Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
![Digital Commons Network](http://assets.bepress.com/20200205/img/dcn/DCsunburst.png)
Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons™
Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Equal Protection Clause (2)
- Arizona (1)
- Brown v. Board of Education (1)
- Constitution (1)
- Desegregation (1)
-
- Douglas v. California (1)
- Elfbrandt v. Russell (1)
- Employees (1)
- Employers (1)
- Fine (1)
- Freedom of association (1)
- Freedom of speech (1)
- Garner v. Board of Public Works (1)
- Gerende v. Board of Supervisors (1)
- Griffin v. Illinois (1)
- Imprisonment (1)
- Legislation (1)
- Loyalty (1)
- Loyalty oaths (1)
- Nonpayment (1)
- People v. Collins (1)
- Poverty (1)
- School (1)
- Security (1)
- State interests (1)
- Teacher (1)
- United States Supreme Court (1)
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Civil Rights and Discrimination
The Equal Protection Clause And Imprisonment Of The Indigent For Nonpayment Of Fines, Michigan Law Review
The Equal Protection Clause And Imprisonment Of The Indigent For Nonpayment Of Fines, Michigan Law Review
Michigan Law Review
The practice of imprisonment for failure to pay a fine levied for a criminal violation originated in twelfth-century England; its subsequent unanimous acceptance in the United States is manifested in the provisions in the statutes of every state and of the federal government authorizing imprisonment for nonpayment of fines. A few states not only commit the defendant to jail for nonpayment of the fine, but impose hard labor as well. Some states, however, have mitigated to a degree the harshness of the practice. For example, Arizona restricts the total period of confinement for the crime and the default of the …
Discrimination In The Hiring And Assignment Of Teachers In Public School Systems, Michigan Law Review
Discrimination In The Hiring And Assignment Of Teachers In Public School Systems, Michigan Law Review
Michigan Law Review
In the Brown v. Board of Education decisions of 1954 and 1955, the United States Supreme Court made it clear that separate public school facilities for pupils of different races are inherently unequal and constitute a denial of the equal protection of the laws. While it was not altogether clear from the language of the opinions whether segregated faculties in public schools are also unconstitutional, subsequent lower court decisions have held that racial discrimination in the selection and assignment of teachers is forbidden.
Elfbrandt V. Russell: The Demise Of The Loyalty Oath, Jerold H. Israel
Elfbrandt V. Russell: The Demise Of The Loyalty Oath, Jerold H. Israel
Articles
In Elfbrandt v. Russell, the Supreme Court, in a 5-to-4 decision, declared unconstitutional Arizona's requirement of a loyalty oath from state employees. At first glance, Elfbrandt appears to be just another decision voiding a state loyalty oath on limited grounds relating to the specific language of the particular oath. Yet, several aspects of Mr. Justice Douglas' opinion for the majority suggest that Elfbrandt is really of far greater significance: it may sharply limit the scope and coverage of loyalty oaths generally and, indeed, may presage a ruling invalidating all such oaths. Of course, only the Supreme Court can determine this. …