Law Commons^™

“The Cruelty Is The Point”: Using Buck V. Bell As A Tool For Diversifying Instruction In The Law School Classroom, Tiffany C. Graham

Scholarly Works

Instructors who are looking for opportunities to expose their students to the ways in which intersectional forms of bias impact policy and legal rules can use Buck v. Bell to explore, for instance, the impact of disability and class on the formation of doctrine. A different intersectional approach might use the discussion of the case as a gateway to a broader conversation about the ways in which race and gender bias structured the implementation of sterilization policies around the nation. Finally, those who wish to examine the global impact of American forms of bias can use this case and the …

Enforcing The Rights Of Due Process: The Original Relationship Between The Fourteenth Amendment And The 1866 Civil Rights Act, Kurt T. Lash

Law Faculty Publications

For more than a century, legal scholars have looked to the 1866 Civil Rights Act for clues regarding the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. Because the 1866 version of the Act protected only citizens of the United States, most scholars believe that the Act should be used as a guide to understanding the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship-based Privileges or Immunities Clause. A close look at the original sources, however, reveals that the 1866 Civil Rights Act protected rights then associated with the requirements of due process. The man who drafted Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment, John Bingham, expressly described …

The Myth Of Strict Scrutiny For Fundamental Rights, James E. Fleming, Linda C. Mcclain

Faculty Scholarship

Dissenting in Lawrence v. Texas, Justice Scalia stated that, under the Due Process Clause, if an asserted liberty is a "fundamental right," it triggers "strict scrutiny" that almost automatically invalidates any statute restricting that liberty. For strict scrutiny requires that the challenged statute, to be upheld, must further a "compelling governmental interest" and must be "necessary" or "narrowly tailored" to doing so. Scalia also wrote that if an asserted liberty is not a fundamental right, it is merely a "liberty interest" that triggers rational basis scrutiny that is so deferential that the Court all but automatically upholds the statute in …

Government Endorsement: A Reply To Nelson Tebbe's Government Nonendorsement, Abner S. Greene

Faculty Scholarship

In this response to Nelson Tebbe’s Government Nonendorsement, Abner Greene continues to develop his “thick perfectionist” view of government speech, arguing that the state may use its speech powers to advance various views of the good, from left, center,

The Ninth Circuit’S Treatment Of Sexual Orientation: Defining “Rational Basis Review With Bite”, Ian C. Bartrum

Scholarly Works

When the Ninth Circuit handed down Witt v. Department of the Air Force, President Obama and then-Solicitor General Kagan declined to take an appeal to the Supreme Court. At the time, it seemed that most advocates of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” believed that the administration made that decision because it was afraid the Supreme Court would reverse the Ninth Circuit. If that fear was perhaps well-founded in 2009, it is certainly less so now. In the wake of SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Abbott Laboratories, as well as recent District Court decisions, opponents of federal constitutional protection for gay people …

Shelby V. Holder: Brief Of Professor Patricia A. Broussard And Famu College Of Law Students As Amici Curiae In Support Of Respondents, Patricia A. Broussard, Sabrina Collins, Stacy Hane, Akunna Olumba

Amicus Briefs

Shelby County, Alabama v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., In the Supreme Court of the United States, Brief of Professor Patricia A. Broussard, Sabrina Collins, Stacy Hane, Akunna Olumba and Named Students and Organizations of Florida A & M University College of Law as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondents

Trust Me, I’M A Judge: Why Binding Judicial Notice Of Jurisdictional Facts Violates The Right To Jury Trial, William M. Carter Jr.

Articles

The conventional model of criminal trials holds that the prosecution is required to prove every element of the offense beyond the jury's reasonable doubt. The American criminal justice system is premised on the right of the accused to have all facts relevant to his guilt or innocence decided by a jury of his peers. The role of the judge is seen as limited to deciding issues of law and facilitating the jury's fact-finding. Despite these principles,judges are reluctant to submit to the jury elements of the offense that the judge perceives to be . routine, uncontroversial or uncontested.

One such …

California’S Proposition 187--Does It Mean What It Says? Does It Say What It Means? A Textual And Constitutional Analysis, Lolita K. Buckner Inniss

Publications

No abstract provided.

Selective Incorporation Revisited, Jerold H. Israel

Articles

In June 1960 Justice Brennan's separate opinion in Ohio ex re. Eaton v. Price' set forth what came to be the doctrinal foundation of the Warren Court's criminal procedure revolution. Justice Brennan advocated adoption of what is now commonly described as the "selective incorporation" theory of the fourteenth amendment. That theory, simply put, holds that the fourteenth amendment's due process clause fully incorporates all of those guarantees of the Bill of Rights deemed to be fundamental and thereby makes those guarantees applicable to the states. During the decade that followed Ohio ex re. Eaton v. Price, the Court found incorporated …

Crawford V. Board Of Education Of City Of Los Angeles, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.