Law Commons^™

Innocent Until Proven Arrested: How Pretrial Juvenile Detention For Nonviolent Offenders In Ohio Inflicts Constitutional Violations, Taryn Schoenfeld

Et Cetera

When a juvenile is accused of committing a crime in Ohio, juvenile court judges must determine whether to detain the child pretrial in a juvenile jail or permit the child to go home to await trial. Whereas alleged adult offenders have the right to pay a monetary bond to be released from jail pretrial, juveniles have no such right. Thus, once a judge makes the decision to detain a juvenile pretrial—prior to being adjudicated delinquent of any crime—it is difficult for that decision to be undone. While incarcerated, juveniles suffer irreversible psychological, emotional, mental, and social harms, despite juvenile courts …

Bundle Of Joy: Why Same-Sex Married Couples Have A Constitutional Right To Enter Into Gestational Surrogacy Agreements, Benjamin H. Berman

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Fundamentally Fair? A Critical Look At The Due Process Afforded Parents In Child Protection Proceedings Under Minnesota Law, Brooke Beskau Warg

Mitchell Hamline Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Incest Horrible: Delimiting The Lawrence V. Texas Right To Sexual Autonomy, Y. Carson Zhou

Michigan Journal of Gender & Law

Is the criminalization of consensual sex between close relatives constitutional in the wake of Lawrence v. Texas and Obergefell v. Hodges? Justice Scalia thought not. The substantive due process landscape has changed dramatically in response to the LGBTQ movement. Yet, when a girl in a sexual relationship with her father recently revealed in an anonymous interview with New York Magazine that they were planning to move to New Jersey, one of the only two states where incest was legal, the New Jersey legislature introduced with unprecedented speed a bill criminalizing incest. But who has the couple harmed? The very …

Substantive Due Process For Noncitizens: Lessons From Obergefell, Anthony O'Rourke

Michigan Law Review First Impressions

The state of Texas denies birth certificates to children born in the United States—and thus citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment—if their parents are undocumented immigrants with identification provided by their home countries’ consulates. What does this have to do with same-sex marriage? In a previous article, I demonstrated that the Supreme Court’s substantive due process analysis in United States v. Windsor is particularly relevant to the state’s regulation of undocumented immigrants. This Essay builds on my earlier analysis by examining United States v. Obergefell’s applications outside the context of same-sex marriage. Obergefell’s due process holding, I argue, can …

Jon & Kate Plus The State: Why Congress Should Protect Children In Reality Programming, Dayna B. Royal

Akron Law Review

One is forced to wonder whether any laws exist to protect minors whose personal lives are laid bare as their own parents thrust them into the paparazzi’s spotlight. This article addresses this question, considering the best legal regime for regulating employment of children in reality programming, and suggesting an alternative to the status quo. To that end, Part II begins by identifying the various harms reality programming causes, arguing that participating in reality programming is detrimental both to the individual children who participate and to society in general. Part III surveys the current legal landscape, addressing first the federal law …

Foreign And Religious Family Law: Comity, Contract, And The Constitution, Ann Laquer Estin

Pepperdine Law Review

The article focuses on role of the U.S. courts in confronting religious laws in dispute resolution of various cases of domestic relations, contracts, and torts. Topics discussed include role of secular courts in maintaining constitutional balance between the free exercise and establishment clauses, constitutional challenges faced by religious adherents, and importance of legal pluralism in the U.S.

Lawrence V. Texas: The Decision And Its Implications For The Future, Martin A. Schwartz

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Appellate Division, Second Department, Langan V. St. Vincent's Hospital Of New York, Christin Harris

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Supreme Court, Tompkins County, Seymour V. Holcomb, Jessica Goodwin

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Unwed Father's Custody Claim In California: When Does The Parental Preference Doctrine Apply?, Jeffrey S. Boyd

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Buck V. Bell: A Constitutional Tragedy From A Lost World, Victoria Nourse

Pepperdine Law Review

The article focuses on the U.S. Supreme Court case Buck v. Bell, which dealt with the forced sterilization of people deemed unfit, such as intellectually disabled or mentally retarded individuals. Topics include the enforceability of unconstitutional judicial decisions, eugenic sterilization, and the application of substantive due process.

A Parent's Rights Under The Fourteenth Amendment: Does Kentucky's De Facto Custodian Statute Violate Due Process?, Elizabeth Ashley Bruce

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Due Process, Court Of Appeals: Chaya S. V. Frederick L.

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Due Process Rights Of Parents And Children In International Child Abductions, Dorothy C. Daigle

Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law

Rising divorce rates in recent years have led to increasingly frequent abductions of children by one parent away from the other parent. Often, abducting parents move the children to different jurisdictions in which the parents believe they can obtain a more favorable decision on custody. To remedy this problem, twenty-nine nations joined in 1980 to adopt the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. This Convention mandates the immediate return, upon request, of the abducted child to the state of habitual residence of the child. The Convention includes several limited exceptions to this mandate, applicable at the …

Renewing The Good Intentions Of Foster Care: Enforcement Of The Adoption Assistance And Child Welfare Act Of 1980 And The Substantive Due Process Right To Safety, Cristina C.-Y. Chou

Vanderbilt Law Review

Foster care. There are probably no two words in the English language that convey more of a sense of good intentions gone bad. Children enter foster care when their own parents fail them. Then they begin a state-sponsored journey through an over- land railroad of foster homes, some run by adults who truly want to help, and others run by scoundrels.'

The purpose of foster care is to provide a temporary safe haven for children whose parents are unable to care for them. Unfortunately, however, the foster care system frequently fails to provide children with stable, secure care, and fails …

The Due Process Rights Of Postjudgment Debtors And Child Support Obligors, Diana Gribbon Motz, Andrew H. Baida

Maryland Law Review

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Law - Due Process- Residence Substituted For Domicile As Basis For Divorce Jurisdiction, Paul Gerding S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

Plaintiff husband brought a divorce action under an Arkansas statute, which granted state courts divorce jurisdiction on the basis of residence of one of the parties within Arkansas for three months, to terminate a marriage performed in another jurisdiction. Defendant wife, domiciled in California, filed a cross complaint for separate maintenance and attacked the court's jurisdiction to grant the divorce. The lower court held the act unconstitutional in eliminating domicile of one of the parties as a jurisdictional requirement in a divorce action, and, finding that the plaintiff was not domiciled in Arkansas, dismissed the suit. On appeal, held, …

Recent Cases, Law Review Staff

Vanderbilt Law Review

In a hearing before the Commissioner of Investigation of the City of New York, appellant refused to state whether he was then a member of the Communist Party and based his refusal to answer on the fifth amendment to the United States Constitution. He was thereafter discharged as an employee of the New York Transit Authority pursuant to provisions of the New York Security Risk Law' which allows dismissal of employees of security agencies who are found to be of "doubtful trust and reliability." Without seeking administrative remedies, appellant brought a proceeding in the state court for reinstatement contending that …