Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Supreme Court of the United States Commons™
Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Antidiscrimination (1)
- California (1)
- California Constitution (1)
- California Supreme Court (1)
- Civil Rights (1)
-
- Constitution (1)
- Constitutional Law (1)
- DOMA (1)
- Defense of Marriage Act (1)
- Discrimination (1)
- Elane Photography v. Willock (1)
- Hobby Lobby (1)
- Hollingsworth (1)
- Initiative (1)
- Marriage (1)
- Ninth Circuit (1)
- Obergefell (1)
- Obergefell v. Hodges (1)
- Perry (1)
- Proponents (1)
- Proposition (1)
- Proposition 22 (1)
- Proposition 8 (1)
- RFRA (1)
- Religion (1)
- Religious Freedom Restoration Act (1)
- Reynolds (1)
- Right to Exclude (1)
- Same-sex marriage (1)
- Sherbert (1)
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Supreme Court of the United States
Half-Baked: The Demand By For-Profit Businesses For Religious Exemptions From Selling To Same-Sex Couples, James M. Donovan
Half-Baked: The Demand By For-Profit Businesses For Religious Exemptions From Selling To Same-Sex Couples, James M. Donovan
Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review
Should bakers be required to make cakes for same-sex weddings? This Article unravels the eclectic arguments that are offered in support of a religious exemption from serving gay customers in the wake of Obergefell.
Preliminary issues first consider invocations of a libertarian right to exclude. Rather than being part of our concept of liberty, this right to exclude from commercial premises is a new rule devised to prevent African Americans from participating in free society. Instead of expanding this racist rule to likewise bar gays from the marketplace, it should be reset to the antebellum standard of free access …
Fixing Hollingsworth: Standing In Initiative Cases, Karl Manheim, John S. Caragozian, Donald Warner
Fixing Hollingsworth: Standing In Initiative Cases, Karl Manheim, John S. Caragozian, Donald Warner
Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review
In Hollingsworth v. Perry, the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal filed by the “Official Proponents” of California’s Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in California. Chief Justice Roberts’ majority opinion held that initiative sponsors lack Article III standing to defend their ballot measures even when state officials refuse to defend against constitutional challenges. As a result, Hollingsworth provides state officers with the ability to overrule laws that were intended to bypass the government establishment—in effect, an “executive veto” of popularly-enacted initiatives.
The Article examines this new “executive veto” in depth. It places Hollingsworth in context, discussing the initiative process …