Fourteenth Amendment Commons^™

The Narrow And Shallow Bite Of Romer And The Eminent Rationality Of Dual-Gender Marriage: A (Partial) Response To Professor Koppelman, Richard F. Duncan

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

In this response to Professor Koppelman, Professor Duncan takes issue with the assertions Koppelman makes in Romer v. Evans and Invidious Intent. Though Duncan agrees with Koppelman's summary of the rule of Romer and the ongoing effects of Bowers v. Hardwick, he rejects Koppelman's claims that laws that discriminate against gays will always be constitutionally doubtful because they disadvantage an unpopular class.

Duncan claims that Koppelman has tried, without success or authority, to fill in the "missing pages" left in Romer by the Supreme Court. Finally, he argues that traditional marriage laws are valid and will survive under Romer and …

Nothing And Everything: Race, Romer, And (Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual) Rights, Robert S. Chang, Jerome Mccristal Culp Jr.

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

In this Article, Professors Chang and Culp propose that the Supreme Court's decision in Romer v. Evans, viewed by some scholars as a progressive case about gay/lesbian/bisexual rights, has little to do with gay/lesbian/bisexual rights as such. They argue that whatever protection Romer provides to gays, lesbians, and bisexuals is provided not because of *their sexuality but, rather, despite it. The authors demonstrate their thesis by examining the racial underpinnings of the Court's opinion, which begins with Justice Harlan's famous dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson and which relies on a specific vision of color-blindness. This submerged racial jurisprudence provides the …

Romer V. Evans And Invidious Intent, Andrew Koppelman

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

In this Essay, Professor Koppelman argues that, notwithstanding numerous scholarly claims to the contrary, the Supreme Court's decision in Romer v. Evans was based on the invalidated law's impermissible purpose. Professor Koppelman examines the Court's understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment, and concludes that its current doctrine is designed to ferret out unconstitutional intent. Such impermissible intent, Koppelman argues, was evident in the law challenged in Romer. Nonetheless, Koppelman acknowledges, Romer is a hard case, and its precedential significance is unclear, particularly in light of Bowers v. Hardwick, which upheld the constitutionality of laws against homosexual sodomy. Laws that facially disadvantage …

Playing Defense, Robert F. Nagel

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Noting that the Romer opinion condemns the motives behind Amendment 2 without pausing even briefly to examine the social context in which it was enacted, Professor Nagel describes the decision as a model of the intolerant impulse in action. He traces this impulse to the Justices' unwillingness to examine their own role--and that of the rest of the constitutional law establishment- in creating the underlying conditions that produced Amendment 2.

In order to identify those conditions, Professor Nagel analyzes the primary document used by Colorado for Family Values during its campaign on behalf of the initiative. He argues that this …

The Equal Protection Clause: A Note On The (Non)Relationship Between Romer V. Evans And Hunter V. Erickson, Jay S. Bybee

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

In this Article, Professor Bybee uses the debate surrounding Romer v. Evans to reexamine the Supreme Court's decision in Hunter v. Erickson and the principle that a political majority may not restructure the political process to make it more difficult for a political minority to obtain favorable government action. Professor Bybee explains the questionable bases of Hunter and succeeding cases, and then turns to the Romer decision and discusses its incongruity with Hunter. After analyzing the meaning of Romer in light of Hunter and other "equal process" cases, Professor Bybee concludes that although the Court's analysis of Colorado's Amendment 2 …

Diversity: The Red Herring Of Equal Protection, Sharon E. Rush

UF Law Faculty Publications

Couching the constitutional inquiry in cases like Bakke and VMI in the context of integration also puts in perspective the diversity justification. Affirmative action policies are constitutional because they integrate state programs. Integration on the basis of race and sex also diversifies state programs. In contrast, attempts to justify sex-segregation in state programs by arguing the policy promotes diversity is irrelevant to an equal protection analysis. Voluntarily created all-female schools should be constitutional because they promote the equal citizenship of women without damaging the equal citizenship stature of men. This is true for voluntarily race-segregated programs for minorities; as well. …

Reflections On Constitutional Interpretation, Raoul Berger

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Antidisestablishmentarianism: Why Rfra Really Was Unconstitutional, Jed Rubenfeld

Michigan Law Review

Two months ago, the Supreme Court struck down the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), handing down its most important church-state decision, and one of its most important federalism decisions, in fifty years. Through RFRA, Congress had prohibited any state actor from "substantially burden[ing] a person's exercise of religion" unless imposing that burden was the "least restrictive means" of furthering "a compelling governmental interest." RFRA was a response to Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, in which the Supreme Court abandoned the very same compelling interest test that RFRA mandated. Smith, overturning decades-old precedent, held …

The Second Time As Tragedy: The Assisted Suicide Cases And The Heritage Of Roe V. Wade, Seth F. Kreimer

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Casey Standard For Evaluating Facial Attacks On Abortion Statutes, John Christopher Ford

Michigan Law Review

Since the Supreme Court declared in 1973 that the Constitution grants women a limited right to an abortion, the Justices have decided abortion cases with reference to such weighty matters as religious freedom, the disadvantaged position of women in society, and the proper role of the judiciary. Understandably, the Supreme Court's writings on abortion deal extensively with these large themes. The Court, and certainly others, view abortion cases as rivaling Brown v. Board of Education in their importance to the nation. While the Court has focused on the big issues, however, it has neglected an equally important, if less emotionally …

Relativism, Reflective Equilibrium, And Justice, Justin Schwartz

Justin Schwartz

THIS PAPER IS THE CO-WINNER OF THE FRED BERGER PRIZE IN PHILOSOPHY OF LAW FOR THE 1999 AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE BEST PUBLISHED PAPER IN THE PREVIOUS TWO YEARS.

The conflict between liberal legal theory and critical legal studies (CLS) is often framed as a matter of whether there is a theory of justice that the law should embody which all rational people could or must accept. In a divided society, the CLS critique of this view is overwhelming: there is no such justice that can command universal assent. But the liberal critique of CLS, that it degenerates into …

Congruence Principle Applied: Rethinking Equal Protection Review Of Federal Alienage Classifications After Adanrand Constructors, Inc. V. Peña, Victor C. Romero

Journal Articles

This article suggests that the Supreme Court's 1995 decision in Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña constitutes a starting point for a renewed dialogue on the intersection of race, noncitizens' rights, and immigration law.

Part I of this Article examines the historical foundations of the plenary power doctrine up to the current dichotomy between judicial review of state and federal alienage classifications under equal protection. Part II reviews the Adarand decision, arguing that Justice O'Connor's congruence principle provides the bulwark for a revision of judicial review of federal legislation, especially in light of the historical and continuing perception of Asian- and …

Women's Powerless Tool: How Congress Overreached The Constitution With The Civil Rights Remedy Of The Violence Against Women Act, 30 J. Marshall L. Rev. 803 (1997), Lisa A. Carroll

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

No More Excuses: Closing The Door On The Voluntary Intoxication Defense, 30 J. Marshall L. Rev. 535 (1997), Chad J. Layton

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

United States, Puerto Rico, And The Territorial Incorporation Doctrine: Reaching A Century Of Constitutional Authoritarianism, 31 J. Marshall L. Rev. 55 (1997), Gabriel A. Terrasa

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Brown V. State Of New York: Judge Simons Says New York State Can Be Held Liable For Money Damages, Eric J. Stockel

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Gift Or Loan Of State Money, Court Of Appeals Gagliardo V. Dinkins

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Right To Counsel, Supreme Court, Appellate Division Second Department, People V. Taylor

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Self-Incrimination, Supreme Court, Appellate Division Second Department People V. Hendricks

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Right To Appointed Counsel In Termination Of Parental Rights Proceedings: The State's Response To Lassiter, Rosalie R. Young

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Equal Protection Of The Laws: Recent Judicial Decisions And Their Implications For Public Educational Institutions, Anne Dupre, John Dayton

Scholarly Works

This article reviews recent judicial decisions concerning the Equal Protection Clause and provides an analysis of their implications for public educational institutions. The article begins by giving a brief historical overview of the Equal Protection Clause, its application to the states, and describes the three-tiered approach to challenges alleging government denial of equal protection of the laws. Recent applications of each tier are addressed by discussing Adarand v. Pena, Hopwood v. Texas, U.S. v. Virginia, and Romer v. Evans. The article concludes by noting that these recent cases have added to uncertainty concerning the Court’s interpretation of the Equal …

A Worthy Champion For Fourteenth Amendment Rights: The United States In Parens Patriae, Larry Yackle

Faculty Scholarship

When the Clinton Administration announced its intention to challenge Proposition 209, the new prohibition on affirmative action in California, the Justice Department declined to say whether the United States would formally intervene in the lawsuit already under way or merely file an amicus brief supporting the plaintiffs. Casual observers may have assumed that the Administration considered the form of its participation to raise further political and strategic considerations. That was undoubtedly true. It was also true, however, that Justice Department lawyers faced a legal question as well. According to the precedents on point, the United States required an authorizing statute …