Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Keyword
-
- Sanctuary cities (3)
- Sanctuary city (3)
- Algorithms (2)
- Immigrant (2)
- Immigration (2)
-
- Law enforcement (2)
- Refugee (2)
- Sentencing (2)
- 8 U.S.C. § 1373 (1)
- Anti-immigrant (1)
- Anti-immigration (1)
- Arizona (1)
- Balancing (1)
- Balancing tests (1)
- Blue collar (1)
- Border patrol (1)
- Civil Rights Act of 1964 (1)
- Civil Rights Act; Title VII; Employment Discrimination; McDonnell; Douglas; Ortiz; Nassar; evidence; evidentiary standard; retaliation claim; burden of proof; standard; but for; causation; jurisprudence; Seventh Circuit; employee (1)
- Civil rights (1)
- Crime (1)
- Crime reporting (1)
- DNA (1)
- DNA Mixture (1)
- Department of Homeland Security (1)
- Department of Labor (1)
- Discrimination (1)
- Documented worker (1)
- Due process (1)
- Employee (1)
- Executive Order 13768 (1)
Articles 1 - 12 of 12
Full-Text Articles in Jurisprudence
Whiteness At Work, Lihi Yona
Whiteness At Work, Lihi Yona
Michigan Journal of Race and Law
How do courts understand Whiteness in Title VII litigation? This Article argues that one fruitful site for such examination is same-race discrimination cases between Whites. Such cases offer a peek into what enables regimes of Whiteness and White supremacy in the workplace, and the way in which Whiteness is theorized within Title VII adjudication. Intra-White discrimination cases may range from associational discrimination cases to cases involving discrimination against poor rural Whites, often referred to as “White trash.” While intragroup discrimination is acknowledged in sex-discrimination cases and race-discrimination cases within racial minority groups, same-race discrimination between Whites is currently an under-theorized …
Garbage In, Garbage Out: Revising Strickland As Applied To Forensic Science Evidence, Mark Loudon-Brown
Garbage In, Garbage Out: Revising Strickland As Applied To Forensic Science Evidence, Mark Loudon-Brown
Georgia State University Law Review
Sophisticated scientific evidence may be an undesirable subject matter for a judge to tackle anew, and it can be even more daunting for a defense attorney to confront, particularly one faced with a crushing caseload. It can be tempting to avoid a challenge to a vulnerable forensic science discipline—be it new, novel, or simply recently called into question—when a lawyer reasonably believes that the evidence will be admitted regardless.
Worse still, it may seem reasonable to disregard any adversarial challenge to incriminatory science altogether, and to opt instead for a different defense or to encourage a guilty plea. With hundreds …
The First Amendment Case For Public Access To Secret Algorithms Used In Criminal Trials, Vera Eidelman
The First Amendment Case For Public Access To Secret Algorithms Used In Criminal Trials, Vera Eidelman
Georgia State University Law Review
As this Article sets forth, once a computerized algorithm is used by the government, constitutional rights may attach. And, at the very least, those rights require that algorithms used by the government as evidence in criminal trials be made available—both to litigants and the public. Scholars have discussed how the government’s refusal to disclose such algorithms runs afoul of defendants’ constitutional rights, but few have considered the public’s interest in these algorithms—or the widespread impact that public disclosure and auditing could have on ensuring their quality.
This Article aims to add to that discussion by setting forth a theory of …
Sanctuary Cities And The Trump Administration: The Practical Limits Of Federal Power, Joshua W. Dansby
Sanctuary Cities And The Trump Administration: The Practical Limits Of Federal Power, Joshua W. Dansby
The Scholar: St. Mary's Law Review on Race and Social Justice
On January 25, 2017, President Donald J. Trump signed an executive order with the supposed purpose of enhancing public safety of the interior of the United States. Part of the Administration’s plan includes threatening “sanctuary jurisdictions,” also known as “sanctuary cities,” with the loss of federal funds for failing to comply with federal law, specifically 8 U.S.C. § 1373.
There are several problems with this plan: (1) there is no solid definition for what makes a city a “sanctuary;” (2) if we accept the Administration’s allusion that a sanctuary jurisdiction is one that “willfully” refuses to comply with 8 U.S.C. …
Undocumented Crime Victims: Unheard, Unnumbered, And Unprotected, Pauline Portillo
Undocumented Crime Victims: Unheard, Unnumbered, And Unprotected, Pauline Portillo
The Scholar: St. Mary's Law Review on Race and Social Justice
Abstract forthcoming
Effects Of Senate Bill 4 On Wage-Theft: Why All Workers Are At Risk In Low-Income Occupations, Daniella Salas-Chacon
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
Things Invisible To See: State Action & Private Property, Joseph William Singer, Isaac Saidel-Goley
Things Invisible To See: State Action & Private Property, Joseph William Singer, Isaac Saidel-Goley
Texas A&M Law Review
This Article revisits the state action doctrine, a judicial invention that shields “private” or “non-governmental” discrimination from constitutional scrutiny. Traditionally, this doctrine has applied to discrimination even in places of public accommodation, like restaurants, hotels, and grocery stores. Born of overt racial discrimination, the doctrine has inflicted substantial injustice throughout its inglorious history, and courts have continuously struggled in vain to coherently apply the doctrine. Yet, the United States Supreme Court has not fully insulated “private” or “horizontal” relations among persons from constitutional scrutiny. The cases in which it has applied constitutional norms to non-governmental actors should be celebrated rather …
No More Tiers? Proportionality As An Alternative To Multiple Levels Of Scrutiny In Individual Rights Cases, Donald L. Beschle
No More Tiers? Proportionality As An Alternative To Multiple Levels Of Scrutiny In Individual Rights Cases, Donald L. Beschle
Pace Law Review
This article will explore how the explicit adoption of proportionality analysis as a single analytical tool might lead, not only to a more coherent approach to individual rights cases, but will also bring together aspects of the current multiple analytical tiers in a way that allows full consideration of both the individual rights and the social values present in these cases. Part I of this article will give a brief overview of the history of the creation and application of the various tiers of analysis used by the United States Supreme Court and explore how the once-sharp difference in those …
Entering The Trump Ice Age: Contextualizing The New Immigration Enforcement Regime, Bill Ong Hing
Entering The Trump Ice Age: Contextualizing The New Immigration Enforcement Regime, Bill Ong Hing
Texas A&M Law Review
During the early stages of the Trump ICE age, America seemed to be witnessing and experiencing an unparalleled era of immigration enforcement. But is it unparalleled? Did we not label Barack Obama the “deporter-inchief?” Was it not George W. Bush who used the authority of the Patriot Act to round up nonimmigrants from Muslim and Arab countries, and did his ICE not commonly engage in armed raids at factories and other worksites? Are there not strong parallels that can be drawn between Trump enforcement plans and actions and those of other eras? What about the fear and hysteria that seems …
Give Me Your Tired, Your Poor, Your Pregnant: The Jurisprudence Of Abortion Exceptionalism In Garza V. Hargan, Kaytlin L. Roholt
Give Me Your Tired, Your Poor, Your Pregnant: The Jurisprudence Of Abortion Exceptionalism In Garza V. Hargan, Kaytlin L. Roholt
Texas A&M Law Review
Since a majority of Supreme Court justices created the abortion right in 1973, a troubling pattern has emerged: The Supreme Court has come to ignore—and even nullify—longstanding precedent and legal doctrines in the name of preserving and expanding the abortion right. And with a Supreme Court majority that is blithe to manipulate any doctrine or principle—no matter how deeply rooted in U.S. legal tradition—in the name of expansive abortion rights, it should come as no surprise that lower courts are following suit. Most recently, the D.C. Circuit fired up the “ad hoc nullification machine,” but this time, its victim of …
When Courts Run Amuck: A Book Review Of Unequal: How America's Courts Undermine Discrimination Law By Sandra F. Sperino And Suja A. Thomas (Oxford 2017), Theresa M. Beiner
When Courts Run Amuck: A Book Review Of Unequal: How America's Courts Undermine Discrimination Law By Sandra F. Sperino And Suja A. Thomas (Oxford 2017), Theresa M. Beiner
Texas A&M Law Review
In Unequal: How America’s Courts Undermine Discrimination Law (“Unequal”), law professors Sandra F. Sperino and Suja A. Thomas provide a point-by-point analysis of how the federal courts’ interpretations of federal anti-discrimination laws have undermined their efficacy to provide relief to workers whose employers have allegedly engaged in discrimination. The cases’ results are consistently pro-employer, even while the Supreme Court of the United States—a court not known for being particularly pro-plaintiff—has occasionally ruled in favor of plaintiff employees. The authors suggest some reasons for this apparent anti-plaintiff bias among the federal courts, although they do not settle on a particular reason …
Fleeing The Rat’S Nest: Title Vii Jurisprudence After Ortiz V. Werner Enterprises, Inc., Zachary J. Strongin
Fleeing The Rat’S Nest: Title Vii Jurisprudence After Ortiz V. Werner Enterprises, Inc., Zachary J. Strongin
Brooklyn Law Review
In 2016, the Seventh Circuit issued an opinion that may be a harbinger for an important shift in the federal judiciary’s long-standing employment discrimination jurisprudence. In Ortiz v. Werner Enterprises, Judge Easterbrook reiterated the frustration with the existing “rat’s nest” of tests and standards used in Title VII discrimination and retaliation claims. The note contains two overarching arguments. First, the Supreme Court’s employment discrimination and “rat’s nest” of tests and standards has led to an untenable situation in which federal district courts apply different standards at different stages of litigations. This in turn has caused confusion amongst the various federal …