Fourteenth Amendment Commons^™

A Response To Professor Choper: Laying Down Another Ladder, Sheri Lynn Johnson

Sheri Lynn Johnson

No abstract provided.

Race And The Decision To Detain A Suspect, Sheri Johnson

Sheri Lynn Johnson

No abstract provided.

The Langugage And Culture (Not To Say Race) Of Peremptory Challenges, Sheri Lynn Johnson

Sheri Lynn Johnson

No abstract provided.

The Qualitative Dimension Of Fourth Amendment "Reasonableness", Sherry F. Colb

Sherry Colb

Supreme Court doctrine protects two seemingly distinct kinds of interests under the heading of privacy rights: one "substantive," the other "procedural." The Fourth Amendment guarantee against "unreasonable searches and seizures" has been generally interpreted to protect procedural privacy. Searches are typically defined as governmental inspections of activities and locations in which an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy from observation. In the typical case, this reasonable expectation of privacy may be breached only where the government has acquired a quantitatively substantial objective basis for believing that the search would uncover evidence of a crime. Substantive privacy rights have not …

Freedom From Incarceration: Why Is This Right Different From All Other Rights?, Sherry F. Colb

Sherry Colb

American constitutional jurisprudence has long accepted the notion that the exercise of certain rights can only be restricted by the government if the restriction satisfies strict scrutiny. The Supreme Court has identified such rights as fundamental often by relying on an expansive interpretation of the word "liberty" in the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. In this Article, Professor Colb argues that the Supreme Court has failed to recognize the right to physical liberty itself as a fundamental right. She demonstrates that at present conduct that is not itself constitutionally protected may serve as the basis for imprisonment even …

Stopping A Moving Target, Sherry F. Colb

Sherry Colb

No abstract provided.

Supermax’S Kryptonite? Wilkinson V. Austin: The Due Process Challenge To Ohio’S Super-Maximum Security Prison, Adam Miller

University of Massachusetts Law Review

This note discusses the Supreme Court’s holding in Wilkinson that OSP’s system for inmate placement in its Supermax facility does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. Part II will summarize OSP’s purpose and condition, and will focus on Ohio’s New Policy regarding inmate placement. Part III will examine Supreme Court precedent and the Court’s conclusions of law in determining whether inmates have a protected liberty interest in avoiding assignment to OSP and the due process implications of the inmate selection process to OSP. Part IV will question the Supreme Court’s disregard of the adverse mental effects in inmates subjected to …

2007 National Lawyer’S Convention The Federalist Society And Its Federalism And Separation Of Powers Practice Groups Present A Panel Debate On Federalism: Religion, Early America And The Fourteenth Amendment, John Eastman, Marci Hamilton, William H. Pryor Jr.

University of Massachusetts Law Review

Transcript of the Federalist Society and its Federalism and Separation of Powers Practice Groups panel debate at the 2007 National Lawyers Convention including panelists Dean John Eastman of Chapman University School of Law, Professor Marci Hamilton of the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, and moderated by Hon. William H. Pryor Jr. of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Qualified Immunity: 1983 Litigation In The Public Employment Context, Erwin Chemerinsky

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Legacy Of Anthony M. Kennedy, Adam Lamparello

Adam Lamparello

The defining moments in Justice Kennedy’s tenure on the Court came in Planned Parenthood, Lawrence, and United States v. Windsor, where the Court did to the Constitution—in the name of liberty—what it also did—in the name of democracy—to Florida’s citizens in Bush v. Gore. In all three cases, Justice Kennedy’s reliance on a broad conception of liberty, rather than equal protection principles, shifted the balance too heavily in favor of judicial, rather democratic, creation of unenumerated fundamental rights.

Justice Kennedy will rightly be celebrated for safeguarding reproductive freedom and championing sexual autonomy for same-sex couples, but underneath the black …

Look Back At The Rehnquist Era And An Overview Of The 2004 Supreme Court Term, Erwin Chemerinsky

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Logic And Experience Of Law: Lawrence V. Texas And The Politics Of Privacy, Danaya C. Wright

Danaya C. Wright

The U.S. Supreme Court's June 2003 decision in Lawrence v. Texas may prove to be one of the most important civil rights cases of the twenty-first century. It may do for gay and lesbian people what Brown v. Board of Education did for African-Americans and Roe v. Wade did for women. While I certainly hope so, my enthusiasm is tempered by the fact that discrimination on the basis of race or gender has not disappeared. Will Lawrence signal meaningful change, or will its revolutionary possibilities be stifled by endless cycles of excuse and redefinition? The case is important, but I …

Closing The Doors To Justice: A Critique Of Pimentel V. Dreyfus And The Application Of Legal Formalism To The Elimination Of Food Assistance Benefits For Legal Immigrants, Hannah Zommick

Seattle University Law Review

This Comment contends that the Ninth Circuit’s opinion in Pimentel v. Dreyfus employed a legal formalist approach and that by applying this framework, the court prevented legal immigrants, who were caught between the strict eligibility restrictions of welfare reform, from asserting their rights through the justice system. The legal formalist approach “treats the law as a set of scientific formulae or principles that are derived from the study of case law. These principles create an internal analytical framework which, when applied to a set of facts, leads the decision maker, through logical deduction, to the correct outcome in a case.” …

Supreme Court, Queens County, People V. Michaelides, Christin Harris

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Supreme Court, Tompkins County, Seymour V. Holcomb, Jessica Goodwin

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Disparity In Police Procedures For Non-English Speaking Dwi Suspects: Constitutional Protections For Non-English Speaking Criminal Defendants Falling Second To Governmental Interests, Daniela Giordano

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Equal Protection And The Gifted And Talented Program, Deirdre Cicciaro

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Cost To Carry: New York State’S Regulation On Firearm Registration, David D. Pelaez

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

State Taxation - Unitary Business/Formula Apportionment Tax Accounting Method - Application Of A Three Factor Formula To Apportion Income Of Foreign-Parent Corporations For State Tax Reporting Purposes Does Not Violate The Commerce Clausse Or The Due Process Clause Of The U.S. Constitution - Barclay's Bank Int'l, Ltd. V. Franchise Tax Bd., 10 Cal. App. 4th 1742, 14 Cal. Rptr. 2d 537 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992), Modified Reh'g Denied, 11 Cal. App. 4th 1678a (Cal. Ct. App. 1992)., Sarah B. Pierce

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Whither Sexual Orientation Analysis?: The Proper Methodology When Due Process And Equal Protection Intersect, Sharon E. Rush

Sharon E. Rush

This Article suggests that there is Proper Methodology that courts apply when reviewing cases at the intersection of due process and equal protection. Briefly, courts operate under a rule that heightened review applies if either a fundamental right or a suspect class is involved in a case, and that rational basis review applies if neither is involved (the "Rule"). Two primary exceptions to the Rule exist, and this Article identifies them as the "Logical" and "Ill Motives" Exceptions. The Logical Exception applies when a court need not apply heightened review because a law fails rational basis review. The Ill Motives …

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

Sharon E. Rush

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. …

Georgia's Workers' Compensation Law: Are Limitations On Death Benefits To Foreign, Nonresident Dependents Constitutional? Barge-Wagener Constr. Co. V. Morales, Peter J. Diskin

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Punitive Injunctions, Nirej S. Sekhon

Nirej Sekhon

No abstract provided.

Partitioning And Rights: The Supreme Court's Accidental Jurisprudence Of Democratic Process, James A. Gardner

Florida State University Law Review

In democracies that allocate to a court responsibility for interpreting and enforcing the constitutional ground rules of democratic politics, the sheer importance of the task would seem to oblige such courts to guide their rulings by developing an account of the nature and prominent features of the constitutional commitment to democracy. The U.S. Supreme Court, however, has from the beginning refused to develop a general account—a theory—of how the U.S. Constitution establishes and structures democratic politics. The Court’s diffidence left a vacuum at the heart of its constitutional jurisprudence of democratic process, and like most vacuums, this one was almost …

The Inverse Relationship Between The Constitutionality And Effectiveness Of New York City "Stop And Frisk", Jeffrey Bellin

Faculty Publications

New York City sits at the epicenter of an extraordinary criminal justice phenomenon. While employing aggressive policing tactics, such as “stop and frisk,” on an unprecedented scale, the City dramatically reduced both violent crime and incarceration – with the connections between these developments (if any) hotly disputed. Further clouding the picture, in August 2013, a federal district court ruled the City’s heavy reliance on “stop and frisk” unconstitutional. Popular and academic commentary generally highlights isolated pieces of this complex story, constructing an incomplete vision of the lessons to be drawn from the New York experience. This Article brings together all …

Hall V. Florida: The Death Of Georgia's Beyond A Reasonable Doubt Standard, Adam Lamparello

Adam Lamparello

Welcome: We’re Glad Georgia is On Your Mind.

Georgia is on many minds as Warren Hill prepares for a state court hearing to once again begin the process of trying to show that he is intellectually disabled. As Warren Hill continues to flirt with death, one must ask, is Georgia really going to execute someone that nine experts and a lower court twice found to be mentally retarded? The answer is yes, and the Georgia courts do not understand why we are scratching our heads. The answer is simple: executing an intellectually disabled man is akin to strapping a ten-year …

Hall V. Florida: The Death Of Georgia’S Beyond A Reasonable Doubt Standard, Adam Lamparello

Adam Lamparello

No abstract provided.

Official, National, Common Or Unifying: Do Words Giving Legal Status To Language Diminish Linguistic Human Rights?, Paul C. Hale

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

A Comparative Analysis Of Unconscious And Institutional Discrimination In The United States And Britain, Leland Ware

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Qualified Immunity And Statutory Interpretation, Ilan Wurman

Seattle University Law Review

Before the 1989 case of Graham v. Connor, excessive force cases were pursued under either state law or the insuperable “shocks the conscience” test of the Fourteenth Amendment. Only after Graham did excessive force cases—now under the Fourth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983—inundate the federal courts, which had by then granted far-reaching immunities to officers for their constitutional torts. As a result of federal qualified immunity doctrine, which many states have adopted for themselves, excessive force cases rarely get to trial, plaintiffs often cannot recover, and courts struggle to find principled distinctions from one qualified immunity case to the …