Digital Commons Network^™

The Judicial Nominations Wars, William P. Marshall

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Access To Justice For A New Century: The Way Forward, Julia H. Bass, W. A. Bogart, Frederick H. Zemans

Books

This book is a timely addition to the literature on access to justice. The book's essays address all aspects of the topic, including differing views on the meaning of access to justice; ways to improve access to legal services; litigation and its role in achieving social justice; and the roles of lawyers, citizens, and legal insitutions.

Access to Justice for a New Century is based on papers given at an international symposium presented by the Law Society of Upper Canada, sponsored by the Law Foundation of Ontario.

When Are Releases Of Claims For Erisa Plan Benefits Effective?, 38 J. Marshall L. Rev. 773 (2005), Albert Feuer

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Chained To The Past: An Overview Of Criminal Expungement Law In Minnesota —State V. Schultz , Jon Geffen, Stefanie Letze

William Mitchell Law Review

This article explains Minnesota’s expungement law and analyzes a recent Minnesota Court of Appeals decision that limits the expungement remedy. Specifically, this article begins by examining the effects of a criminal record and the purposes of expungement.8 An expungement’s main purpose is to seal an individual’s criminal record from public view, thereby allowing the individual to fully reintegrate into society. This article then provides an overview of current expungement law and its history. This article also explains different types of criminal records and the different mechanisms used to seal each type of record. The focus of this article is on …

Constitutional Accommodation And The Rule(S) Of Courts, Lorne Sossin

Articles & Book Chapters

Constitutional authority for the development and implementation of the rules of court lies with both the legislature, by its statutory power, and the judiciary, by the constitutional principles of judicial independence. The court rules in question here are those that govern court accessibility as well as the roles and responsibilities of parties in civil litigation. The three existing models of rule-making are court-led, where a majority of government officials, and collaborative, which lacks an evident majority of either. These rule-making bodies do not control court fees, the executive does, but in a system with any model, the judiciary always has …

Public Availability Or Practical Obscurity: The Debate Over Public Access To Court Records On The Internet, Arminda Bradford Bepko

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.

Permissive Pornography: The Selective Censorship Of The Internet Under Cipa, Heidi Wachs

Cardozo Journal of Equal Rights & Social Justice

The note critiques the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) and its implementation, arguing that while its intent to protect children from online pornography is laudable, the mandated use of Internet filters is flawed. The study demonstrates that current filtering technology often overblocks access to critical nonpornographic health information, particularly affecting vulnerable populations like teenagers seeking sexual health resources. The Supreme Court's ruling in United States v. American Library Association upheld CIPA, dismissing less restrictive alternatives, but the article contends that this approach may harm patrons by restricting access to essential information.

Teaching Race Without A Critical Mass: Reflections On Affirmative Action And The Diversity Rationale, Kathryn R.L Rand, Steven Andrew Light

Journal of Legal Education

No abstract provided.

Jurisprudence: Due Process Concerns For The Underrepresented Domestic Violence Victim, Rebecca Fialk, Tamara Mitchel

Buffalo Women's Law Journal

No abstract provided.

A State's Power To Enter Into A Consent Decree That Violates State Law Provisions: What "Findings" Of A Federal Violation Are Sufficient To Justify A Consent Decree That Trumps State Law?, David W. Swift

ExpressO

In the last forty years federal courts have played a prominent role in reshaping our public institutions. And while some scholars question the efficacy of these structural injuctions, the authority of federal courts to order such relief is generally unquestioned. What is open to debate, however, is whether state officials can agree to a remedy they would not have had the authority to order themselves; and if so, to what extent must an underlying constitutional violation be proved so as to justify the remedy?

This article discusses the competing theories and concludes that a remedy that violates state law may …

Aiding Terrorists: Hearing Before The S. Comm. On The Judiciary, 108th Cong., May 5, 2004 (Statement Of David D. Cole, Geo. U. L. Center), David Cole

Testimony Before Congress

No abstract provided.

Who Gets In? The Quest For Diversity After Grutter, Athena D. Mutua, Sheldon Zedeck, Frank H. Wu, Charles E. Daye, Margaret E. Montoya, David L. Chambers

Buffalo Law Review

On March 8, 2004, the University at Buffalo Law School hosted its annual Mitchell Lecture,1 a panel discussion entitled, "Who Gets In? The Quest for Diversity After Grutter." The Mitchell Committee decided to focus this year's lecture on innovative proposals to ensure diversity in law school admissions in light of the Supreme Court's ruling in Grutter v. Bollinger, which confirmed that race and ethnicity could be taken into consideration in admission decisions for diversity purposes. Noting that much of the debate about Grutter thus far has emphasized the decision's constitutionality or its implications for affirmative action, the Committee sought to …

Courts As Forums For Protest, Jules Lobel

ExpressO

For almost half a century, scholars, judges and politicians have debated two competing models of the judiciary’s role in a democratic society. The mainstream model views courts as arbiters of disputes between private individuals asserting particular rights. The public law or structural reform litigation emphasized the judiciary’s role in implementing social change and not simply ordering private relationships.

The ongoing debate between these two views of the judicial role has obscured a third model of the role of courts in a democratic society; a model that has been ignored by legal scholars and viewed as illegitimate by some courts. That …

The Evolution Of Sherman Act Jurisdiction: A Roadmap For Competitive Federalism, D. Bruce Johnsen

ExpressO

Recent Supreme Court decisions confirm for the first time in over six decades that federal regulatory authority under the Commerce Clause truly is limited. These decisions coincide with an increasing appreciation among scholars and jurists for the concept of competitive federalism. This paper derives the implications of competitive federalism for the evolution of federal jurisdiction over trade restraints under the Sherman Antitrust Act (1890). It provides a clear and substantively reasoned jurisdictional test based on the analysis of geographic market power familiar to antitrust scholars, practitioners, and regulators in evaluating horizontal mergers. To be subject to federal antitrust jurisdiction under …

Judge Keith, The Constitution And National Security From Haddad To Sinclair - The Damon J. Keith Law Collection Of African-American Legal History Wayne State University Spencer Partrich Auditorium November 18, 2003, Robert Allen Sedler

Law Faculty Research Publications

No abstract provided.

Speech And Strife, Robert L. Tsai

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

The essay strives for a better understanding of the myths, symbols, categories of power, and images deployed by the Supreme Court to signal how we ought to think about its authority. Taking examples from free speech jurisprudence, the essay proceeds in three steps. First, Tsai argues that the First Amendment constitutes a deep source of cultural authority for the Court. As a result, linguistic and doctrinal innovation in the free speech area have been at least as bold and imaginative as that in areas like the Commerce Clause. Second, in turning to cognitive theory, he distinguishes between formal legal argumentation …

Constitutional Hardball, 37 J. Marshall L. Rev. 523 (2004), Mark Tushnet

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Fruits, Nuts, Cigarettes, And The Right To Remain Silent, Christine Esperanza

UC Law Constitutional Quarterly

The First Amendment not only protects against limitations on one's speech but against governmentally compelled speech as well. Although the Supreme Court afforded increasing protection to commercial speech, a majority later held that an analysis of compelled advertising in this context did not raise First Amendment issues. In United States v. United Foods. No. 00276 (June 25, 2001), the United States Supreme Court revisited this issue, holding that "the mandated support is contrary to the First Amendment principles set forth in cases involving expression by groups which include persons who object to speech, but who, nevertheless, must remain members of …

Post- Gideon Developments In Law And Lawyering, Timothy Everett

Faculty Articles and Papers

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Hardball, Mark V. Tushnet

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

For the past several years I have been noticing a phenomenon that seems to me new in my lifetime as a scholar of constitutional law. I call the phenomenon constitutional hardball. This Essay develops the idea that there is such a practice, that there is a sense in which it is new, and that its emergence (or re-emergence) is interesting because it signals that political actors understand that they are in a position to put in place a new set of deep institutional arrangements of a sort I call a constitutional order. A shorthand sketch of constitutional hardball is this: …

Stories About Miranda, George C. Thomas Iii

Michigan Law Review

It is no exaggeration to say that Yale Kamisar was present at the creation of Miranda v. Arizona. To be sure, the seeds of Miranda had been sown in earlier cases, particularly Escobedo v. Illinois, but Escobedo was a Sixth Amendment right to counsel case. Professor Kamisar first saw the potential for extending the theory of Escob edo to the Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination. Escob edo theorized that a healthy criminal justice system requires that the accused know their rights and are encouraged to exercise them. The Escobedo Court read history to teach that no system …

Lawrence And Garner: The Love (Or At Least Sexual Attraction) That Finally Dared Speak Its Name, Paris R. Baldacci

Cardozo Journal of Equal Rights & Social Justice

The article examines the legal evolution from *Bowers v. Hardwick* to Lawrence v. Texas, highlighting how the latter marked a pivotal shift in recognizing LGBTQ+ rights by emphasizing personal autonomy and dignity. It underscores the significance of narrative strategies in shaping judicial decisions, particularly in *Lawrence*, where the plaintiffs' personal stories influenced the Court's ruling.

Not For Attribution: Government's Interest In Protecting The Integrity Of Its Own Expression, Helen Norton

Publications

Public entities increasingly maintain that the First Amendment permits them to ensure that private speakers' views are not mistakenly attributed to the government. Consider, for example, Virginia's efforts to ban the Sons of Confederate Veterans' display of the Confederate flag logo on state-sponsored specialty license plates. Seeking to remain neutral in the ongoing debate over whether the Confederate flag is a symbol of "hate" or "heritage," Virginia argued that the state would be wrongly perceived as endorsing the flag if the logo appeared on a state-issued plate adorned by the identifier "VIRGINIA." The Fourth Circuit was unpersuaded, holding that the …

Introduction, Joel K. Goldstein

All Faculty Scholarship

Brown v. Board of Education [1] is the seminal case of the Twentieth Century. Mere mention of the case can start discussion on any number of topics, all important and all that relate to, or were importantly affected by, Brown. Some of those discussions relate to the immediate subject of Brown: Was state-imposed racially segregated public education a violation of the Equal Protection Clause? What is the nature of race relations in America? How close are we to achieving a racially just society? How fair is our system of public education? Others might focus on Brown for its impact on …

Say Cheese: The Constitutionality Of State-Mandated Airtime On Public Broadcasting Stations In Wisconsin, Andrew D. Cotlar

Federal Communications Law Journal

Last year, the State of Wisconsin passed legislation which would require statechartered public broadcasting television networks to carry political advertising for candidates free of charge. In this article, Andrew Cotlar raises many concerns about the wisdom of such legislation and the impact this trend may have on public broadcasters throughout the nation. The author begins by analyzing the current position of the law on political access requirements, at both federal and state levels, and then argues that the public television stations should continue to be free to exercise substantial editorial discretion. The Article proceeds to critique the Wisconsin statute as …

Equal Justice Under The Law: Why Iolta Programs Do Not Violate The First Amendment, Hillary A. Webber

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Foreword: A Silk Purse?, John T. Noonan Jr.

Michigan Law Review

On March 2, 1801, President John Adams appointed forty-two persons to be justices of the peace in the District of Columbia. John Marshall, doubling as Secretary of State as well as Chief Justice, failed to deliver the commissions. Adams's term expired. James Madison, Marshall's successor as Secretary of State, withheld seventeen of the commissions. In 1802, William Marbury and three other appointees to this minor office brought mandamus against Madison in the Supreme Court. Madison was ordered to show cause why the writ should not issue. Congress abolished the June sitting of the Court. Only in 1803 was the case …

The Revival Of "Privileges Or Immunities" And The Controversy Over State Bar Admission Requirements: The Makings Of A Future Constitutional Dilemma?, Wilson Pasley

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The Supreme Court's 1999 decision in Saenz v. Roe relied upon the long ignored Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which had laid dormant since the Slaughter-House Cases of more than a century ago. The Saenz decision sparked considerable debate as to the meaning of the Privileges or Immunities Clause and caused speculation as to the statutes vulnerable to a constitutional challenge under the Clause. This Note examines the potential impact of the Privileges or Immunities Clause on state bar admission requirements and other restrictions on the practice of law. It concludes that the Clause does not create …

A Six-Three Rule: Reviving Consensus And Deference On The Supreme Court, Jed Handelsman Shugerman

Faculty Scholarship

Over the past three decades, the Supreme Court has struck down federal statutes by a bare majority with unprecedented frequency. This Article shows that five-four decisions regularly overturning acts of Congress are a relatively recent phenomenon, whereas earlier Courts generally exercised judicial review by supermajority voting.

One option is to establish the following rule: The Supreme Court may not declare an act of Congress unconstitutional without a two-thirds majority. The Supreme Court itself could establish this rule internally, just as it has created its nonmajority rules for granting certiorari and holds, or one Justice who would otherwise be the fifth …

Are Title Vi's Disparate Impact Regulations Valid?, Bradford Mank

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

This Essay, however, contends that section 602 disparate impact regulations in Tide VI are valid because Congress has implicitly sanctioned their creation, and explicitly approved them in subsequent related statutes.

Part II of this Essay discusses the legislative history of Tide VI, which suggests that Congress intended to give administrative agencies discretion to define "discrimination" in their Tide VI regulations as prohibiting either intentional conduct or actions having disparate impacts against racial minorities as long as the President approved such rules.

Part III illustrates that five different Congresses have enacted four subsequent related statutes that explicitly incorporate Tide VI disparate …