Digital Commons Network^™

Law Enforcement And Other Officers

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Law Enforcement And Other Officers

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Public Health

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Right To Counsel

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Right To Be Present

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Right To Be Present

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Right To Be Present

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Rules And Regulations

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Trial By Jury

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Paradox Of United State Democracy, C. A. Gearty

University of Richmond Law Review

This program is about a paradox at the heart of American democracy. We take it for granted that elected officials, like President Bush and members of Congress, run America. In fact, many of the country's most important decisions are taken by nine unelected lawyers accountable to no one. It is a paradox which is increasingly under scrutiny as more and more Americans are coming to question the power of their Supreme Court.

The "Gag Rule" Revisited: Physicians As Abortion Gatekeepers, Maxwell Gregg Bloche

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

To the surprise of many and the dismay of some, the U.S. Supreme Court took it upon itself last term to proclaim a national compromise on the question of abortion. The Court's announced truce, an elaboration on Justice O'Connor's "undue burden" idea, is pragmatic in design but unlikely to prove stable in practice. The three justices who spoke for the Court disparaged Roe with reluctant praise, then upheld its outer shell on the ground that social expectations and the need to sustain the appearance of the rule of law made it impolitic to do otherwise. This awkward doctrinal invention seems …

Free Speech And School Governance In The Wake Of Hazelwood, Rosemary C. Salomone

Faculty Publications

(Excerpt)

The Supreme Court's 1988 decision in Hazelwood School District v. KuhImeier upholding public school officials' authority to censor material in a high school student newspaper sent immediate shock waves throughout the educational and legal communities. The Court's sweeping language in Hazelwood moved far beyond the narrow issue of school newspaper censorship. It even moved beyond the question of appropriate or acceptable speech in public secondary schools. It was clear that Hazelwood could have far-reaching consequences for student rights, school governance, and the scope of official authority to make curricular decisions that reflect the values of the local community.

Some …

When “Special Needs” Meet Probable Cause: Denying The Devil Benefit Of Law, Gerald S. Reamey

Faculty Articles

Removing laws to pursue the lawbreaker may be well intentioned, but the result is that society is susceptible to the evils those laws protect against. The traditional Fourth Amendment safeguards--probable cause and warrants--have been abandoned due to the development of a reasonableness standard because of the presence of “special needs” that were used to justify searches. The adoption of this alternative approach to Fourth Amendment interpretation was signalled by the truly landmark case of Terry v. Ohio.

By adopting the “reasonableness” analysis, the Supreme Court altered the impact of the exclusionary rule without directly modifying the rule. After Griffin v. …

The Constitutional Principle Of Separation Of Powers, Thomas W. Merrill

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court has had many occasions in recent years to consider what it calls "the constitutional principle of separation of powers." The principle in question has been effusively praised and on occasion vigorously enforced. But just what is it? The Court clearly believes that the Constitution contains an organizing principle that is more than the sum of the specific clauses that govern relations among the branches. Yet notwithstanding the many testimonials to the importance of the principle, its content remains remarkably elusive.

The central problem, as many have observed, is that the Court has employed two very different conceptions …

Judicial Deference To Executive Precedent, Thomas W. Merrill

Faculty Scholarship

In 1984, the Supreme Court adopted a new framework for determining when courts should defer to interpretations of statutes by administrative agencies. Previous decisions had looked to multiple contextual factors in answering this question. Chevron U.S., Inc. v. National Resources Defense Council, Inc. appeared to reject this approach and require that federal courts defer to any reasonable interpretation by an agency charged with administration of a statute, provided Congress has not clearly specified a contrary answer. The Court justified this new general rule of deference by positing that Congress has implicitly delegated interpretative authority to all agencies charged with enforcing …

Rouge Et Noir Reread: A Popular Constitutional History Of The Angelo Herndon Case, Kendall Thomas

Faculty Scholarship

In 1932, Eugene Angelo Braxton Hemdon, a young Afro-American member of the Communist Party, U.S.A., was arrested in Atlanta and charged with an attempt to incite insurrection against that state's lawful authority. Some five years later, in Herndon v. Lowry, Herndon filed a writ of habeas corpus asking the U.S. Supreme Court to consider the constitutionality of the Georgia statute under which he had been convicted. Two weeks before his twenty-fourth birthday, the Court, voting 5-4, declared the use of the Georgia political-crimes statute against him unconstitutional on the grounds that it deprived Herndon of his rights to freedom …

Justice Brennan's Gender Jurisprudence, Rebecca Korzec

All Faculty Scholarship

During his thirty-four year tenure on the Supreme Court, Justice William Joseph Brennan, Jr. demonstrated unparalleled sensitivity to the protection of individual rights. Justice Brennan's landmark opinions included Baker v. Carr, Goldberg v. Kelly, and New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. before Brennan, Supreme Court jurisprudence exalted judicial passivity by employing techniques for avoiding constitutional issues, such as abstention, comity, exhaustion of remedies and the political question doctrine.

Against this background, Brennan became an active judicial voice in a series of innovative landmark cases, including decisions requiring federal officials to pay damages for violation of citizens' constitutional rights; authorizing federal …

New York Law School Reporter, Vol 8, No. 2, August 1991, New York Law School

Student Newspapers

No abstract provided.

Modern Confession Law After Duckworth V. Eagan: What's The Use Of Explaining?, Julia C. Weissman

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Challenging Sodomy Statutes: State Constitutional Protections For Sexual Privacy, Juli A. Morris

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Target Corporations, Hostile Horizontal Takeovers And Antitrust Injury Under Section 16 Of The Clayton Act After Cargill, Brent W. Huber

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Authoritarianism And The Rule Of Law, Lynne Henderson

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Drug Testing And Welfare: Taking The Drug War To Unconstitutional Limits?, Philippa M. Guthrie

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Justice Harlan And The Bill Of Rights: A Dichotomy In Constitutional Analysis, Roger J. Miner '56

Endowed/named Lectures and Keynote Addresses

No abstract provided.

Personal Jurisdiction And The Beetle In The Box, Wendy Collins Perdue

Law Faculty Publications

In 1980 in World-Wide Volkswagen v. Woodson, the Supreme Court described personal jurisdiction as "an instrument of interstate federalism." Two years later in Insurance Corporation of Ireland v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, the Court back-pedaled and explained that personal jurisdiction "represents a restriction on judicial power not as a matter of sovereignty, but as a matter of individual liberty." Then, in 1985 in Phillips Petroleum v. Shutts, the Court explained that the purpose of personal jurisdiction is "to protect a defendant from the travail of defending in a distant forum." Three years later in Van Cauwenberghe v. Biard, …

Constitutional Law: Can Music Be Considered Obscene? Skyywalker Records, Inc. V. Navarro: The 2 Live Crew, Obscene Or Oppressed?, Kirk A. Olson

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Eighteen Feet Of Clay: Thoughts On Phantom Rule 4(M), Gene R. Shreve

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Religious Purpose, Inerrancy, And The Establishment Clause, Daniel O. Conkle

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Compounding Confusion And Hampering Diversity: Life After Finley And The Supplemental Jurisdiction Statute, Richard D. Freer

Faculty Articles

It has been a tough couple of years for supplemental jurisdiction. In recent decades, the doctrine, which earlier had been called the "child of necessity and sire of confusion," had become somewhat less confusing. The Supreme Court created a flurry of concern over the future of the doctrine with a pair of restrictive decisions in the late 1970s, but showed no further interest; the lower courts generally interpreted those holdings narrowly. With exceptions in a couple of areas, the application of supple­mental jurisdiction in the various joinder situations became relatively clear and predictable, and the doctrine played a major role …

"I Vote This Way Because I'M Wrong": The Supreme Court Justice As Epimenides, John M. Rogers

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

Possibly the most unsettling phenomenon in the Supreme Court's 1988 term was Justice White's decision to vote contrary to his own exhaustively stated reasoning in Pennsylvania v. Union Gas Co. His unexplained decision to vote against the result of his own analysis lends support to those who argue that law, or at least constitutional law, is fundamentally indeterminate. Proponents of the indeterminacy argument sometimes base their position on the allegedly inescapable inconsistency of decisions made by a multi-member court. There is an answer to the inconsistency argument, but it founders if justices sometimes vote, without explanation, on the basis of …