Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Constitutional Law (285)
- Civil Rights and Discrimination (156)
- Law and Society (72)
- Courts (69)
- First Amendment (60)
-
- Supreme Court of the United States (57)
- Jurisprudence (56)
- Criminal Law (55)
- Legal History (53)
- Criminal Procedure (49)
- Law and Politics (47)
- State and Local Government Law (44)
- Human Rights Law (39)
- Law and Race (37)
- Judges (36)
- Public Law and Legal Theory (34)
- Law and Gender (33)
- Legislation (33)
- Education Law (26)
- Family Law (22)
- Sexuality and the Law (22)
- Election Law (19)
- Juvenile Law (19)
- Law Enforcement and Corrections (19)
- Fourth Amendment (18)
- Health Law and Policy (18)
- Jurisdiction (17)
- Civil Law (16)
- Institution
-
- SelectedWorks (69)
- Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center (47)
- Maurer School of Law: Indiana University (27)
- Washington and Lee University School of Law (24)
- Selected Works (23)
-
- The University of Akron (19)
- University of Colorado Law School (17)
- Pepperdine University (15)
- Cleveland State University (14)
- University of Richmond (14)
- University of Pittsburgh School of Law (11)
- Florida State University College of Law (10)
- University of Georgia School of Law (8)
- University of Oklahoma College of Law (8)
- University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School (7)
- Chicago-Kent College of Law (6)
- Notre Dame Law School (6)
- University of Baltimore Law (6)
- Seattle University School of Law (5)
- University of Arkansas at Little Rock William H. Bowen School of Law (5)
- University of Florida Levin College of Law (5)
- University of Maine School of Law (5)
- Barry University School of Law (4)
- Northwestern Pritzker School of Law (4)
- Roger Williams University (4)
- St. Mary's University (4)
- University of Arkansas, Fayetteville (4)
- University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law (4)
- University of Michigan Law School (4)
- Boston University School of Law (3)
- Publication Year
- Publication
-
- Touro Law Review (39)
- Supreme Court Case Files (21)
- Akron Law Review (18)
- Publications (17)
- All Faculty Scholarship (15)
-
- Adam Lamparello (14)
- Indiana Law Journal (14)
- Cleveland State Law Review (13)
- Faculty Scholarship (12)
- Articles (11)
- Law Faculty Publications (11)
- Pepperdine Law Review (10)
- Florida State University Law Review (9)
- Articles by Maurer Faculty (6)
- Faculty Publications (6)
- Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law (6)
- Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity (6)
- Chicago-Kent Law Review (5)
- Maine Law Review (5)
- Seattle University Law Review (5)
- UF Law Faculty Publications (5)
- American Indian Law Review (4)
- Arkansas Law Review (4)
- Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies (4)
- Journal Articles (4)
- Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary (4)
- Northwestern University Law Review (4)
- Scholarly Works (4)
- St. Mary's Law Journal (4)
- University of Richmond Law Review (4)
- Publication Type
- File Type
Articles 31 - 60 of 439
Full-Text Articles in Fourteenth Amendment
Korematsu’S Ancestors, Mark A. Graber
Korematsu’S Ancestors, Mark A. Graber
Arkansas Law Review
Mark Killenbeck’s Korematsu v. United States has important affinities with Dred Scott v. Sandford. Both decisions by promoting and justifying white supremacy far beyond what was absolutely mandated by the constitutional text merit their uncontroversial inclusion in the anticanon of American constitutional law.3 Dred Scott held that former slaves and their descendants could not be citizens of the United States and that Congress could not ban slavery in American territories acquired after the Constitution was ratified.5 Korematsu held that the military could exclude all Japanese Americans from portions of the West Coast during World War II.6 Both decisions nevertheless provided …
First Amendment Freedoms Diluted: The Impact Of Disclosure Requirements On Nonprofit Charities, Bailie Mittman
First Amendment Freedoms Diluted: The Impact Of Disclosure Requirements On Nonprofit Charities, Bailie Mittman
Indiana Law Journal
Since the birth of the Bill of Rights in 1791, the freedoms protected by the First Amendment have been cherished by all members of this nation. The First Amendment provides that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.” Over time, courts have acknowledged that the freedom to speak freely means very little if the guarantee is not protected by an additional right: the freedom to associate. Thus, the freedom of expressive association stands as an essential component of an individual’s free speech rights and state infringement on associative rights has the power of potentially …
Keeping Up: Walking With Justice Douglas, Charles A. Reich
Keeping Up: Walking With Justice Douglas, Charles A. Reich
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Second-Trimester Abortion Dangertalk, Greer Donley, Jill Wieber Lens
Second-Trimester Abortion Dangertalk, Greer Donley, Jill Wieber Lens
Articles
Abortion rights are more vulnerable now than they have been in decades. This Article focuses specifically on the most assailable subset of those rights: the right to a pre-viability, second-trimester abortion. Building on Carhart v. Gonzales, where the Supreme Court upheld a federal ban on a safe and effective second-trimester abortion procedure, states have passed new second-trimester abortion restrictions that rely heavily on the woman-protective rationale—the idea that the restrictions will benefit women. These newer second-trimester abortion restrictions include bans on the Dilation & Evacuation (D&E) procedure, bans on disability-selective abortions, and mandatory perinatal hospice and palliative care counseling …
The Second Founding And The First Amendment, William M. Carter Jr.
The Second Founding And The First Amendment, William M. Carter Jr.
Articles
Constitutional doctrine generally proceeds from the premise that the original intent and public understanding of pre-Civil War constitutional provisions carries forward unchanged from the colonial Founding era. This premise is flawed because it ignores the Nation’s Second Founding: i.e., the constitutional moment culminating in the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments and the civil rights statutes enacted pursuant thereto. The Second Founding, in addition to providing specific new individual rights and federal powers, also represented a fundamental shift in our constitutional order. The Second Founding’s constitutional regime provided that the underlying systemic rules and norms of the First Founding’s Constitution …
What Is "Appropriate" Legislation?: Mcculloch V. Maryland And The Redundancy Of The Reconstruction Amendments, Franita Tolson
What Is "Appropriate" Legislation?: Mcculloch V. Maryland And The Redundancy Of The Reconstruction Amendments, Franita Tolson
Arkansas Law Review
I am thankful for the opportunity to review Professor David Schwartz’s really thoughtful and incisive critique of McCulloch v. Maryland. The book is a creative and masterful reinterpretation of a decision that I thought I knew well, but I learned a lot of new and interesting facts about McCulloch and the (sometimes frosty) reception that the decision has received over the course of the last two centuries. Professor Schwartz persuasively argues that modern views of McCulloch as a straightforward nationalist decision that has always had a storied place in the American constitutional tradition are flat-out wrong. The Spirit of the …
The Equal Protection Clause & Suspect Classifications: Children Of Undocumented Entrants, Selene C. Vázquez
The Equal Protection Clause & Suspect Classifications: Children Of Undocumented Entrants, Selene C. Vázquez
University of Miami Inter-American Law Review
No abstract provided.
An Open Letter To The Ohio Supreme Court: Setting A Uniform Standard On Anders Briefs, Matthew D. Fazekas
An Open Letter To The Ohio Supreme Court: Setting A Uniform Standard On Anders Briefs, Matthew D. Fazekas
Cleveland State Law Review
Attorneys are faced with an ethical dilemma when they represent indigent defendants who wish to appeal a criminal sentence, but that appeal would be frivolous. In 1967, the United States Supreme Court, in Anders v. California, introduced a procedure protecting the rights of indigent defendants that balanced the ethical concerns of an attorney forced to file a frivolous appeal. In 2000, the Court in Smith v. Robbins held that the states can set their own procedure for the aforementioned ethical dilemma, so long as it protects the rights of indigent defendants in compliance with the Fourteenth Amendment. This has …
Isolation For Profit: How Privately Provided Video Visitation Services Incentivize Bans On In-Person Visitation Within American Correctional Facilities, J. Tanner Lusk
Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice
American correctional facilities are banning in-person visitation in lieu of privately provided and expensive video visitation services. This Note discusses the types of private services provided; how video visitation negatively affects inmates’ mental health and finances; and the ongoing legal battle occurring in Knox County, Tennessee, regarding whether the Knox County Jail’s ban on in-person visitation violates the Constitution. Because of the significant degree of deference courts grant correctional facilities when considering whether challenged regulations violate the Constitution, it will be difficult for the Knox County Jail inmates to successfully argue that the jail has violated their constitutional rights. There …
As Pertains To The Criminal Justice System, Is Hindsight 20/20?, Syndie G. E. Molina, Cristina Negrillo
As Pertains To The Criminal Justice System, Is Hindsight 20/20?, Syndie G. E. Molina, Cristina Negrillo
Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity
No abstract provided.
The Central Park Five As “Discrete And Insular” Minorities Under The Equal Protection Clause: The Evolution Of The Right To Counsel For Wrongfully Convicted Minors, Todd K. Beharry
Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity
No abstract provided.
Reconceptualizing Hybrid Rights, Dan T. Coenen
Reconceptualizing Hybrid Rights, Dan T. Coenen
Scholarly Works
In landmark decisions on religious liberty and same-sex marriage, and many other cases as well, the Supreme Court has placed its imprimatur on so called “hybrid rights.” These rights spring from the interaction of two or more constitutional clauses, none of which alone suffices to give rise to the operative protection. Controversy surrounds hybrid rights in part because there exists no judicial account of their justifiability. To be sure, some scholarly treatments suggest that these rights emanate from the “structures” or “penumbras” of the Constitution. But critics respond that hybrid rights lack legitimacy for that very reason because structural and …
Dual Allegiance: Federal And State Treason Prosecutions, The Treason Clause, And The Fourteenth Amendment, Alexander Gouzoules
Dual Allegiance: Federal And State Treason Prosecutions, The Treason Clause, And The Fourteenth Amendment, Alexander Gouzoules
Faculty Publications
The Treason Clause creates an individual right at a criminal trial that could have logically been placed within the Fifth Amendment rather than Article III: “No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.” It has effectively prevented expansive uses of the charge at the federal level. But states may also charge citizens with treason against state governments, and many such prosecutions have played important roles in American history.
This article reviews the parallel histories of state and federal treason prosecutions. It then analyzes …
The Legal And Medical Necessity Of Abortion Care Amid The Covid-19 Pandemic, Greer Donley, Beatrice Chen, Sonya Borrero
The Legal And Medical Necessity Of Abortion Care Amid The Covid-19 Pandemic, Greer Donley, Beatrice Chen, Sonya Borrero
Articles
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, states have ordered the cessation of non-essential healthcare. Unfortunately, many conservative states have sought to capitalize on those orders to halt abortion care. In this short paper, we argue that abortion should not fall under any state’s non-essential healthcare order. Major medical organizations recognize that abortion is essential healthcare that must be provided even in a pandemic, and the law recognizes abortion as a time-sensitive constitutional right. Finally, we examine the constitutional arguments as to why enforcing these orders against abortion providers should not stand constitutional scrutiny. We conclude that no public health purpose …
Parental Autonomy Over Prenatal End-Of-Life Decisions, Greer Donley
Parental Autonomy Over Prenatal End-Of-Life Decisions, Greer Donley
Articles
When parents learn that their potential child has a life-limiting, often devastating, prenatal diagnosis, they are faced with the first (and perhaps, only) healthcare decisions they will make for their child. Many choose to terminate the pregnancy because they believe it is in their potential child’s best interest to avoid a short and painful life. I argue that these decisions should be protected in the same way that parental healthcare decisions are constitutionally protected after birth—including a parent’s refusal or withdrawal of life-saving treatment for an infant or child who is very sick or dying. Parental autonomy ensures that parents …
From Justice To Injustice: Lowering The Threshold Of European Consensus In Oliari And Others Versus Italy, Nazim Ziyadov
From Justice To Injustice: Lowering The Threshold Of European Consensus In Oliari And Others Versus Italy, Nazim Ziyadov
Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies
Oliari and Others v. Italy, decided by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in 2015, changed its case law. The ECHR changed its position stated in Schalk and Kopf v. Austria (2010) when evaluating an alleged violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It concluded that Italy has a positive obligation under the convention to guarantee alternative legal recognition for same-sex couples. The same conclusion was not reached in Schalk. In Oliari and Others, the ECHR heavily relied on the European consensus doctrine and eventually deepened formalization of two different institutions (marriage and civil unions). …
The Confusing Language Of Mcculloch V. Maryland: Did Marshall Really Know What He Was Doing (Or Meant)?, Sanford Levinson
The Confusing Language Of Mcculloch V. Maryland: Did Marshall Really Know What He Was Doing (Or Meant)?, Sanford Levinson
Arkansas Law Review
All legal “interpretation” involves confrontation with inherently indeterminate language. I have distinguished in my own work between what I call the Constitution of Settlement and the Constitution of Conversation. The former includes those aspects of the Constitution that do indeed seem devoid of interpretive challenge, such as the unfortunate assignment of two senators to each state or the specification of the terms of office of representatives, senators, and presidents. I am quite happy to concede that “two,” “four,” and “six” have determinate meaning, though my concession is not based on a fancy theory of linguistics. It is, rather, a recognition …
The Democracy Ratchet, Derek T. Muller
The Democracy Ratchet, Derek T. Muller
Indiana Law Journal
This Article proceeds in five Parts. Part I identifies recent instances in which federal courts have invoked a version of the Democracy Ratchet. It identifies the salient traits of the Democracy Ratchet in these cases. Part II describes why the Democracy Ratchet has gained attention, primarily as a tactic of litigants and as a convenient benchmark in preliminary injunction cases. Part III examines the history of the major federal causes of action concerning election administration—Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the Burdick balancing test, and the Equal Protection Clause. In each, it traces the path of the doctrine to …
Devotion ̶T̶O̶ And The Rule Of Law: Acknowledging The Role Of Religious Values In Judicial Decision-Making, Priya Purohit
Devotion ̶T̶O̶ And The Rule Of Law: Acknowledging The Role Of Religious Values In Judicial Decision-Making, Priya Purohit
Indiana Law Journal
This Comment advocates for the acknowledgment of religious values in judicial decision-making in three parts. Part I explores the role of religion in American politics, and more specifically, the role of religion in federal judicial confirmation hearings and state-level judicial elections. Membership to an institutionalized religion often performs an essential gatekeeping function when it comes to assessing the background or personal values of a candidate for political or judicial office. The initially positive role of religion in judicial selection processes suggests that the practice of refusing to acknowledge the role that religion likely already plays in judicial decision-making is wholly …
The Resistance & The Stubborn But Unsurprising Persistence Of Hate And Extremism In The United States, Jeannine Bell
The Resistance & The Stubborn But Unsurprising Persistence Of Hate And Extremism In The United States, Jeannine Bell
Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies
Though the far right has a long history in the United States, the presidential campaign and then election of Donald Trump brought the movement out of the shadows. This article will analyze the rise in White supremacist activity in the United States-from well-publicized mass actions like the White supremacist march in Charlottesville in August 2017 to individual acts of violence happening since November 2016. This article focuses on contextualizing such incidents within this contemporary period and argues that overt expressions of racism and racist violence are nothing new. The article closes with a call to strengthen the current legal remedies …
Clarifying The Scope Of The Self-Incrimination Clause: City Of Hays V. Vogt, Samantha Ruben
Clarifying The Scope Of The Self-Incrimination Clause: City Of Hays V. Vogt, Samantha Ruben
Chicago-Kent Law Review
Three months after oral arguments, the Supreme Court dismissed the writ of certiorari in City of Hays v. Vogt as improvidently granted. The question in Vogt was whether the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination is violated when incriminating statements are used at a probable cause hearing, as opposed to a criminal trial. As a result of the “DIG,” the Court left a circuit split unresolved surrounding the meaning of a “criminal case” within the Fifth Amendment’s Self-Incrimination Clause.
This note argues that the Supreme Court should not have dismissed Vogt and should have decided that the Fifth Amendment right against …
The Influence Of The Warren Court And Natural Rights On Substantive Due Process, James Marmaduke
The Influence Of The Warren Court And Natural Rights On Substantive Due Process, James Marmaduke
Calvert Undergraduate Research Awards
Advanced Research Winner 2019:
While the concept of substantive due process has guided judicial decision making even prior to the Civil War, it has become a lightning rod among the juristic community especially since the 1960s. This controversy includes issues ranging from the applicability and reliability to the cogency and legitimacy of the doctrine of substantive due process Many scholars attribute the skepticism toward the concept of substantive due process to be the result of a paradigm shift in the middle of the 20th century when this concept transitioned from an economic and property rights based approach to one …
Solitary Confinement Of Juvenile Offenders And Pre-Trial Detainees, Nicole Johnson
Solitary Confinement Of Juvenile Offenders And Pre-Trial Detainees, Nicole Johnson
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Arlington Heights Won In The Supreme Court But The Fair Housing Act’S Goal Of Promoting Racial Integration Saved The Low-Income Housing, Henry Rose
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Oh, What A Truism The Tenth Amendment Is: State Sovereignty, Sovereign Immunity, And Individual Liberties, Sharon E. Rush
Oh, What A Truism The Tenth Amendment Is: State Sovereignty, Sovereign Immunity, And Individual Liberties, Sharon E. Rush
UF Law Faculty Publications
The Supreme Court under the late Chief Justice Rehnquist and now Chief Justice Roberts takes the Tenth Amendment and state sovereignty seriously. It also takes the Eleventh Amendment and state sovereign immunity seriously. Moreover, the contemporary Court’s interpretations of Congress’s Article I powers are based on its concomitant interpretations of the Tenth and Eleventh Amendments, which the Court has infused with the idea that an inherent part of a state’s sovereignty is not just its prerogative not to have its treasuries invaded, but also includes its right not to have its dignity assaulted. Protecting the dignity of states and other …
When Big Brother Becomes “Big Father”: Examining The Continued Use Of Parens Patriae In State Juvenile Delinquency Proceedings, Emily R. Mowry
When Big Brother Becomes “Big Father”: Examining The Continued Use Of Parens Patriae In State Juvenile Delinquency Proceedings, Emily R. Mowry
Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)
The U.S. Constitution grants American citizens numerous Due Process rights; but, historically, the Supreme Court declined to extend these Due Process rights to children. Initially, common-law courts treated child offenders over the age of seven in the same manner as adult criminals. At the start of the 20th century, though, juvenile reformers assisted in creating unique juvenile courts that used the parens patriae doctrine and viewed children as delinquent youths in need of judicial parental guidance rather than punishment. Later, starting in 1967, the Supreme Court released multiple opinions extending certain constitutional Due Process rights to children in juvenile delinquency …
The Diverging Right(S) To Bear Arms: Private Armament And The Second And Fourteenth Amendments In Historical Context, Alexander Gouzoules
The Diverging Right(S) To Bear Arms: Private Armament And The Second And Fourteenth Amendments In Historical Context, Alexander Gouzoules
Faculty Publications
This article compares the historical evolution of the social understanding of private armament with contemporary legal doctrine on the right to bear arms. The District of Columbia v. Heller decision, which held that the Second Amendment protects a personal right to self-defense, and the McDonald v. City of Chicago decision, which held the Second Amendment to be incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment, both turned on extensive historical analysis. But by reading a broad “individual right to self-defense” into both the Second and Fourteenth Amendments, the Court assumed continuity between the social understandings at the time of these amendments’ respective ratifications. …
Judges Do It Better: Why Judges Can (And Should) Decide Life Or Death, Andrew R. Ford
Judges Do It Better: Why Judges Can (And Should) Decide Life Or Death, Andrew R. Ford
Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)
Following its decision in Furman v. Georgia, the Supreme Court of the United States has attempted to standardize procedures that states use to subject offenders to the ultimate penalty. In practice, this attempt at standardization has divided capital sentencing into two distinct parts: the death eligibility decision and the death selection decision. The eligibility decision addresses whether the sentencer may impose the death penalty, while the selection decision determines who among that limited subset of eligible offenders is sentenced to death. In Ring v. Arizona, the Court held for the first time that the Sixth Amendment right to …
The Privileges Or Immunities Clause Abridged: A Critique Of Kurt Lash On The Fourteenth Amendment, Randy E. Barnett, Evan Bernick
The Privileges Or Immunities Clause Abridged: A Critique Of Kurt Lash On The Fourteenth Amendment, Randy E. Barnett, Evan Bernick
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
The Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was virtually eliminated by the Supreme Court in three cases: The Slaughter-House Cases, Bradwell v. Illinois, and United States v. Cruikshank. Today, most constitutional scholars agree that this was a terrible mistake, the effects of which continue to reverberate through our constitutional law. But, as evidenced by the Court’s decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago, both the “left” and “right” sides of the Court are reluctant to open the “Pandora’s Box” of uncertainty created by the phrase “privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” …
The Difference Narrows: A Reply To Kurt Lash, Randy E. Barnett, Evan Bernick
The Difference Narrows: A Reply To Kurt Lash, Randy E. Barnett, Evan Bernick
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
No abstract provided.