Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
The New Jim Crow’S Equal Protection Potential, Katherine Macfarlane
The New Jim Crow’S Equal Protection Potential, Katherine Macfarlane
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
In 1954, the Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board of Education opinion relied on social science research to overturn Plessy v. Ferguson’s separate but equal doctrine. Since Brown, social science research has been considered by the Court in cases involving equal protection challenges to grand jury selection, death penalty sentences, and affirmative action. In 2016, Justice Sotomayor cited an influential piece of social science research, Michelle Alexander’s The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness, in her powerful Utah v. Strieff dissent. Sotomayor contended that the Court’s holding overlooked the unequal racial impact of suspicionless …
Equal Protection And Scrutinizing Scrutiny: The Supreme Court’S Decision In Sessions V. Morales-Santana, Jonathan Burt
Equal Protection And Scrutinizing Scrutiny: The Supreme Court’S Decision In Sessions V. Morales-Santana, Jonathan Burt
Utah Law Review
This Note attempts to synthesize the cases on 8 U.S.C. § 1409(c) and provide a workable framework for intermediate scrutiny in the equal protection realm. Intermediate scrutiny, like all levels of scrutiny, is an ends-means balancing test. Under intermediate scrutiny, the ends must be “important.” The interest cannot be “hypothetical” or “invented post hoc in response to litigation.”234 Instead, it must be the actual reason behind the statutory classification and this must be clearly demonstrated by the government. On the other side, the means must “substantially relate” to the asserted interest. The means chosen cannot result from overbroad assumptions about …
Embracing The Chinese Exclusion Case: An International Law Approach To Racial Exclusions, Lauri Kai
Embracing The Chinese Exclusion Case: An International Law Approach To Racial Exclusions, Lauri Kai
William & Mary Law Review
No abstract provided.