Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Discrimination (2)
- As applied (1)
- Briefs (1)
- Bullying (1)
- Chuch and state (1)
-
- Colorblindness (1)
- Constitutional amendments (1)
- Employment Division Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith (1)
- Equal Protection Clause (1)
- Equal protection (1)
- Establishment Clause (1)
- Facial challenge (1)
- Federalism (1)
- Free exercise (1)
- Gerrymandering (1)
- History (1)
- Lawmaking (1)
- Nabozny v. Podlesny (1)
- No-set-of-circumstances test (1)
- Overbreadth doctrine (1)
- Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1)
- Public school (1)
- Race and law (1)
- Racial discrimination (1)
- Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (1)
- Remedial regimes (1)
- Reproductive right (1)
- Roe v. Wade (1)
- Section 5 (1)
- Sexual orientation (1)
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
Equal Protection, Class Legislation, And Colorblindness, Melissa L. Saunders
Equal Protection, Class Legislation, And Colorblindness, Melissa L. Saunders
Michigan Law Review
Scholars and judges have long assumed that the Equal Protection Clause is concerned only with state action that has the effect of singling out certain persons or groups of persons for special benefits or burdens. Under the traditional doctrinal framework, state action that has this purpose and effect bears a certain burden of justification under the clause, a burden whose stringency varies, depending on the criteria used to define the class being singled out for special treatment and the importance of the interest affected. But state action that lacks such a "discriminatory effect" is not, on the traditional understanding, subject …
Antidisestablishmentarianism: Why Rfra Really Was Unconstitutional, Jed Rubenfeld
Antidisestablishmentarianism: Why Rfra Really Was Unconstitutional, Jed Rubenfeld
Michigan Law Review
Two months ago, the Supreme Court struck down the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), handing down its most important church-state decision, and one of its most important federalism decisions, in fifty years. Through RFRA, Congress had prohibited any state actor from "substantially burden[ing] a person's exercise of religion" unless imposing that burden was the "least restrictive means" of furthering "a compelling governmental interest." RFRA was a response to Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, in which the Supreme Court abandoned the very same compelling interest test that RFRA mandated. Smith, overturning decades-old precedent, held …
The Casey Standard For Evaluating Facial Attacks On Abortion Statutes, John Christopher Ford
The Casey Standard For Evaluating Facial Attacks On Abortion Statutes, John Christopher Ford
Michigan Law Review
Since the Supreme Court declared in 1973 that the Constitution grants women a limited right to an abortion, the Justices have decided abortion cases with reference to such weighty matters as religious freedom, the disadvantaged position of women in society, and the proper role of the judiciary. Understandably, the Supreme Court's writings on abortion deal extensively with these large themes. The Court, and certainly others, view abortion cases as rivaling Brown v. Board of Education in their importance to the nation. While the Court has focused on the big issues, however, it has neglected an equally important, if less emotionally …
Fighting Anti-Gay Abuse In Schools: The Opening Appellate Brief Of Plaintiff Jamie Nabozny In Nabozny V. Podlesny, Patricia M. Logue, David S. Buckel
Fighting Anti-Gay Abuse In Schools: The Opening Appellate Brief Of Plaintiff Jamie Nabozny In Nabozny V. Podlesny, Patricia M. Logue, David S. Buckel
Michigan Journal of Gender & Law
In Nabozny v. Podlesny, 92 F.3d 446 (7th Cir. 1996), a case of first impression, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recognized the constitutional right of a gay male public school student to equal protection from anti-gay harassment and assaults. The court held that Jamie Nabozny had stated equal protection claims against his school district and three school principals for gender and sexual orientation discrimination based on allegations that, because he is gay and a boy, defendants had failed to afford him the same kinds of protection given to other harassed students. At trial on remand a jury found …