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
-
- Discrimination (2)
- SCOTUS (2)
- Supreme Court of the United States (2)
- Brown v. Board of Education (1)
- College admissions (1)
-
- Education law (1)
- Eighth Amendment (1)
- Equal protection (1)
- Evolving Standards of Decency (1)
- Fiduciary duty (1)
- Forms of dependence (1)
- Fourteenth Amendment (1)
- Insider trading (1)
- Judicial politics and ideology (1)
- Law and economics (1)
- Legislation (1)
- Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 (1)
- Power (1)
- Private enforcement (1)
- Privilege (1)
- Resilience (1)
- SEC (1)
- Scrutiny (1)
- Securities and Exchange Commission (1)
- Securities regulation (1)
- Segregation (1)
- Sentencing (1)
- Social Darwinism (1)
- Solitary Confinement (1)
- State responsibility (1)
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Supreme Court of the United States
Equality And Difference - The Restrained State, Martha Albertson Fineman
Equality And Difference - The Restrained State, Martha Albertson Fineman
Faculty Articles
Contemporary American law, culture, and political theory restrain the concept of equality as a tool of social justice. Equality in conjunction with a strong emphasis on personal liberty operates as a mandate for curtailing state action, rather than an aspirational measure of the comparative wellbeing of individuals. As a check on state involvement, our cramped notion of equality limits the state's ability to affirmatively address economic, political, social, and structural inequalities.
As interpreted in modern Supreme Court jurisprudence, the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution actually works to restrict the remedial ability of the state. Equality is understood as …
Evolving Standards Of Domination: Abandoning A Flawed Legal Standard And Approaching A New Era In Penal Reform, Spearit
Articles
This Article critiques the evolving standards of decency doctrine as a form of Social Darwinism. It argues that evolving standards of decency provided a system of review that was tailor-made for Civil Rights opponents to scale back racial progress. Although as a doctrinal matter, evolving standards sought to tie punishment practices to social mores, prison sentencing became subject to political agendas that determined the course of punishment more than the benevolence of a maturing society. Indeed, rather than the fierce competition that is supposed to guide social development, the criminal justice system was consciously deployed as a means of social …
Federal Securities Fraud Litigation As A Lawmaking Partnership, Jill E. Fisch
Federal Securities Fraud Litigation As A Lawmaking Partnership, Jill E. Fisch
All Faculty Scholarship
In its most recent Halliburton II decision, the Supreme Court rejected an effort to overrule its prior decision in Basic Inc. v. Levinson. The Court reasoned that adherence to Basic was warranted by principles of stare decisis that operate with “special force” in the context of statutory interpretation. This Article offers an alternative justification for adhering to Basic—the collaboration between the Court and Congress that has led to the development of the private class action for federal securities fraud. The Article characterizes this collaboration as a lawmaking partnership and argues that such a partnership offers distinctive lawmaking advantages. …
The Ironies Of Affirmative Action, Kermit Roosevelt Iii
The Ironies Of Affirmative Action, Kermit Roosevelt Iii
All Faculty Scholarship
The Supreme Court’s most recent confrontation with race-based affirmative action, Fisher v. University of Texas, did not live up to people’s expectations—or their fears. The Court did not explicitly change the current approach in any substantial way. It did, however, signal that it wants race-based affirmative action to be subject to real strict scrutiny, not the watered-down version featured in Grutter v. Bollinger. That is a significant signal, because under real strict scrutiny, almost all race-based affirmative action programs are likely unconstitutional. This is especially true given the conceptual framework the Court has created for such programs—the way …