Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 10 of 10
Full-Text Articles in Law
What Standards Apply When Freedoms Collide?, Neal Devins
What Standards Apply When Freedoms Collide?, Neal Devins
Neal E. Devins
No abstract provided.
The Possible Final Word On Employment Discrimination Relief, Neal Devins
The Possible Final Word On Employment Discrimination Relief, Neal Devins
Neal E. Devins
No abstract provided.
Righting Past Wrongs: When Affirmative Action May Be Reverse Discrimination, Neal Devins
Righting Past Wrongs: When Affirmative Action May Be Reverse Discrimination, Neal Devins
Neal E. Devins
No abstract provided.
School Desegregation Law In The 1980'S: The Courts' Abandonment Of Brown V. Board Of Education, Neal Devins
School Desegregation Law In The 1980'S: The Courts' Abandonment Of Brown V. Board Of Education, Neal Devins
Neal E. Devins
No abstract provided.
Affirmative Action After Reagan, Neal Devins
A New Look At An Old Association: Will Today's Women Be Tomorrow's Jaycees?, Neal Devins
A New Look At An Old Association: Will Today's Women Be Tomorrow's Jaycees?, Neal Devins
Neal E. Devins
No abstract provided.
Bakke’S Lasting Legacy: Redefining The Landscape Of Equality And Liberty In Civil Rights Law, Rachel F. Moran
Bakke’S Lasting Legacy: Redefining The Landscape Of Equality And Liberty In Civil Rights Law, Rachel F. Moran
Faculty Scholarship
The fortieth anniversary of Regents of the University of California v. Bakke is worth commemorating simply because the decision has survived. The United States Supreme Court’s opinion upholding the use of race in admissions has had remarkable staying power, even as other programs of affirmative action, for example, in government contracting, have been struck down as unconstitutional. That longevity might seem surprising because Bakke set forth an exacting standard of strict scrutiny under equal protection law that renders all race-based classifications suspect, whether government officials are motivated by benign or invidious purposes. That standard is one that few programs can …
Dignity And Civility, Reconsidered, Leah Litman
Dignity And Civility, Reconsidered, Leah Litman
Articles
People often talk about the Chief Justice, Justice Kagan, and Justice Breyer as the institutionalists on the modern Supreme Court. And that’s true, they are. Those Justices care about the Court as an institution and the Court’s reputation. They do not want people to look at the Court as a set of politicians in robes; and they do not want people to see judges as having ideological or partisan agendas. That is how they think of themselves, and they are willing to make compromises to maintain that image of the Court, and to set aside their personal beliefs in order …
Class Actions, Indivisibility, And Rule 23(B)(2), Maureen Carroll
Class Actions, Indivisibility, And Rule 23(B)(2), Maureen Carroll
Articles
The federal class-action rule contains a provision, Rule 23(b)(2), that authorizes class-wide injunctive or declaratory relief for class-wide wrongs. The procedural needs of civil rights litigation motivated the adoption of the provision in 1966, and in the intervening years, it has played an important role in managing efforts to bring about systemic change. At the same time, courts have sometimes struggled to articulate what plaintiffs must show in order to invoke Rule 23(b)(2). A few years ago, the Supreme Court weighed in, stating that the key to this type of class action is the “indivisible” nature of the remedy the …
The New Impartial Jury Mandate, Richard Lorren Jolly
The New Impartial Jury Mandate, Richard Lorren Jolly
Michigan Law Review
Impartiality is the cornerstone of the Constitution’s jury trial protections. Courts have historically treated impartiality as procedural in nature, meaning that the Constitution requires certain prophylactic procedures that secure a jury that is more likely to reach verdicts impartially. But in Peña- Rodriguez v. Colorado, 137 S. Ct. 855 (2017), the Supreme Court recognized for the first time an enforceable, substantive component to the mandate. There, the Court held that criminal litigants have a Sixth Amendment right to jury decisions made without reliance on extreme bias, specifically on the basis of race or national origin. The Court did not …