Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Supreme Court of the United States Commons™
Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Supreme Court of the United States
The Replacement Dilemma: An Argument For Eliminating A Non-Class Replacement Requirement In The Prima Facie Stage Of Title Vii Individual Disparate Treatment Discrimination Claims, Marla Swartz
Michigan Law Review
Although manifestations of discrimination in the workplace have changed greatly over time, employment discrimination continues to be a tremendous problem in society. By enacting Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), Congress shielded employees from arbitrary adverse employment actions arising from discrimination related to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Three years later, Congress passed the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), guaranteeing the same protections against discrimination based on age.4 Finally, the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), passed in 1990, prohibited discrimination based on personal disability. Ten years after Congress enacted the Civil Rights …
Rights Against Rules: The Moral Structure Of American Constitutional Law, Matthew D. Adler
Rights Against Rules: The Moral Structure Of American Constitutional Law, Matthew D. Adler
Michigan Law Review
The Bill of Rights, by means of open-ended terms such as "freedom of speech," "equal protection," or "due process," refers to moral criteria, which take on constitutional status by virtue of being thus referenced. We can disagree about whether the proper methodology for judicial application of these criteria is originalist or nonoriginalist. The originalist looks, not to the true content of the moral criteria named by the Constitution, but to the framers' beliefs about that content; the nonoriginalist tries to determine what the criteria truly require, and ignores or gives less weight to the framers' views. Bracketing this disagreement, however, …
The 1986 And 1987 Affirmative Action Cases: It's All Over But The Shouting, Herman Schwartz
The 1986 And 1987 Affirmative Action Cases: It's All Over But The Shouting, Herman Schwartz
Michigan Law Review
For the moment, the affirmative action wars are over. In a ten-year set of decisions, culminating in five during the last two terms, the Court has now legitimated almost all types of race and gender preferences, even if they benefit nonvictims, including voluntarily adopted preferences in hiring, promotion, university admissions, and government contracting; hiring and promotion preferences in consent decrees; and court-ordered hiring and promotions. It has approved preferences by both public and private bodies, and for both racial-ethnic minorities and women. It has barred only layoffs of white (and presumably male) employees who have more seniority than employees hired …
Residency Requirements For Voting And The Tensions Of A Mobile Society, John R. Schmidhauser
Residency Requirements For Voting And The Tensions Of A Mobile Society, John R. Schmidhauser
Michigan Law Review
It is the purpose of this article to determine the extent to which persons otherwise qualified to vote are disenfranchised by the complex of state residency requirements and to assess the practical and constitutional aspects of any statutory prospects for change.
Political Thickets And Crazy Quilts: Reapportionment And Equal Protection, Robert B. Mckay
Political Thickets And Crazy Quilts: Reapportionment And Equal Protection, Robert B. Mckay
Michigan Law Review
If asked to identify the two most important cases decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in the twentieth century, informed observers would be likely to name, in whichever order, Brown v. Board of Education and Baker v. Carr.
Legislative Apportionment And Representative Government: The Meaning Of Baker V. Carr, Jo Desha Lucas
Legislative Apportionment And Representative Government: The Meaning Of Baker V. Carr, Jo Desha Lucas
Michigan Law Review
In three recent cases the Supreme Court has reopened the question of the extent to which federal courts will review the general fairness of state schemes of legislative apportionment. It is a question on which the Court has had nothing to say for over a decade, leaving the bar to patch together the current state of the law from the outcome of cases disposed of without opinion considered against a backdrop of language used in earlier decisions.