Law Commons^™

Free Exercise For Whom? -- Could The Religious Liberty Principle That Catholics Established In Perez V. Sharp Also Protect Same-Sex Couples' Right To Marry?, Eric Alan Isaacson

Eric Alan Isaacson

Recent discussions about the threat that same-sex couples hypothetically pose to the religious freedom of Americans whose religions traditions frown upon same-sex unions have largely overlooked the possibility that same-sex couples might have their own religious-liberty interest in being able to marry. The General Synod of the United Church of Christ brought the issue to the fore with an April 2014 lawsuit challenging North Carolina laws barring same-sex marriages. Authored by a lawyer who represented the California Council of Churches and other religions organizations as amici curiae in recent marriage-equality litigation, this article argues that although marriage is a secular …

Lyman Trumbull: Author Of The Thirteenth Amendment, Author Of The Civil Rights Act, And The First Second Amendment Lawyer, David B. Kopel

David B Kopel

Illinois Senator Lyman Trumbull is not well-known today, but he is one of the "Founding Sons" who transformed the nation and the Constitution before, during, and after the Civil War. He wrote the Thirteenth Amendment, the first Freedmen's Bureau Bill, and the Civil Rights Act. He sponsored the first federal statutes which actually freed slaves. As Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee and later as a civil rights attorney, he did more to protect Second Amendment rights--including taking a test case to the U.S. Supreme Court (Presser v. Illinois)--than did any other lawyer or legislator in the century after Jefferson …

Ideological Voting Applied To The School Desegregation Cases In The Federal Courts Of Appeals From The 1960’S And 70’S, Joe Custer

Joe Custer

This paper considers a research suggestion from Cass Sunstein to analyze segregation cases from the 1960's and 1970's and whether three hypothesis he projected in the article "Ideological Voting on Federal Courts of Appeals: A Preliminary Investigation," 90 Va. L. Rev. 301 (2004), involving various models of judicial ideology, would pertain. My paper considers Sunstein’s three hypotheses in addition to other judicial ideologies to try to empirically determine what was influencing Federal Court of Appeals Judges in regard to Civil Rights issues, specifically school desegregation, in the 1960’s and 1970’s.

The Jury As Constitutional Identity, Andrew G. Ferguson

Andrew G Ferguson

This article seeks to re-conceptualize jury service in America. It suggests a new theory that looks at jury service not as a discrete task, but an on-going constitutional identity. Building off a historical tradition that dates from the Founding, but can be traced through the Suffrage Movement and the Civil Rights Era, this theory focuses on reclaiming the lost constitutional connection of jury service.

Juries once existed at the core of American constitutional identity. At the founding of the country, jury service and voting were twin political rights, equal in stature and importance. Some founders even considered the jury more …

Think Of The Children: Advancing Marriage Equality By Renewing The Focus On Same-Sex Adoption Litigation, Jacob M. Reif

Jacob M Reif

No abstract provided.

Are Same-Sex Marriages Really A Threat To Religious Liberty?, Eric Alan Isaacson

Eric Alan Isaacson

Some have contended that same-sex couples' marriages pose a grave danger to the religious liberty of social conservatives whose faith traditions do not bless same-sex unions. Those who oppose recognizing same-sex couples' right to marry have even contended that their clergy and churches might be subject to hate-crime prosecutions and loss of tax-exempt status if same-sex couples may lawfully marriage. This article seeks to answer those objections, pointing out that many limitations on religious marriages -- such as Roman Catholic doctrine barring remarriage by those who are civilly divorced -- parallel religious rules similarly limiting or withholding recognition from same-sex …

Cognitive Dissonance In A Recession: Minnesota Gop Attacks Marriage Equality In Land Of "Gayest City In America", Aaron J. Shuler

Aaron J Shuler

Despite a tradition of progressive thinking on civil rights and recent specific gains for gays in Minnesota, the State's Republican party is trying to place an anti-marriage equality amendment on the 2012 ballot.

Objecting At The Altar: Why The Herring Good Faith Principle And The Harlow Qualified Immunity Doctrine Should Not Be Married, John M. Greabe

John M Greabe

Response to: Jennifer E. Laurin, Trawling for Herring: Lessons in Doctrinal Borrowing and Convergence, 111 Colum. L. Rev. 670 (2011)

Critics of the curtailment of the exclusionary rule worked by Herring v. United States have denounced the decision as Supreme Court activism posing as derivation from settled law. Professor Jennifer Laurin agrees that Herring breaks with exclusionary rule doctrine but disputes that it lacks any grounding in Court precedent. She says that Herring consummates a long courtship between the Leon good faith exception to the exclusionary rule and the Harlow standard for qualified immunity. Laurin premises her argument on an …

Pearson, Iqbal, And Procedural Judicial Activism, Goutam U. Jois

Goutam U Jois

In its most recent term, the Supreme Court decided Pearson v. Callahan and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, two cases that, even at this early date, can safely be called “game-changers.” What is fairly well known is that Iqbal and Pearson, on their own terms, will hurt civil rights plaintiffs. A point that has not been explored is how the interaction between Iqbal and Pearson will also hurt civil rights plaintiffs. First, the cases threaten to catch plaintiffs on the horns of a dilemma: Iqbal says, in effect, that greater detail is required to get allegations past the motion to dismiss stage. …

Clear As Mud: How The Uncertain Precedential Status Of Unpublished Opinions Muddles Qualified Immunity Determinations, David R. Cleveland

David R. Cleveland

While unpublished opinions are now freely citeable under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1, their precedential value remains uncertain. This ambiguity muddles the already unclear law surrounding qualified immunity and denies courts valuable precedents for making fair and consistent judgments on these critical civil rights issues. When faced with a claim that they have violated a person’s civil rights, government officials typically claim qualified immunity. The test is whether they have violated “clearly established law.” Unfortunately, the federal circuits differ on whether unpublished opinions may be used in determining clearly established law. This article, Clear as Mud: How the Uncertain …