Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Congress (2)
- Discrimination (2)
- Race and law (2)
- United States Supreme Court (2)
- 18 USC 7 (1)
-
- Adarand Constructors Inc. v. Pena (1)
- Adjudicative facts (1)
- Affirmative action (1)
- African Americans (1)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey (1)
- Autonomy (1)
- City of Boerne v. Flores (1)
- City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co. (1)
- Civil Rights Act of 1964 (1)
- Consequentialism (1)
- Constitutionality (1)
- Department of Justice (1)
- Disparate impact (1)
- Due Process Clause (1)
- Enforcement (1)
- Enforcement powers (1)
- Equal Protection Clause (1)
- Equal protection (1)
- Fair trial (1)
- Fifteenth Amendment (1)
- Gratz v. Bollinger (1)
- Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (1)
- Group treatment (1)
- Grutter v. Bollinger (1)
- Harmless error (1)
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law and Race
Equal Protection And Disparate Impact: Round Three, Richard A. Primus
Equal Protection And Disparate Impact: Round Three, Richard A. Primus
Articles
Prior inquiries into the relationship between equal protection and disparate impact have focused on whether equal protection entails a disparate impact standard and whether laws prohibiting disparate impacts can qualify as legislation enforcing equal rotection. In this Article, Professor Primus focuses on a third question: whether equal protection affirmatively forbids the use of statutory disparate impact standards. Like affirmative action, a statute restricting racially disparate impacts is a race-conscious mechanism designed to reallocate opportunities from some racial groups to others. Accordingly, the same individualist view of equal protection that has constrained the operation of affirmative action might also raise questions …
Trust Me, I’M A Judge: Why Binding Judicial Notice Of Jurisdictional Facts Violates The Right To Jury Trial, William M. Carter Jr.
Trust Me, I’M A Judge: Why Binding Judicial Notice Of Jurisdictional Facts Violates The Right To Jury Trial, William M. Carter Jr.
Articles
The conventional model of criminal trials holds that the prosecution is required to prove every element of the offense beyond the jury's reasonable doubt. The American criminal justice system is premised on the right of the accused to have all facts relevant to his guilt or innocence decided by a jury of his peers. The role of the judge is seen as limited to deciding issues of law and facilitating the jury's fact-finding. Despite these principles,judges are reluctant to submit to the jury elements of the offense that the judge perceives to be . routine, uncontroversial or uncontested.
One such …
Reinforcing Representation: Enforcing The Fourteenth And Fifteenth Amendments In The Rehnquist And Waite Courts, Ellen D. Katz
Reinforcing Representation: Enforcing The Fourteenth And Fifteenth Amendments In The Rehnquist And Waite Courts, Ellen D. Katz
Articles
A large body of academic scholarship accuses the Rehnquist Court of "undoing the Second Reconstruction," just as the Waite Court has long been blamed for facilitating the end of the First. This critique captures much of what is meant by those generally charging the Rehnquist Court with "conservative judicial activism." It posits that the present Court wants to dismantle decades' worth of federal antidiscrimination measures that are aimed at the "reconstruction" of public and private relationships at the local level. It sees the Waite Court as having similarly nullified the civil-rights initiatives enacted by Congress following the Civil War to …