Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Supermax’S Kryptonite? Wilkinson V. Austin: The Due Process Challenge To Ohio’S Super-Maximum Security Prison, Adam Miller
Supermax’S Kryptonite? Wilkinson V. Austin: The Due Process Challenge To Ohio’S Super-Maximum Security Prison, Adam Miller
University of Massachusetts Law Review
This note discusses the Supreme Court’s holding in Wilkinson that OSP’s system for inmate placement in its Supermax facility does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. Part II will summarize OSP’s purpose and condition, and will focus on Ohio’s New Policy regarding inmate placement. Part III will examine Supreme Court precedent and the Court’s conclusions of law in determining whether inmates have a protected liberty interest in avoiding assignment to OSP and the due process implications of the inmate selection process to OSP. Part IV will question the Supreme Court’s disregard of the adverse mental effects in inmates subjected to …
A Critique Of The Second Circuit’S Analysis In Nicholas V. Goord, John Dorsett Niles
A Critique Of The Second Circuit’S Analysis In Nicholas V. Goord, John Dorsett Niles
University of Massachusetts Law Review
The Case Note proceeds as follows. Part I traces the historical and procedural facts underlying Nicholas. Part II describes the legal backdrop against which the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decided the case. Part III steps through the Second Circuit’s majority opinion, and Part IV critiques the opinion. Part V concludes the Case Note by discussing the ramifications of Nicholas for future DNA-indexing cases.
Lost In Translation: The Accidental Origins Of Bond V. United States, Kevin L. Cope
Lost In Translation: The Accidental Origins Of Bond V. United States, Kevin L. Cope
Michigan Law Review First Impressions
One of the unusual features of cases about the constitutionality of federal statutes is that they are nearly always foreseeable. Even before the bill’s introduction in Congress, lawmakers are often aware that they are inviting a federal lawsuit. Anticipating a legal challenge, legislators and their staffs attempt to predict the courts’ views of the statute and adapt the bill accordingly. Generally speaking, the bigger the bill’s potential constitutional impact, the more foreseeable the resulting case. By this logic, jurists should have seen the constitutional issues in Bond v. United States from a mile away. In reality, they were foreseen by …