Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Publication
- File Type
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
Don’T Tell, Don’T Ask: Narrow Tailoring After Grutter And Gratz, Ian Ayres, Sydney Foster
Don’T Tell, Don’T Ask: Narrow Tailoring After Grutter And Gratz, Ian Ayres, Sydney Foster
Ian Ayres
The Supreme Court’s affirmative action decisions in Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger changed the meaning of “narrow tailoring.” While the narrow tailoring requirement has always had multiple dimensions, a central meaning has been that the government must use the smallest racial preference needed to achieve its compelling interest. We might have expected, therefore, that if the Court were to uphold one of the two programs at issue in Grutter and Gratz, it would, all other things being equal, uphold the program with smaller racial preferences. We show, however, that the preferences in the admissions program upheld in Grutter …
Chasing 'Enemy Combatants' And Circumventing International Law: A License For Sanctioned Abuse, Peter J. Honigsberg
Chasing 'Enemy Combatants' And Circumventing International Law: A License For Sanctioned Abuse, Peter J. Honigsberg
Peter J Honigsberg
In 1944, in Korematsu v. United States, the Supreme Court made a major error in judgment. It ruled that the executive may forcibly remove over 110,000 Japanese Americans from their homes and relocate them in American detention camps. In two recent Supreme Court cases, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the court made similar errors in judgment by accepting the administration's term "enemy combatant." The Supreme Court's errors were compounded when Congress passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 in October, 2006, statutorily defining the term enemy combatant for the first time. By acknowledging the term enemy combatant, the …