Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 9 of 9
Full-Text Articles in Public Law and Legal Theory
Can Dna Be Speech?, Jorge R. Roig
Can Dna Be Speech?, Jorge R. Roig
Jorge R Roig
The Future Of Polyamorous Marriage: Lessons From The Marriage Equality Struggle, Hadar Aviram, Gwendolyn Manriquez Leachman
The Future Of Polyamorous Marriage: Lessons From The Marriage Equality Struggle, Hadar Aviram, Gwendolyn Manriquez Leachman
Hadar Aviram
Amidst the recent legal victories and growing public support for same-sex marriage, numerous polyamorous individuals have expressed interest in pursuing legal recognition for marriages between more than two consenting adults. This Article explores the possibilities that exist for such a polyamorous marriage equality campaign, in light of the theoretical literature on law and social movements, as well as our own original and secondary research on polyamorous and LGBT communities. Among other issues, we examine the prospect of prioritizing the marriage struggle over other forms of nonmarital relationship recognition; pragmatic regulative challenges, like taxation, healthcare, and immigration; and how law and …
Preventing Balkanization Or Facilitating Racial Domination: A Critique Of The New Equal Protection, Darren L. Hutchinson
Preventing Balkanization Or Facilitating Racial Domination: A Critique Of The New Equal Protection, Darren L. Hutchinson
Darren L Hutchinson
Abstract
Preventing Balkanization or Facilitating Racial Domination: A Critique of the
New Equal Protection
The Supreme Court requires that equal protection plaintiffs prove defendants acted with discriminatory intent. The intent rule has insulated from judicial invalidation numerous policies that harmfully impact racial and ethnic minorities. Court doctrine also mandates that state actors remain colorblind. The colorblindness doctrine has caused the Court to invalidate many policies that were designed to ameliorate the conditions of racial inequality. Taken together, these two equality doctrines facilitate racial domination. The Court justifies this outcome on the ground that the Constitution does not protect “group rights.” …
"Not Without Political Power": Gays And Lesbians, Equal Protection, And The Suspect Class Doctrine, Darren Hutchinson
"Not Without Political Power": Gays And Lesbians, Equal Protection, And The Suspect Class Doctrine, Darren Hutchinson
Darren L Hutchinson
The Supreme Court purportedly utilizes the suspect class doctrine in order to balance institutional concerns with the protection of important constitutional rights. The Court, however, inconsistently applies this doctrine, and it has not precisely defined its contours. The political powerlessness factor is especially undertheorized and contradictorily applied. Nevertheless, this factor has become salient in recent equal protection cases brought by gay and lesbian plaintiffs.
A growing body of and federal and state-court precedent addresses the flaws of the Court’s suspect class doctrine. This Article discusses the inadequacies of the suspect class doctrine and highlights problems within the emerging scholarship and …
Deadly Dicta: Roe’S “Unwanted Motherhood”, Gonzales’S “Women’S Regret” And The Shifting Narrative Of Abortion Jurisprudence, Stacy A. Scaldo
Deadly Dicta: Roe’S “Unwanted Motherhood”, Gonzales’S “Women’S Regret” And The Shifting Narrative Of Abortion Jurisprudence, Stacy A. Scaldo
Stacy A Scaldo
For thirty-four years, the narrative of Supreme Court jurisprudence on the issue of abortion was firmly focused on the pregnant woman. From the initial finding that the right to an abortion stemmed from a constitutional right to privacy[1], through the test applied and refined to determine when that right was abridged[2], to the striking of statutes found to over-regulate that right[3], the conversation from the Court’s perspective maintained a singular focus. Pro-life arguments focusing on the fetus as the equal or greater party of interest were systematically pushed aside by the Court.[4] The consequences of an unwanted pregnancy, or as …
Religions As Sovereigns: Why Religion Is "Special", Elizabeth A. Clark
Religions As Sovereigns: Why Religion Is "Special", Elizabeth A. Clark
Elizabeth A. Clark
The Tenuous Case For Conscience, Steven D. Smith
The Tenuous Case For Conscience, Steven D. Smith
Steven D. Smith
If there is any single theme that has provided the foundation of modern liberalism and has infused our more specific constitutional commitments to freedom of religion and freedom of speech, that theme is probably “freedom of conscience.” But some observers also perceive a progressive cheapening of conscience– even a sort of degradation. Such criticisms suggest the need for a contemporary rethinking of conscience. When we reverently invoke “conscience,” do we have any idea what we are talking about? Or are we just exploiting a venerable theme for rhetorical purposes without any clear sense of what “conscience” is or why it …
Understanding The Prop 8 Litigation: The Scope Of Direct Democracy And Role Of Judicial Scrutiny, Ronald Steiner
Understanding The Prop 8 Litigation: The Scope Of Direct Democracy And Role Of Judicial Scrutiny, Ronald Steiner
Ronald L. Steiner
Once the California Supreme Court decision is handed down, the precise contours of the battle over Proposition 8 and marriage equality will change, but nothing on the political horizon will make moot many of the fundamental issues direct democracy raises for California and the nation. A special and enduring element of the Prop 8 controversy is the role of judicial review in the scrutiny of the results of ballot propositions. A slice of conventional wisdom seems to suggest that the results of plebiscites should be nearly immune from judicial review. On the other hand, many political and legal scholars are …
The Unexceptionalism Of Evolving Standards, Corinna Barrett Lain
The Unexceptionalism Of Evolving Standards, Corinna Barrett Lain
Corinna Lain
Conventional wisdom is that outside the Eighth Amendment context, the Supreme Court does not engage in the sort of explicitly majoritarian state nose-counting for which the “evolving standards of decency” doctrine is famous. Yet this impression is simply inaccurate. Across a stunning variety of civil liberties contexts, the Court routinely—and explicitly—bases constitutional protection on whether a majority of states agree with it. This Article examines the Supreme Court’s reliance on the majority position of the states to identify constitutional norms, then turns to the qualifications, explanations, and implications of state polling as a larger doctrinal phenomenon. While the past few …