Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Publication Year
- Publication
- Publication Type
- File Type
Articles 1 - 30 of 37
Full-Text Articles in Courts
Answering The Call: A History Of The Emergency Power Doctrine In Texas And The United States, P. Elise Mclaren
Answering The Call: A History Of The Emergency Power Doctrine In Texas And The United States, P. Elise Mclaren
St. Mary's Law Journal
During times of emergency, national and local government may be allowed to take otherwise impermissible action in the interest of health, safety, or national security. The prerequisites and limits to this power, however, are altogether unknown. Like the crises they aim to deflect, courts’ modern emergency power doctrines range from outright denial of any power of constitutional circumvention to their flagrant use. Concededly, courts’ approval of emergency powers has provided national and local government opportunities to quickly respond to emergency without pause for constituency approval, but how can one be sure the availability of autocratic power will not be abused? …
Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review
Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review
Seattle University Law Review
Table of Contents and Special Thanks.
Establishment Of Religion Supreme Court Appellate Division Third Department
Establishment Of Religion Supreme Court Appellate Division Third Department
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Equal Protection Supreme Court Appellate Division Third Department
Equal Protection Supreme Court Appellate Division Third Department
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Due Process Supreme Court Rockland County
Due Process Supreme Court Appellate Division Third Department
Due Process Supreme Court Appellate Division Third Department
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Due Process Supreme Court Appellate Division Second Department
Due Process Supreme Court Appellate Division Second Department
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Due Process Supreme Court Appellate Division
Due Process Pringle V. Wolfe (Decided 28, 1996)
Due Process Pringle V. Wolfe (Decided 28, 1996)
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Double Jeopardy Supreme Court Appellate Division Second Department
Double Jeopardy Supreme Court Appellate Division Second Department
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Dying Constitutionalism And The Fourteenth Amendment, Ernest A. Young
Dying Constitutionalism And The Fourteenth Amendment, Ernest A. Young
Faculty Scholarship
The notion of a “living Constitution” often rests on an implicit assumption that important constitutional values will “grow” in such a way as to make the Constitution more attractive over time. But there are no guarantees: What can grow can also wither and die. This essay, presented as the 2018 Robert F. Boden Lecture at Marquette University Law School, marks the sesquicentennial of the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification as a powerful charter of liberty and equality for black Americans. But for much of its early history, the Fourteenth Amendment’s meaning moved in reverse, overwhelmed by the end of Reconstruction, the gradual …
Preclusion Law As A Model For National Injunctions, Suzette M. Malveaux
Preclusion Law As A Model For National Injunctions, Suzette M. Malveaux
Publications
No abstract provided.
Procedural Due Process Claims, Erwin Chemerinsky
Procedural Due Process Claims, Erwin Chemerinsky
Erwin Chemerinsky
No abstract provided.
Class Actions, Civil Rights, And The National Injunction, Suzette M. Malveaux
Class Actions, Civil Rights, And The National Injunction, Suzette M. Malveaux
Publications
This essay is a response to Professor Samuel Bray’s article proposing a blanket prohibition against injunctions that enjoin a defendant’s conduct with respect to nonparties. He argues that national injunctions are illegitimate under Article III and traditional equity and result in a number of difficulties.
This Response argues, from a normative lens, that Bray’s proposed ban on national injunctions should be rejected. Such a bright-line rule against national injunctions is too blunt an instrument to address the complexity of our tripartite system of government, our pluralistic society and our democracy. Although national injunctions may be imperfect and crude forms of …
Procedural Due Process Claims, Erwin Chemerinsky
Procedural Due Process Claims, Erwin Chemerinsky
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Qualified Immunity When Facts Are In Dispute, Leon Friedman
Qualified Immunity When Facts Are In Dispute, Leon Friedman
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Trending @ Rwu Law: Mikela Almeida's Post: Esther Clark Competition Held In R. I. Supreme Court, Mikela Almeida
Trending @ Rwu Law: Mikela Almeida's Post: Esther Clark Competition Held In R. I. Supreme Court, Mikela Almeida
Law School Blogs
No abstract provided.
An Analysis Of The Legal And Practical Implications Of The Potential Increased Participation In Jury Service By Racial Minorities In The U.S. Criminal Justice System, Brian Keith Leonard
An Analysis Of The Legal And Practical Implications Of The Potential Increased Participation In Jury Service By Racial Minorities In The U.S. Criminal Justice System, Brian Keith Leonard
West Virginia Law Review
No abstract provided.
Bait And Switch: Why United States V. Morrison Is Wrong About Section Five, Kermit Roosevelt Iii
Bait And Switch: Why United States V. Morrison Is Wrong About Section Five, Kermit Roosevelt Iii
All Faculty Scholarship
As the title suggests, the article examines Morrison’s creation of the rule that the Section Five power cannot be used to regulate private individuals. This is one of the most meaningful and, thus far, durable constraints that the Court has placed on federal power. It is the more surprising, then, that it turns out to be based on essentially nothing at all. The Morrison Court asserted that its rule was derived by—indeed, “controlled by”—precedent, but a closer reading of the Reconstruction-era decisions it cites shows that this is simply not the case. An independent evaluation of the rule against regulation …
Marital Supremacy And The Constitution Of The Nonmarital Family, Serena Mayeri
Marital Supremacy And The Constitution Of The Nonmarital Family, Serena Mayeri
All Faculty Scholarship
Despite a transformative half century of social change, marital status still matters. The marriage equality movement has drawn attention to the many benefits conferred in law by marriage at a time when the “marriage gap” between affluent and poor Americans widens and rates of nonmarital childbearing soar. This Essay explores the contested history of marital supremacy—the legal privileging of marriage—through the lens of the “illegitimacy” cases of the 1960s and 1970s. Often remembered as a triumph for nonmarital families, these decisions defined the constitutional harm of illegitimacy classifications as the unjust punishment of innocent children for the “sins” of their …
A Revolution At War With Itself? Preserving Employment Preferences From Weber To Ricci, Sophia Z. Lee
A Revolution At War With Itself? Preserving Employment Preferences From Weber To Ricci, Sophia Z. Lee
All Faculty Scholarship
Two aspects of the constitutional transformation Bruce Ackerman describes in The Civil Rights Revolution were on a collision course, one whose trajectory has implications for Ackerman’s account and for his broader theory of constitutional change. Ackerman makes a compelling case that what he terms “reverse state action” (the targeting of private actors) and “government by numbers” (the use of statistics to identify and remedy violations of civil rights laws) defined the civil rights revolution. Together they “requir[ed] private actors, as well as state officials, to . . . realize the principles of constitutional equality” and allowed the federal government to …
It's The Constitution, Stupid: Two Liberals Pay Tribute To Antonin Scalia's Legacy, Adam Lamparello, Charles E. Maclean
It's The Constitution, Stupid: Two Liberals Pay Tribute To Antonin Scalia's Legacy, Adam Lamparello, Charles E. Maclean
Adam Lamparello
Living constitutionalism may achieve “good” results, but with each Roe v. Wade, and Bush v. Gore, the Constitution’s vision takes more shallow breaths, and democracy fades into elitism’s shadow. The debate over constitutional interpretation is, in many ways, reducible to this question: if a particular outcome is desirable, and the Constitution’s text is silent or ambiguous, should the United States Supreme Court (or any court) disregard constitutional constraints to achieve that outcome? If the answer is yes, nine unelected judges have the power to choose outcomes that are desirable. If the answer is no, then the focus must be on …
It's The Constitution, Stupid: Two Liberals Pay Tribute To Antonin Scalia's Legacy, Adam Lamparello, Charles E. Maclean
It's The Constitution, Stupid: Two Liberals Pay Tribute To Antonin Scalia's Legacy, Adam Lamparello, Charles E. Maclean
Adam Lamparello
Living constitutionalism may achieve “good” results, but with each Roe v. Wade, and Bush v. Gore, the Constitution’s vision takes more shallow breaths, and democracy fades into elitism’s shadow. The debate over constitutional interpretation is, in many ways, reducible to this question: if a particular outcome is desirable, and the Constitution’s text is silent or ambiguous, should the United States Supreme Court (or any court) disregard constitutional constraints to achieve that outcome? If the answer is yes, nine unelected judges have the power to choose outcomes that are desirable. If the answer is no, then the focus must be on …
Justice Sotomayor's Undemocratic Dissent In Schuette V. Coalition To Defend Affirmative Action, Adam Lamparello
Justice Sotomayor's Undemocratic Dissent In Schuette V. Coalition To Defend Affirmative Action, Adam Lamparello
Adam Lamparello
There are compelling reasons to support affirmative action programs. The effects of racial discrimination, and racism itself, remain prevalent throughout the country. Pretending otherwise would be to ignore reality. Arguing that the equal protection clause compels a state to implement race-based affirmative action programs, however, would make a mockery of the Constitution. Former Supreme Court Justice Hughes famously stated, “at the constitutional level where we work, 90 percent of any decision is emotional.” The remaining 10 percent is “[t]he rational part … [that] supplies the reasons for supporting our predilections.” It is time for this type of judging to end. …
Asking The First Question: Reframing Bivens After Minneci, Alexander A. Reinert, Lumen N. Mulligan
Asking The First Question: Reframing Bivens After Minneci, Alexander A. Reinert, Lumen N. Mulligan
Faculty Works
In Minneci v. Pollard, decided in January 2012, the Supreme Court refused to recognize a Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents suit against employees of a privately run federal prison because state tort law provided an alternative remedy, thereby adding a federalism twist to what had been strictly a separation-of-powers debate. In this Article, we show why this new state-law focus is misguided. We first trace the Court’s prior alternative-remedies-to-Bivens holdings, illustrating that this history is one narrowly focused on separation of powers at the federal level. Minneci’s break with this tradition raises several concerns. On a doctrinal level, …
The Right To Refuse Life Sustaining Medical Treatment And The Noncompetent Nonterminally Ill Patient: An Analysis Of Abridgment And Anarchy, Elizabeth Helene Adamson
The Right To Refuse Life Sustaining Medical Treatment And The Noncompetent Nonterminally Ill Patient: An Analysis Of Abridgment And Anarchy, Elizabeth Helene Adamson
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
A Reluctant Apology For Plessy: A Response To Akhil Amar, Barry P. Mcdonald
A Reluctant Apology For Plessy: A Response To Akhil Amar, Barry P. Mcdonald
Pepperdine Law Review
A response to the article "Plessy v. Ferguson and the Anti-Canon," by Akhil Amar, published in the November 2011 issue of the "Pepperdine Law Review," is presented. Topics include an examination of Justice Henry Billings Brown's decision in the case, the constitutionality of segregating U.S. citizens by race, and the impact of public opinion on U.S. Supreme Court decisions.