of Association, John D. Inazu Jan 2010

The Unsettling ‘Well-Settled’ Law Of Freedom Of Association, John D. Inazu

Faculty Scholarship

This article brings historical, theoretical, and doctrinal critiques to bear upon the current framework for the constitutional right of association. It argues that the Supreme Court’s categories of expressive and intimate association first announced in the 1984 decision, Roberts v. United States Jaycees, are neither well-settled nor defensible. Intimate association and expressive association are indefensible categories, but they matter deeply. They matter to the Jaycees. They matter to the Chi Iota Colony of the Alpha Epsilon Pi fraternity, a now defunct Jewish social group at the College of Staten Island that had sought to limit its membership to men. They …


Civil Rights And Civil Liberties: Whose “Rule Of Law”?, William W. Van Alstyne Jan 2003

Civil Rights And Civil Liberties: Whose “Rule Of Law”?, William W. Van Alstyne

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.


Personal Rights And Rule Dependence: Can The Two Co-Exist?, Matthew D. Adler Jan 2000

Personal Rights And Rule Dependence: Can The Two Co-Exist?, Matthew D. Adler

Faculty Scholarship

Constitutional doctrine is typically "rule-dependent." Typically, a constitutional litigant will not prevail unless she can show that a particular kind of legal rule is in force, e.g., a rule that discriminates against "suspect classes" in violation of the Equal Protection Clause, or that targets speech in violation of the First Amendment, or that is motivated by a religious purpose in violation of the Establishment Clause. Further, the litigant must typically establish a violation of her "personal rights." The Supreme Court has consistently stated that a reviewing court should not invalidate an unconstitutional governmental action at the instance of a claimant …