Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 9 of 9
Full-Text Articles in Law
Memorandum Of Amici Curiae Fred T. Korematsu Center For Law And Equality And Columbia Legal Services In Support Of Petition For Review, Fred T. Korematsu Center For Law And Equality, Lisa Brodoff
Memorandum Of Amici Curiae Fred T. Korematsu Center For Law And Equality And Columbia Legal Services In Support Of Petition For Review, Fred T. Korematsu Center For Law And Equality, Lisa Brodoff
Fred T. Korematsu Center for Law and Equality
Semenenko v. Dep't of Social and Health Services
Amici Curiae Brief On Behalf Of The Fred T. Korematsu Center For Law And Equality And The American Academy Of Child And Adolescent Psychiatry In Support Of Petitioner Filed With Consent Of Parties, Fred T. Korematsu Center For Law And Equality, Attorneys For Amicus Curiae
Amici Curiae Brief On Behalf Of The Fred T. Korematsu Center For Law And Equality And The American Academy Of Child And Adolescent Psychiatry In Support Of Petitioner Filed With Consent Of Parties, Fred T. Korematsu Center For Law And Equality, Attorneys For Amicus Curiae
Fred T. Korematsu Center for Law and Equality
In re Collier; State of Missouri ex rel Griffin; In re McElroy; State of Missouri ex rel Lockhart
Brief Of Amici Curiae, Labor And Benefits Law Professors In Support Of Respondents, Fred T. Korematsu Center For Law And Equality
Brief Of Amici Curiae, Labor And Benefits Law Professors In Support Of Respondents, Fred T. Korematsu Center For Law And Equality
Fred T. Korematsu Center for Law and Equality
M&G Polymers USA, LLC et al. v. Hobert Freel Tackett, et al.
Appellees’ Reply Brief, Attorneys For Defendants
Appellees’ Reply Brief, Attorneys For Defendants
Fred T. Korematsu Center for Law and Equality
Fighting Arizona's Attack on Ethnic Studies - Maya Arce, et al. v. John Huppenthal, et. al
Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross-Appellees’Response And Reply Brief, Robert S. Chang, Lorraine Bannai, Charlotte Garden, Fred T. Korematsu Center For Law And Equality, Ronald A. Peterson Law Clinic, Attorneys For Appellants
Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross-Appellees’Response And Reply Brief, Robert S. Chang, Lorraine Bannai, Charlotte Garden, Fred T. Korematsu Center For Law And Equality, Ronald A. Peterson Law Clinic, Attorneys For Appellants
Fred T. Korematsu Center for Law and Equality
Fighting Arizona's Attack on Ethnic Studies - Maya Arce, et al. v. John Huppenthal, et. al
Brief Of Fred T. Korematsu Center Et Al. As Amici Curiae In Support Of Appellants, Robert Chang, Lorraine Bannai, Jessica Levin, Ronald A. Peterson Law Clinic, Fred T. Korematsu Center For Law And Equality, Amici Curiae
Brief Of Fred T. Korematsu Center Et Al. As Amici Curiae In Support Of Appellants, Robert Chang, Lorraine Bannai, Jessica Levin, Ronald A. Peterson Law Clinic, Fred T. Korematsu Center For Law And Equality, Amici Curiae
Fred T. Korematsu Center for Law and Equality
Korematsu Center Civil Rights Amicus Clinic Challenges In-Group Racial Reference in Closing Argument
Appellees’ Principal And Response Brief, Attorneys For Defendants
Appellees’ Principal And Response Brief, Attorneys For Defendants
Fred T. Korematsu Center for Law and Equality
Fighting Arizona's Attack on Ethnic Studies - Maya Arce, et al. v. John Huppenthal, et. al
Brief Of Amicus Curiae Fred T Korematsu Center For Law And Equity, Lisa Brodoff, Fred T. Korematsu Center For Law And Equality
Brief Of Amicus Curiae Fred T Korematsu Center For Law And Equity, Lisa Brodoff, Fred T. Korematsu Center For Law And Equality
Fred T. Korematsu Center for Law and Equality
Civil Right to Counsel Initiative
Invidious Deliberation: The Problem Of Congressional Bias In Federal Hate Crime Legislation, Sara Rankin
Invidious Deliberation: The Problem Of Congressional Bias In Federal Hate Crime Legislation, Sara Rankin
Faculty Articles
The intersection of power and prejudice can control the shape of statutory law, and yet a dearth of legal scholarship investigates it. Invidious Deliberation addresses that deficit. It tackles the problem of prejudice in Congressional deliberations at a particularly critical point: when Congress decides which groups to protect under federal hate crime legislation. The article contends that Congress’s own bias may exclude the most vulnerable groups from hate crime protection. To illustrate the point, this article systematically reviews over two decades of Congressional decisions with respect to expansions of the Hate Crime Statistics Act, a “gateway” for groups seeking protection …