Law Commons^™

Camreta And Al-Kidd: The Supreme Court, The Fourth Amendment, And Witnesses, Kit Kinports

Journal Articles

Although few noticed the link between them, two Supreme Court cases decided in the same week last Term, Ashcroft v. al-Kidd and Camreta v. Greene, both involved the Fourth Amendment implications of detaining witnesses to a crime. Al-Kidd, an American citizen, was arrested under the federal material witness statute in connection with an investigation into terrorist activities, and Greene, a nine-year-old suspected victim of child abuse, was seized and interrogated at school by two state officials. The opinions issued in the two cases did little to resolve the constitutional issues that arise in witness detention cases, and in fact …

War And Peace Between Title Vii's Disparate Impact Provision And The Equal Protection Clause: Battling For A Compelling Interest, Eang L. Ngov

Faculty Scholarship

“[T]he war between disparate impact and equal protection will be waged sooner or later, and it behooves us to begin thinking about how – and on what terms – to make peace between them.” This Article addresses Justice Scalia’s premonition in Ricci v. DeStefano by providing an analysis of how that war may be waged and whether peace can be made between Title VII’s disparate impact provision and the Equal Protection Clause. Ricci involved a challenge to the City of New Haven’s decision to void the test results of an examination required for promotion within the City’s fire department. The …

Pretextual Takings: Of Private Developers, Local Governments, And Impermissible Favoritism, Daniel B. Kelly

Journal Articles

Since Kelo v. City of New London, the preferred litigation strategy for challenging a condemnation that benefits a private party is to allege that the taking is pretextual. This Article contends that, although pretextual takings are socially undesirable, the current judicial test for identifying such takings is problematic. Yet an alternative, intent-based test might be impracticable, as well as underinclusive: condemnors often have mixed motives, particularly when confronted with a firm's credible threat to relocate. Instead, the Article develops a framework that emphasizes informational differences between local governments and private developers. When the government lacks information regarding the optimal site …

Overcoming Hiddenness: The Role Of Intentions In Fourth Amendment Analysis, Daniel B. Yeager

Faculty Scholarship

This Article rehearses a response to the problems posed to and by the Supreme Court's attempts to work out the meaning and operation of the word "search." After commencing Part II by meditating on the notion of privacy, I take up its relation to the antecedent suspicion or knowledge that Fourth-Amendment law requires as a justification for all privacy invasions. From there, I look specifically at that uneasy relation in Supreme Court jurisprudence, which has come to privilege privacy over property as a Fourth Amendment value. From there, Part III reviews the sources or bases that can tell us what …

Stubbornness Of Pretexts, Daniel B. Yeager

Faculty Scholarship

This Article will reflect on (1) how the Whren v. United States failure to acknowledge what counts as a pretext accounts for the residual confusion as to whether or not Whren really has killed off the pretext argument in constitutional criminal procedure, and (2) the extent to which the Court in Sullivan compounded that failure, which I hope to lightly correct here by distinguishing motives from intentions and then by elaborating the role that each plays, or at least should play, in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.

Has Wright Line Gone Wrong? Why Pretext Can Be Sufficient To Prove Discrimination Under The National Labor Relations Act,, Michael Hayes

All Faculty Scholarship

Every year in the United States, thousands of employees are illegally fired for joining or supporting unions. These employees must bring their claims to the National Labor Relations Board (the “Board”), which applies its famous Wright Line standard to decide thousands of discrimination cases each year.

Probably the most common issue in labor discrimination cases is “pretext.” In virtually every case, an employer claims that it fired an employee not for an illegal anti-union motive, but for a legitimate business reason. The pretext issue arises when the evidence shows that the legitimate reason asserted by the employer was most likely …

Title Vii: When Is A Pretext Not A Pretext? An Analysis Of Westinghouse Electric Corp. V. Vaughn, Barbara J. Fick

Journal Articles

This article previews the Supreme Court case Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Vaughn, 466 U.S. 521 (1984). The author expected the Court to clarify the evidentiary requirements and burdens of plaintiffs and defendants in litigating a disparate treatment claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The Creeping Eruption Of Mt. Healthy, Morell E. Mullins Sr.

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.