Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Keyword
-
- United States Supreme Court (2)
- Adarand Constructors (1)
- Affirmative action (1)
- Batson v. Kentucky (1)
- City of Richmond v. J. A. Croson Co. (1)
-
- Constitutional law (1)
- Equal opportunity (1)
- Equal protection (1)
- Fairness (1)
- Gender-based affirmative action (1)
- Inc. v. Pena (1)
- Intermediate scrutiny (1)
- Invidious gender discrimination (1)
- Johnson v. Transporation Agency (1)
- Juries (1)
- Jurors (1)
- Level of review (1)
- Pay equity (1)
- Peremptory challenges (1)
- Prosecutors (1)
- Race and law (1)
- Sex discrimination (1)
- Sixth Circuit (1)
- Strict scrutiny (1)
- Title VII (1)
- Trial practice (1)
- United States v. Virginia (1)
- VMI (1)
- Women (1)
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law and Race
Asymmetrical Peremptories Defended: A Reply, Richard D. Friedman
Asymmetrical Peremptories Defended: A Reply, Richard D. Friedman
Articles
Three years ago, with the publication of his article ''An Asymmetrical Approach to the Problem of Peremptories" in this journal, Professor Friedman initiated a debate on the subject that was taken up in 1994 by three prosecutors who offered a rebuttal that was also printed in these pages. Professor Friedman continues the debate.
Affirmative Action As A Women's Issue, Helen Norton
Affirmative Action As A Women's Issue, Helen Norton
Publications
No abstract provided.
Color-Coded Standing, Girardeau A. Spann
Color-Coded Standing, Girardeau A. Spann
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
Remarkably, the Supreme Court has held that whites who wish to challenge the constitutionality of affirmative action plans have standing to do so. In Northeastern Florida Chapter of the Associated General Contractors v. City of Jacksonville the Supreme Court upheld the standing of non-minority construction contractors to challenge a minority setaside program under the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. What is remarkable is not that the result reached in the case was wrong, but that the Court was able to reach that result given its most recent standing precedents. In previous Terms, the Supreme Court had taken …