Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Abercrombie & Fitch (1)
- Arpaio (1)
- Broad interpretation (1)
- Chelsea Manning (1)
- Clemency (1)
-
- Constitution (1)
- Constitutionally suspect (1)
- Controversial pardons (1)
- Edward S. Miller (1)
- Ex parte Grossman (1)
- Individuals (1)
- Jefferson Davis (1)
- Marc Rich (1)
- Pardon (1)
- Pardoning power (1)
- Power to pardon (1)
- President (1)
- President Carter (1)
- President Clinton (1)
- President Ford (1)
- President Nixon (1)
- President Obama (1)
- President Reagan (1)
- Prima facie elements (1)
- Privacy of religious belief (1)
- Religious accommodation (1)
- Religious disparate treatment (1)
- Religious sincerity (1)
- Remorse and responsibility factors (1)
- Roger Clinton (1)
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
Thinking Slow About Abercrombie & Fitch: Straightening Out The Judicial Confusion In The Lower Courts, Bruce N. Cameron, Blaine L. Hutchison
Thinking Slow About Abercrombie & Fitch: Straightening Out The Judicial Confusion In The Lower Courts, Bruce N. Cameron, Blaine L. Hutchison
Pepperdine Law Review
In Abercrombie & Fitch, the U.S. Supreme Court fundamentally changed the way that Title VII religious accommodation cases are litigated and evaluated. This paper analyzes Abercrombie, explains how the Court eliminated religious accommodation as a freestanding cause of action, and suggests an altered proof framework for plaintiffs seeking an accommodation. The paper also explores the conflict between employee privacy rights and classic proof requirements for religious sincerity. The lower courts have largely failed to apprehend the change mandated by Abercrombie, with the result that their opinions are in disarray. The paper includes a chart organizing the diverse lower court opinions.
The Court Can’T Even Handle Me Right Now: The Arpaio Pardon And Its Effect On The Scope Of Presidential Pardons, Tyler Brown
The Court Can’T Even Handle Me Right Now: The Arpaio Pardon And Its Effect On The Scope Of Presidential Pardons, Tyler Brown
Pepperdine Law Review
The Constitution grants the president the power to pardon individuals for offenses against the United States. Courts have interpreted this power broadly, and the American public has historically accepted its use, even in the face of several controversial pardons over the last five decades. However, after President Trump pardoned Joe Arpaio—a former Arizona sheriff who was held in criminal contempt of court for continuing to illegally detain suspected undocumented immigrants—scholars, activists, and political figures questioned whether this pardon was unconstitutional. This Comment discusses the Court’s interpretation of the pardoning power, controversial pardons in modern history, and the details of the …