Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
The Dignitary Confrontation Clause, Erin L. Sheley
The Dignitary Confrontation Clause, Erin L. Sheley
Faculty Scholarship
For seventeen years, the Supreme Court’s Confrontation Clause jurisprudence has been confused and confusing. In Crawford v. Washington (2004), the Court overruled prior precedent and held that “testimonial” out-of-court statements could not be admitted at trial unless the defendant had an opportunity to cross-examine the declarant, even when the statement would be otherwise admissible as particularly reliable under an exception to the rule against hearsay. In a series of contradictory opinions over the next several years, the Court proceeded to expand and then seemingly roll back this holding, leading to widespread chaos in common types of cases, particularly those involving …
Yes, Alito, There Is A Right To Privacy: Why The Leaked Dobbs Opinion Is Doctrinally Unsound, Nancy C. Marcus
Yes, Alito, There Is A Right To Privacy: Why The Leaked Dobbs Opinion Is Doctrinally Unsound, Nancy C. Marcus
Faculty Scholarship
On June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court released the final Dobbs majority opinion, which is substantially identical to the draft opinion. Consequently, the critique contained in this essay applies equally to the final Dobbs opinion.
On May 2, 2022, a draft majority opinion dated February 2022 and authored by Justice Alito in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization was leaked to the public. This Essay addresses the doctrinal infirmities of the underlying analysis of the draft Dobbs opinion, as well as the resulting dangers posed for the protection of fundamental privacy rights and liberties in contexts even beyond abortion.
The …
The Problem With Dobbs And The Rule Of Legality, William J. Aceves
The Problem With Dobbs And The Rule Of Legality, William J. Aceves
Faculty Scholarship
In Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the Supreme Court reversed decades of precedent to overrule Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. In anticipation of the Court’s decision, several states adopted “trigger laws” restricting abortion. These laws were explicitly drafted to take effect if Roe and Casey were overturned. These laws joined pre-Roe “zombie laws” that restricted abortion and were never rescinded by state legislatures despite Roe and its progeny. Collectively, trigger laws and zombie laws are now being used in several states to impose restrictions on reproductive autonomy.
This Essay challenges the validity of these …