Retaliation And The Reasonable Person, 2015 University of Cincinnati College of Law
Retaliation And The Reasonable Person, Sandra F. Sperino
Faculty Articles and Other Publications
When a worker complains about discrimination, federal law is supposed to protect that worker from later retaliation. Recent scholarly attention focuses on how courts limit retaliation claims by narrowly framing the causation inquiry. A larger threat to retaliation law is developing in the lower courts. Courts are declaring a wide swath of conduct as insufficiently serious to constitute retaliation.
Many courts hold that it is legal for an employer to threaten to fire a worker, to place the worker on administrative leave, or to negatively evaluate the worker because she complained about discriminatory conduct. Even if the worker has evidence …
Petition For Writ Of Certiorari, Kosilek V. O'Brien, 2015 Western New England University School of Law
Petition For Writ Of Certiorari, Kosilek V. O'Brien, Jennifer Levi, Joseph L. Sulman, Abigail K. Hemani, Michele E. Connolly, James P. Devendorf, Jamie A. Santos, Christine Dieter
Faculty Scholarship
Jennifer Levi, on behalf of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, was one of the Authors of the Petition for Writ of Certiorari, filed in the Supreme Court of the United States on behalf of the Petitioner, Michelle Kosilek, in Kosilek v. O'Brien. Questions presented to the Court by the Petitioner were 1.) whether appellate courts must parse “questions that present elements both factual and legal” into their factual and legal components, so that all factual findings can be reviewed for clear error, or whether, as the First Circuit ruled, they may review such questions as a whole along …
Supreme Court Jurisprudence Of The Personal In City Of Los Angeles V. Patel, 2015 University of North Texas-Dallas College of Law
Supreme Court Jurisprudence Of The Personal In City Of Los Angeles V. Patel, Brian L. Owsley
Michigan Law Review First Impressions
Recently, the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision in City of Los Angeles v. Patel striking down a city ordinance that required hotel and motel owners to make their guest registries available to police officers whenever requested to do so. Although the Court’s opinion in Patel simply affirmed the Ninth Circuit’s finding that the ordinance was unconstitutional, the Court could have used Patel to readdress the third-party doctrine, which establishes that “a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties.” Patel provided a vehicle for the Court to do so, particularly because …
Certiorari And The Marriage Equality Cases, 2015 University of Richmond Law School
Certiorari And The Marriage Equality Cases, Carl Tobias
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform Caveat
Marriage equality has come to much of the nation. Over 2014, many district court rulings invalidated state proscriptions on same- sex marriage, while four appeals courts upheld these decisions. However, the Sixth Circuit reversed district judgments which struck down bans in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee. Because that appellate opinion created a patchwork of differing legal regimes across the country, this Paper urges the Supreme Court to clarify marriage equality by reviewing that determination this Term.
Racial Profiling In The War On Drugs Meets The Immigration Removal Process: The Case Of Moncrieffe V. Holder, 2015 University of California at Davis School of Law
Racial Profiling In The War On Drugs Meets The Immigration Removal Process: The Case Of Moncrieffe V. Holder, Kevin R. Johnson
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
In Moncrieffe v. Holder, the Supreme Court held that the Board of Immigration Appeals could not remove a long-term lawful permanent resident from the United States based on a single misdemeanor conviction for possession of a small amount of marijuana. The decision clarified the meaning of an “aggravated felony” for purposes of removal, an important question under the U.S. immigration laws. In the removal proceedings, Adrian Moncrieffe, a black immigrant from Jamaica, did not challenge his arrest and drug conviction. Consequently, the Supreme Court did not review the facts surrounding, or the lawfulness of, the criminal prosecution. Nonetheless, the traffic …
Chevron For Juries, 2015 Wayne State University
Chevron For Juries, William Ortman
Law Faculty Research Publications
No abstract provided.
Reality’S Bite, 2015 Florida International University College of Law
Reality’S Bite, Kerri Lynn Stone
Faculty Publications
The realities of the workplace have been captured by years of socio-scientific, industrial organizational, and other psychological research. Human behavior and thought, interpersonal dynamics, and organizational behavior, with all of their nuances and fine points, are now better understood than they have ever been before, but unless they are used to inform and buttress the rules of law and interpretations promulgated by courts, Title VII’s ability to successfully regulate the workplace to rid it of discrimination will be threatened. This article expands upon that premise, lamenting judges, and specifically justices having eschewed available research and other insights into workplace realities, …
Storming The Castle: Fernandez V. California And The Waning Warrant Requirement, 2015 Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School
Storming The Castle: Fernandez V. California And The Waning Warrant Requirement, Joshua Bornstein
Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review
No abstract provided.
Free Expression, In-Group Bias, And The Court's Conservatives: A Critique Of The Epstein-Parker-Segal Study, 2015 University of Iowa College of Law
Free Expression, In-Group Bias, And The Court's Conservatives: A Critique Of The Epstein-Parker-Segal Study, Todd E. Pettys
Buffalo Law Review
No abstract provided.
Mirandizing Terrorism Suspects? The Public Safety Exception, The Rescue Doctrine, And Implicit Analogies To Self-Defense, Defense Of Others, And Battered Woman Syndrome, 2015 University of the District of Columbia David A Clarke School of Law
Mirandizing Terrorism Suspects? The Public Safety Exception, The Rescue Doctrine, And Implicit Analogies To Self-Defense, Defense Of Others, And Battered Woman Syndrome, Bruce Ching
Journal Articles
This article argues that in creating the public safety exception to the Miranda requirements, the Supreme Court implicitly analogized to the criminal law doctrines of self-defense and defense of others. Thus, examining the justifications of self-defense and defense of others can be useful in determining the contours of the public safety exception and the related "rescue doctrine" exception. In particular, the battered woman syndrome -- which is recognized in a majority of the states and has been successfully invoked by defendants in some self-defense cases -- could provide a conceptual analogue for arguments about whether law enforcement officers were faced …
Federal Securities Fraud Litigation As A Lawmaking Partnership, 2015 University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School
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. …
Fixing Hollingsworth: Standing In Initiative Cases, 2015 Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School
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 …
The Keyes To Reclaiming The Racial History Of The Roberts Court, 2015 University of Denver
The Keyes To Reclaiming The Racial History Of The Roberts Court, Tom Romero Ii
Sturm College of Law: Faculty Scholarship
This article advocates for a fundamental re-understanding about the way that the history of race is understood by the current Supreme Court. Represented by the racial rights opinions of Justice John Roberts that celebrate racial progress, the Supreme Court has equivocated and rendered obsolete the historical experiences of people of color in the United States. This jurisprudence has in turn reified the notion of color-blindness, consigning racial discrimination to a distant and discredited past that has little bearing to how race and inequality is experienced today.
The racial history of the Roberts Court is centrally informed by the context and …
A Functional Theory Of Congressional Standing, 2015 Emory University
A Functional Theory Of Congressional Standing, Jonathan R. Nash
Faculty Articles
The Supreme Court has offered scarce and inconsistent guidance on congressional standing—that is, when houses of Congress or members of Congress have Article III standing. The Court’s most recent foray into congressional standing has prompted lower courts to infuse analysis with separation-of-powers concerns in order to erect a high standard for congressional standing. It has also invited the Department of Justice to argue that Congress lacks standing to enforce subpoenas against executive branch actors.
Injury to congressional litigants should be defined by reference to Congress’s constitutional functions. Those functions include gathering relevant information, casting votes, and (even when no vote …
Litigating State Interests: Attorneys General As Amici, 2015 Duke University School of Law
Litigating State Interests: Attorneys General As Amici, Margaret H. Lemos, Kevin M. Quinn
Faculty Articles
An important strain of federalism scholarship locates the primary value of federalism in how it carves up the political landscape, allowing groups that are out of power at the national level to flourish—and, significantly, to govern—in the states. On that account, partisanship, rather than a commitment to state authority as such, motivates state actors to act as checks on federal power. Our study examines partisan motivation in one area where state actors can, and do, advocate on behalf of state power: the Supreme Court. We compiled data on state amicus filings in Supreme Court cases from the 1979–2013 Terms and …
Equality And Difference - The Restrained State, 2015 Emory University School of Law
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 …
Brief For Society Of American Law Teachers As Amicus Curiae Supporting Respondents, University Of Texas At Austin, 2015 University of Nevada, Las Vegas -- William S. Boyd School of Law
Brief For Society Of American Law Teachers As Amicus Curiae Supporting Respondents, University Of Texas At Austin, Marc A. Hearron, David D. Cross, Bryan J. Leitch
Society of American Law Teachers Archive
No abstract provided.
Defamation And The Government Employee: Redefining Who Constitutes A Public Official, 2015 Assist. Prof. of Law, Belmont University College of Law
Defamation And The Government Employee: Redefining Who Constitutes A Public Official, Jeffrey Omar Usman
Loyola University Chicago Law Journal
No abstract provided.
Kermit Gosnell’S Babies: Abortion, Infanticide And Looking Beyond The Masks Of The Law, 2015 University of Nebraska College of Law
Kermit Gosnell’S Babies: Abortion, Infanticide And Looking Beyond The Masks Of The Law, Richard F. Duncan
Nebraska College of Law: Faculty Publications
If, as Laurence Tribe has observed, “all law tells a story,” this Article tells two stories occurring forty years apart—the story of Justice Harry Blackmun and the unborn human beings he covered with the legal mask of “potential” lives in Roe v. Wade in 1973, and the story of Doctor Kermit Gosnell and the unmasked babies he was convicted of murdering in his Philadelphia abortion clinic in 2013. As Professor Tribe also observes, these stories amount to “a clash of absolutes, of life against liberty,” and therefore they are stories that must be told time and again, until we get …
The Rhetoric Of Constitutional Absolutism, 2015 University of Nebraska College of Law
The Rhetoric Of Constitutional Absolutism, Eric Berger
Nebraska College of Law: Faculty Publications
Though constitutional doctrine is famously unpredictable, Supreme Court Justices often imbue their constitutional opinions with a sense of inevitability. Rather than concede that evidence is sometimes equivocal, Justices insist with great certainty that they have divined the correct answer. This Article examines this rhetoric of constitutional absolutism and its place in our broader popular constitutional discourse. After considering examples of the Justices’ rhetorical performances, this Article explores strategic, institutional, and psychological explanations for the phenomenon. It then turns to the rhetoric’s implications, weighing its costs and benefits. This Article ultimately argues that the costs outweigh the benefits and proposes a …