Law Commons^™

Summary Of Aguilar-Raygoza V. State, 127 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 27, Michael Li

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

An appeal from a judgment denying eligibility for an alcohol treatment diversion program following Appellant’s conviction from a jury trial.

Summary Of Clean Water Coal. V. The M Resort, 127 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 24, Marissa Pensabene

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

An appeal from a district court’s judgment that declared Assembly Bill 6 (“A.B. 6”), section 18, constitutional under the Nevada Constitution.

Summary Of Donlan V. Nevada, 127 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 12, Tim Mott

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

An appeal from a district court order denying a petition to terminate appellant’s duty to register as a sex offender.

Summary Of Ybarra V. State, 127 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 4, Jennifer Delcarmen

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

An appeal based on claims of judicial bias. In addition, an appeal from an order denying a motion to strike the death penalty on a claim that Appellant is/was mentally retarded.

Sacrifice And Sacred Honor: Why The Constitution Is A "Suicide Pact", Peter Brandon Bayer

Scholarly Works

Most legal scholars and elected officials embrace the popular clich6 that "the Constitution is not a suicide pact." Typically, those commentators extol the "Constitution of necessity," the supposition that Government, essentially the Executive, may take any action-may abridge or deny any fundamental right-to alleviate a sufficiently serious national security threat. The "Constitution of necessity" is wrong. This Article explains that strict devotion to the "fundamental fairness" principles of the Constitution's Due Process Clauses is America's utmost legal and moral duty, surpassing all other considerations, even safety, security and survival.

The analysis begins with the most basic premises: the definition of …

Constitutionalizing Immigration Law On Its Own Path, Anne R. Traum

Scholarly Works

Courts should insist on heightened procedural protections in immigration adjudication. They should do so under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause rather than by importing Sixth Amendment protections from the criminal context. Traditional judicial oversight and the Due Process Clause provide a better basis than the Sixth Amendment to interpose heightened procedural protections in immigration proceedings, especially those involving removal for a serious criminal conviction. The Supreme Court’s immigration jurisprudence in recent years lends support for this approach. The Court has guarded the availability of judicial review of immigration decisions. It has affirmed that courts are the arbiters of constitutional …

Constitutional Rights And Judicial Independence: Lessons From Iowa, Ian C. Bartrum

Scholarly Works

Iowa held its 2010 judicial retention elections in the shadow of Varnum v. Brien, the 2009 Supreme Court opinion recognizing same sex marriage. As the result of highly politicized campaign, three talented jurists lost their seats on the Court.

This commentary examines that election and offers a structural solution that might better protect constitutional rights against majoritarian intimidation.

Nonpublic Reasons And Political Paradigm Change, Ian C. Bartrum

Scholarly Works

John Rawls famously argued that citizens in a just democracy have a moral duty to ensure that "the principles and policies they advocate and vote for can be supported by the political values of public reason." This so-called "duty of civility" obligates us to cast our votes on "constitutional questions and matters of basic justice" for reasons that we can explain in terms of the public good and the "ideals and principles expressed by society's conception of political justice." Rawls contrasts these public reasons with "nonpublic reasons" - such as "comprehensive religious and philosophical doctrines" - which he claims cannot …

Salazar V. Buono: Sacred Symbolism And The Secular State, Ian C. Bartrum

Scholarly Works

This Colloquy piece comments on some doctrinal and theoretical implications of the Supreme Court's recent decision in Salazar v. Buono.

Can Congress Make You Buy Broccoli? And Why It Doesn’T Matter, David Orentlicher

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Religion And Race: The Ministerial Exception Reexamined, Ian C. Bartrum

Scholarly Works

This essay is a contribution to the Northwestern University Law Review's colloquy on the ministerial exception, convened following the Supreme Court's decision to hear arguments in Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC.

The author takes the opportunity to consider the (sometimes) competing constitutional values of racial equality and religious freedom. The author offers historical, ethical, and doctrinal arguments for the position that race must trump religion as a constitutional value when the two come into conflict. With this in mind, the author suggests that the ministerial exception should not shield religious employers from anti discrimination suits brought on the basis of race.

Death Is Not So Different After All: Graham V. Florida And The Court's "Kids Are Different" Eighth Amendment Jurisprudence, Mary E. Berkheiser

Scholarly Works

In Graham v. Florida, the United States Supreme Court declared that life sentences without the possibility of parole for non-homicides are off limits for all juveniles. Following its lead in Roper v. Simmons, the landmark decision in which the Court abolished the juvenile death penalty, the Court expanded on its Eighth Amendment juvenile jurisprudence by ruling that locking up juveniles for life based on crimes other than homicides is cruel and unusual and, therefore, prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. With that ruling, the Court erected a categorical bar to incarcerating forever those not yet adults at the time …