Immigration Law Commons^™

Effects Of Senate Bill 4 On Wage-Theft: Why All Workers Are At Risk In Low-Income Occupations, Daniella Salas-Chacon

The Scholar: St. Mary's Law Review on Race and Social Justice

Abstract forthcoming

How The Lone Star State Reached The Entire Nation: The Need To Limit The Nationwide Injunction Against Dapa And Daca In United States V. Texas, Denise Cartolano

Florida A & M University Law Review

On June 23, 2016, the Supreme Court of the United States was ultimately deadlocked in the case United States v. Texas. In just one line, the Supreme Court shattered the dreams of millions of undocumented children and their parents who were residing in the United States; those like Anthony and Maria.The Supreme Court's utterance of these nine words, "[t]he judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court," created instability and uncertainty amongst undocumented children, students, workers and parents. This divided decision upheld a nationwide injunction against President Obama's executive action creating DAPA and expanding DACA.

Although the stories of Anthony …

Procedural And Judicial Limitations On Voir Dire - Constitutional Implications And Preservation Of Error In Civil Cases., R. Brent Cooper, Diana L. Faust

St. Mary's Law Journal

The right to a trial by jury is meaningless without an effective voir dire. Recurring tort reform, rapid technological advancements, immediate access to media coverage of incidents that give rise to litigation have greatly expanded. Consequentially, courts are faced with the prospect that potential jurors’ opinions and attitudes have been tainted. In addition to these issues, trial courts display significant interest in promptly expediting the advancement of their dockets. Voir dire is an essential element of trial strategy. Voir dire allows counsel to establish rapport with potential jurors, introduce them to the issues and facts of the case, and identify …

Texas Law's Life Or Death Rule In Capital Sentencing: Scrutinizing Eight Amendment Violations And The Case Of Juan Guerrero, Jr., John Niland, Riddhi Dasgupta

St. Mary's Law Journal

The United States Supreme Court has never explained the Eighth Amendment’s impact in noncapital cases involving a mentally retarded or brain-injured defendant. The Court has not provided guidance to legislatures or lower courts concerning the acceptable balancing of aggravating and mitigating factors and the role that mitigating factors must play in the sentencing decision. A definitive gap exists between the protections afforded to a criminal defendant facing a life sentence as opposed to those confronted with the death penalty. The Court requires sentencing procedures to consider aggravating and mitigating factors, including mental retardation and brain damage, when imposing a death …

Fair Labor Standards Act And Sovereign Immunity: Unlocking The Courthouse Door For Texas State Employees., Melinda Herrera

St. Mary's Law Journal

Unless Texas expressly waives its Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity, its state employees will not have similar legal recourse and protection as those available to private employees. As in many other states, a party may not sue the State of Texas without its consent. Thus, in the absence of constitutional or statutory provisions to the contrary, a state may claim sovereign immunity against any suit brought by a private party in both federal and state court. As a result, the Eleventh Amendment effectively precludes private individuals from suing a state in both federal and state court for violating a federal statute …

Revisiting Standards Of Review In Civil Appeals., W. Wendell Hall

St. Mary's Law Journal

Applying and defining the accurate standard of review determines how likely an appeal will be successful. While the proper standard of review may be easy to identify, applying the standard of review to a case is often problematic. The standards define the interactions between trial and appellate courts by distributing the power of review throughout the judicial branch. The standards of review also limit a court’s authority to determine an error by a trial court, and whether the error warrants reversal. The standard sets the requirements of substantive law and provides a means for appellate judges to weigh arguments. This …

Transracial Adoption In Texas: Should The Best Interests Standard Be Color-Blind., Jo Beth Eubanks

St. Mary's Law Journal

Legislative amendments must go further than limiting race from being a primary factor in adoptions; amendments must eliminate race as an acceptable factor. Diverging opinions of “race matching” in foster care and adoption exist. Administrative policies regulating adoption hold that same-race placement, between the adoptive parent and child, is a primary consideration when awarding custody in Texas. Basing child placement on the race or ethnicity of the parties involved raises serious constitutional concerns. The best interest standard is the predominant method in determining child placement, for both custody and adoption proceedings. The premise of the best interest standard is prioritization …