Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Eliding In New York, Monte Neil Stewart
Eliding In New York, Monte Neil Stewart
Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar
In January 2006, this Journal published an article that set forth the social institutional argument for man/woman marriage, demonstrated how that argument is a sufficient response to all constitutional attacks leveled at the laws sustaining that social institution, and detailed how the courts mandating genderless marriage (and the dissenting judges favoring that result) had elided the argument (“the Judicial Elision article”). Since the Judicial Elision article’s early December 2005 cut-off date, two more instances of judicial elision of social institutional realities have cropped up in New York. Both are dissenting opinions, one in the Appellate Division and one in the …
Smith V. City Of Jackson: Age Discrimination Act Authorizes Disparate Impact Claims – But Scope Is Narrow, William B. Holladay
Smith V. City Of Jackson: Age Discrimination Act Authorizes Disparate Impact Claims – But Scope Is Narrow, William B. Holladay
Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar
When Jackson, Mississippi revised its salary structure for police and public safety officers, it gave proportionately higher increases to officers with less than five years of seniority, who were overwhelmingly under forty years old. Thirty officers over the age of forty sued the city for age discrimination, alleging disparate impact. In a plurality opinion, the Court held that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act authorized claims of disparate impact. When it accepted the employer’s justification for the raise and dismissed the plaintiffs’ claim, however, the Court signaled that in the future, the scope of disparate impact claims would be narrow.
Mayle V. Felix, Aleksandra Kopec
Mayle V. Felix, Aleksandra Kopec
Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar
Following his murder conviction, Felix filed a pro se habeas petition alleging Sixth Amendment violations at trial The petition was filed within the one-year Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act deadline. He was later appointed counsel, who filed an amended petition alleging Fifth Amendment violations; but that petition was filed five months after the AEDPA deadline had passed. The Court held that the amended petition was not saved by the Relation Back doctrine because it did not share with the earlier claims a common "core of operative facts."