Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Supreme Court of the United States Commons™
Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- United States Supreme Court (2)
- Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (1)
- Brown v. Allen (1)
- Congress (1)
- Criminal justice (1)
-
- Discrimination (1)
- Due process (1)
- Dunlop Commission (1)
- Employees (1)
- Employers (1)
- Employment contracts (1)
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (1)
- Equal Protection Clause (1)
- Federal court (1)
- Federal courts (1)
- Habeas Corpus (1)
- Incumbency (1)
- Judicial review (1)
- Labor arbitration (1)
- Labor unions (1)
- Legislative interpretation (1)
- Organized labor (1)
- Partisanship (1)
- Postconviction challenges (1)
- Redistricting (1)
- Shaw v. Reno (1)
- Standards of review (1)
- State courts (1)
- Vote dilution (1)
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Supreme Court of the United States
The Path To Habeas Corpus Narrows: Interpreting 28 U.S.C. § 2254(D)(1), Sharad Sushil Khandelwal
The Path To Habeas Corpus Narrows: Interpreting 28 U.S.C. § 2254(D)(1), Sharad Sushil Khandelwal
Michigan Law Review
The enforcement of the U.S. Constitution within the criminal justice system is an odd subspecies of constitutional law. In areas other than criminal law, federal courts act as the ultimate guarantors of constitutional rights by providing remedies whenever violations occur. Criminal law, however, is different by necessity; the bulk of criminal justice occurs in state courthouses, leaving constitutional compliance largely to state judges. The U.S. Supreme Court, of course, may review these decisions if it chooses, but a writ of certiorari can be elusive, especially given the Court's shrinking docket. After World War II, however, this feature of criminal constitutional …
The Unwelcome Judicial Obligation To Respect Politics In Racial Gerrymandering Remedies, Jeffrey L. Fisher
The Unwelcome Judicial Obligation To Respect Politics In Racial Gerrymandering Remedies, Jeffrey L. Fisher
Michigan Law Review
Like it or not, the attack on "bizarrely" shaped majority-minority electoral districts is now firmly underway. Nearly four years have passed since the Supreme Court first announced in Shaw v. Reno that a state's redistricting plan that is "so extremely irregular on its face that it rationally can be viewed only as an effort to segregate the races for purposes of voting" may violate the Equal Protection Clause. Such a district, the Court held, reinforces racial stereotypes, carries us further from the goal of a political system in which race no longer matters, and "threatens to undermine our system of …
Why Mandatory Arbitration May Benefit Workers, Theodore J. St. Antoine
Why Mandatory Arbitration May Benefit Workers, Theodore J. St. Antoine
Articles
Would employees-including union employees-be better off with mandatory arbitration, even of statutory employment claims? The answer to this important question should depend less on abstract notions about the importance of statutory claims and the sanctity of the right to a jury trial, and more on a pragmatic assessment of what is likely to be best for the great majority of workers. Employing this type of analysis, which would take into account an overworked, underfunded Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, backlogged court dockets and other practical problems, my view is that most employees might well be better off with mandatory arbitration, provided …