Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Abortion (1)
- City of Boerne (1)
- Civil Rights (1)
- Conflicts of law (1)
- Congress (1)
-
- Congruence and proportionality (1)
- Constitutional law (1)
- Disability (1)
- Dobbs (1)
- EMTALA (1)
- Emergency medicine (1)
- Enforcement clause power (1)
- Extraterritoriality (1)
- Hate crimes (1)
- Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co. (1)
- Maternal health (1)
- Miscarriage (1)
- Moyle (1)
- Preemption (1)
- Private action (1)
- Racial discrimination (1)
- Rationality standard (1)
- Reproductive healthcare (1)
- Roe (1)
- Sexual orientation (1)
- Thirteenth Amendment (1)
- Workability (1)
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
Brief Of Amici Curiae In Support Of The United States: Moyle & Idaho V. United States, David S. Cohen, Greer Donley, Rachel Rebouché
Brief Of Amici Curiae In Support Of The United States: Moyle & Idaho V. United States, David S. Cohen, Greer Donley, Rachel Rebouché
Amici Briefs
This amicus brief, submitted to the Supreme Court in Moyle v. United States, argues that Moyle, and the impending circuit split surrounding it, is a symptom of a larger workability problem with the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization framework. Dobbs is already proving, in its brief existence, to be unworkable, and must be overturned. In short order, the Dobbs ruling has ushered in an era of unprecedented legal and doctrinal chaos, precipitating a fury of disorienting legal battles across the country. The Dobbs framework has created destabilizing conflicts between federal and state authorities, as in the current …
Brief Of Amici Curiae Thirteenth Amendment Scholars In Support Of Plaintiff-Appellee And Affirmance, William M. Carter Jr., Dawinder S. Sidhu, Alexander Tsesis, Rebecca E. Zietlow
Brief Of Amici Curiae Thirteenth Amendment Scholars In Support Of Plaintiff-Appellee And Affirmance, William M. Carter Jr., Dawinder S. Sidhu, Alexander Tsesis, Rebecca E. Zietlow
Amici Briefs
In the case of United States v. Hatch, the defendant in a hate crimes prosecution brought the first major challenge to the constitutionality of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009. This amicus brief argues that the Act is constitutional under the Thirteenth Amendment.