Jurisprudence Commons^™

Overturning Sffa V. Harvard, David Hinojosa, Chavis Jones

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

One of the first lessons law students learn is the importance of stare decisis. It not only serves as a tool to learn how to apply settled law to argument and persuasive writing, but foundationally stare decisis helps promote the public’s trust, confidence, and faith in the judicial system. Thus, when the Supreme Court issued its 6-3 opinion in 2023 in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard/University of North Carolina (“Harvard”), most onlookers viewed the decision as being the final nail in the coffin for affirmative action in higher education admissions. However, we—the authors—are among the minority.

In …

Levels Of Free Speech Scrutiny, Alexander Tsesis

Indiana Law Journal

Inconsistencies abound throughout current exacting, strict, and most exacting scrutiny doctrines. Formalism also runs throughout recent cases that have opportunistically relied on the First Amendment in matters peripherally concerned with core principles of free speech. Jurisprudence that relies on the exacting scrutiny standard remains significantly under-theorized. The uncertainty creates doctrinal flux that shifts from case-to-case. The same unexplained malleability appears in the most exacting scrutiny jurisprudence. The Court, moreover, sometimes refers to these two standards as equivalent to strict scrutiny. On the other hand, during the last decade, and most recently in 2021, various opinions have also used exacting scrutiny …

Lochner's Revenge: Tiered Scrutiny And The Acceptance Of Judicial Subjectivity, Phillip J. Closius

University of Cincinnati Law Review

No abstract provided.

Banning Abortions Based On A Prenatal Diagnosis Of Down Syndrome: The Future Of Abortion Regulation, Alexandra Russo

Touro Law Review

Since the infamous Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade, the United States has remained divided, each side unyielding to the other regarding the legal and moral issues surrounding abortion. The issues surrounding abortion have become progressively more politicized, thus threatening a woman’s right to a safe and healthy termination of her pregnancy. Restrictions on a woman’s ability to terminate a child with a genetic disorder, such as Down syndrome, highlight this concern. State restrictions on abortion that prohibit abortions based on a diagnosis of Down syndrome seek to prevent the stigmatization of the Down syndrome community. Regulations, such as …

Wiping Away The Tiers Of Judicial Scrutiny, R. George Wright

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

Throughout much of constitutional law and beyond, courts often decide cases by applying some form of tiered or multilevel judicial scrutiny. Tiered scrutiny exhibits remarkable variability and complexity. At its simplest, tiered scrutiny involves a judicial inquiry into the legitimacy and the degree of importance of some public goal purportedly furthered by the government policy at issue. The courts then typically undertake a second step, inquiring into the degree of “tailoring” of the government policy— namely the policy’s overinclusiveness or underinclusiveness relative to its supposed purpose. This simplified account of tiered scrutiny conceals, however, a number of important problems. …

The Constitutionality Of Collateral Post-Conviction Claims Of Actual Innocence Comment., Craig M. Jacobs

St. Mary's Law Journal

The notion that the state can punish innocent people disrupts public confidence in the usefulness of the criminal justice system. If, by legislative design, the criminal justice system is not concerned with or is accepting of situations where innocent people are punished by the state, should courts take immediate action? Once criminal defendants exhaust the appellate process, Supreme Court Justices have stated, federal courts should not hear claims of actual innocence. Such statements are supported by the federal habeas corpus statute as amended by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). AEDPA requires federal habeas courts to …

Foreword: Loving Lawrence, Pamela S. Karlan

Michigan Law Review

Two interracial couples. Two cases. Two clauses. In Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court struck down a Virginia statute outlawing interracial marriage. In Lawrence v. Texas, the Court struck down a Texas statute outlawing sexual activity between same-sex individuals. Each case raised challenges under both the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Spanish Predominant Language Ordinance: Is Spanish On The Way In And English On The Way Out., Adriana Resendez

St. Mary's Law Journal

El Cenizo's Spanish language ordinance is likely to survive a constitutional challenge. The City Council of El Cenizo’s Spanish language ordinance, however, has generated a significant amount of controversy in the United States. The ordinance stipulates that all city council meetings will be made in the city’s predominant language—Spanish. Critics argue that the ordinance has made Spanish the official language. Critics also argue that the ordinance is discriminatory toward English speakers. English only advocacy groups, such as English First and U.S. English, argue that the ordinance will create a trend across the United States of immigrants refusing to embrace an …

From Little Acorns Great Oaks Grow: The Constitutionality Of Protecting Minors From Harmful Internet Material In Public Libraries Comment., Kimberly S. Keller

St. Mary's Law Journal

Congress should focus on the receiver's end of Internet transmissions to overcome the anonymity and transmogrification elements of the Internet to protect minors from harmful material. Throughout the years, librarians have struggled with monitoring minors’ access to the accumulating number of controversial texts in the library. The Internet’s unique infrastructure affords librarians virtually no opportunity for the pre-shelf review available with books and videos. Congress enacted the Communications Decency Act (CDA) in 1996 in an attempt to protect minors from the underbelly of the internet. The United States Supreme Court, in Reno v. ACLU, struck down the CDA ruling that …

Reconsidering Strict Scrutiny Of Affirmative Action, Brent E. Simmons

Michigan Journal of Race and Law

Under the artificial constraints of strict scrutiny, however, the courts are free to veto the government's choice of more effective, race-conscious means. The Supreme Court's unfortunate and ill-conceived adoption of strict scrutiny as the constitutional standard for reviewing race-conscious affirmative action should be reconsidered for several reasons. This Article examines those reasons.

Adarand Constructors, Inc. V. Pena: The Lochnerization Of Affirmative Action Recent Development., Patricia A. Carlson

St. Mary's Law Journal

The Supreme Court’s decision in Adarand will lead to the invalidation of many federal programs because the decision requires strict scrutiny for all affirmative action programs, including federal programs. The Court ignores both constitutional strictures and American history by resorting to Lochner era rulings of striking down federal socio-economic regulations. Overturning the clear precedent of Fullilove undermines stare decisis by valuing the language of the Court’s decision over its meaning.   The Court in Adarand presumes that the Constitution is color-blind. This presumption ignores the history leading up to the Reconstruction Amendments, the purpose of the Reconstruction Amendments, and the intentions …

Affirmative Action, Douglas Scherer, John Dunne

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Equal Protection

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Entering The Thicket - Mandamus Review Of Texas District Court Witness Disclosure Orders., David W. Holman, Byron C. Keeling

St. Mary's Law Journal

In the absence of statutory authorization of interlocutory appeal, the writ of mandamus usually is the sole convenient remedy for an egregious trial court decision prior to judgment. The increasing number of mandamus petitions which annually invade the Texas appellate courts reflects the importance of the writ of mandamus. While once described as the “extraordinary” remedy, it is not uncommon for proceedings in a trial court to cease while a party seeks mandamus review of a controversial discovery ruling. One type of discovery rule which has not escaped mandamus review is the admission or exclusion of the testimony of witnesses …

The Court Acknowledges The Illegitimate: Levy V. Louisiana And Glona V. American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Co., John C. Gray Jr., David Rudovsky

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.