Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Supreme Court of the United States Commons™
Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Keyword
-
- United States Supreme Court (3)
- African Americans (2)
- Discrimination (2)
- Race and law (2)
- Supreme Court (2)
-
- Voting (2)
- Voting Rights Act (2)
- Al Odah v. United States (321 F.3d 1134 (D.C. Cir. 2003)) (1)
- Authority (1)
- Boumediene v. Bush (553 U.S. 723 (2008)) (1)
- Citizenship (1)
- City of Boerne v. Flores (1)
- Congress (1)
- Constitutional law (1)
- Constitutional violations (1)
- Detention (1)
- Due Process of Law (1)
- Electoral processes (1)
- Employment (1)
- Gerrymandering (1)
- Judicial review (1)
- League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Perry (1)
- Litigation (1)
- Military Commissions Act of 2006 (1)
- Minorities (1)
- Political parties (1)
- Preclearance (1)
- Racial discrimination (1)
- Racism (1)
- Remedial regimes (1)
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Supreme Court of the United States
Section 2: Moot Court, Guantanamo Detainees & The Military Commissions Act, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Section 2: Moot Court, Guantanamo Detainees & The Military Commissions Act, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Supreme Court Preview
No abstract provided.
After 150 Years, Worst Supreme Court Decision Ever Continues To Haunt, F. Michael Higginbotham
After 150 Years, Worst Supreme Court Decision Ever Continues To Haunt, F. Michael Higginbotham
All Faculty Scholarship
In 1857, the Supreme Court rendered a decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, declaring that it had no jurisdiction to hear Dred Scott's claim to freedom because he was black and, therefore, not a citizen of the United States. This article argues that not only was the decision morally reprehensible, it was also based on an erroneous interpretation of the Constitution.
Reviving The Right To Vote, Ellen D. Katz
Reviving The Right To Vote, Ellen D. Katz
Articles
Losers in partisan districting battles have long challenged the resulting districting plans under seemingly unrelated legal doctrines. They have filed lawsuits alleging malapportionment, racial gerrymandering, and racial vote dilution, and they periodically prevail. Many election law scholars worry about these lawsuits, claiming that they needlessly "racialize" fundamentally political disputes, distort important legal doctrines designed for other purposes, and provide an inadequate remedy for a fundamentally distinct electoral problem. I am not convinced. This Article argues that the application of distinct doctrines to invalidate or diminish what are indisputably partisan gerrymanders is not necessarily problematic, and that the practice may well …
Fighting Discrimination While Fighting Litigation: A Tale Of Two Supreme Courts, Scott A. Moss
Fighting Discrimination While Fighting Litigation: A Tale Of Two Supreme Courts, Scott A. Moss
Publications
The U.S. Supreme Court has issued an odd mix of pro-plaintiff and pro-defendant employment law rulings. It has disallowed harassment lawsuits against employers even with failed antiharassment efforts, construed statutes of limitations narrowly to bar suits about ongoing promotion and pay discrimination, and denied protection to public employee internal complaints. Yet the same Court has issued significant unanimous rulings easing discrimination plaintiffs' burdens of proof.
This jurisprudence is often miscast in simple pro-plaintiff or pro-defendant terms. The Court's duality traces to its inconsistent and unaware adoption of competing policy arguments:
Policy 1: Employees must try internal dispute resolution before suing--or …
Congressional Power To Extend Preclearance: A Response To Professor Karlan, Ellen D. Katz
Congressional Power To Extend Preclearance: A Response To Professor Karlan, Ellen D. Katz
Articles
Is the core provision of the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional? Many people now think that the Act's preclearance requirement is invalid, but Professor Karlan is not among them. In part, that is because she is not convinced the problems that originally motivated Congress to impose preclearance have been fully remedied. Professor Karlan points out the many ways section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) shapes behavior in the jurisdictions subject to the statute--not just by blocking discriminatory electoral changes, but also by influencing less transparent conduct by various political actors operating in these regions. Do not be so sure, …