Law Commons^™

The Unfinished Business Of Desegregation: Race Conscious College Admissions, Wendy B. Scott

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This rejection of race conscious admissions practices under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by the [Supreme] Court requires a revisit to desegregation jurisprudence and practice to demonstrate why the considerations of race in higher education admissions fulfills the desegregation mandate. Given its rich history and contributions to the formation of equality norms and affirmative action, desegregation jurisprudence and practice provide a foundation for the premise that the use of race in college admissions constitutes a compelling state interest, supported by specific evidence of discrimination, that moves us closer to the democratization of education and racial equality under …

Debiasing Criminal Justice, Sandra Guerra Thompson, Nicole Bremner Cásarez

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The killing of George Floyd by police officers in Minnesota inspired a summer of protests in 2020, followed by a call for racial reckoning and a professed commitment to reform criminal justice. Many have condemned the “systemic racism” reflected in countless demographic measures. From killings of unarmed men by the police at the front end of the criminal justice system to incarceration rates at the back end, the statistics show stark disparities along racial lines. These disparities are held up as evidence of racial bias in the system.

Statements about racial bias may be intended as an indictment of a …

Indoctrination By Elimination: Why Banning Critical Race Theory In Public Schools Is Unconstitutional, Emma Postel

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Note argues that Texas public school students’ First Amendment Rights have been violated by the passage of Senate Bill 3 (SB 3), which bans the teaching of Critical Race Theory (CRT) in K–12 public schools. The First Amendment is violated here because (1) students have a First Amendment right to speech, and this law bans protected speech; (2) students have a right to receive information, and this ban prevents them from receiving information; and (3) schools are meant to be the marketplace of ideas for students and banning CRT amounts to unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. This Note does not suggest …

Constitutional Memories, Jack M. Balkin

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Many arguments in constitutional law invoke collective memory. Collective memory is what a group—for example, a religion, a profession, a people, or a nation—remembers and forgets about its past. This combination of remembering and forgetting helps constitute the group’s identity and structures its values and its commitments. Precisely because memory is selective, it may or may not correspond to the best account of historical facts.

The use of collective memory in constitutional argument is constitutional memory. It shapes people’s views about what the law means and why people have authority. Lawyers and judges continually invoke and construct memory; judicial decisions …

"Not For Human Consumption": Prison Food's Absent Regulatory Regime, Amanda Chan, Anna Nathanson

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Prison food is poor quality. The regulations which govern prison food are subpar and unenforceable by prisoners, due in large part to Sandin v. Conner and the Prison Litigation Reform Act. This Article aims to draw attention to the dire food conditions in prisons, explain the lax federal administrative law that permits these conditions, highlight the role of Sandin v. Conner and the Prison Litigation Reform Act in curtailing prisoners’ rights, and criticize the role of the private entity American Correctional Association in enabling mass neglect of prison food. The authors recommend that the Prison Litigation Reform Act be repealed, …

The Emerging Lessons Of Trump V. Hawaii, Shalini Bhargava Ray

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

In the years since the Supreme Court decided Trump v. Hawaii, federal district courts have adjudicated dozens of rights-based challenges to executive action in immigration law. Plaintiffs, including U.S. citizens, civil rights organizations, and immigrants themselves, have alleged violations of the First Amendment and the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause with some regularity based on President Trump’s animus toward immigrants. This Article assesses Hawaii’s impact on these challenges to immigration policy, and it offers two observations. First, Hawaii has amplified federal courts’ practice of privileging administrative law claims over constitutional ones. For example, courts considering …

Kidnapping Reconsidered: Courts Merger Tests Inadequately Remedy The Inequities Which Developed From Kidnapping's Sensationalized And Racialized History, Samuel P. Newton

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Considerations Of History And Purpose In Constitutional Borrowing, Robert L. Tsai

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Schuette And Antibalkanization, Samuel Weiss, Donald Kinder

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

In Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Justice Kennedy’s controlling plurality revised the political process doctrine and ended the practice of affirmative action in Michigan. In this opinion, Kennedy followed in the Court’s tradition of invoking antibalkanization values in equal protection cases, making the empirical claims both that antibalkanization motivated the campaign to end affirmative action in Michigan and that the campaign itself would, absent judicial intervention, have antibalkanizing effects.

Using sophisticated empirical methods, this Article is the first to examine whether the Court’s claims on antibalkanization are correct. We find they are not. Support for the Michigan …

Good Faith Discrimination, Girardeau A. Spann

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The Supreme Court’s current doctrinal rules governing racial discrimination and affirmative action are unsatisfying. They often seem artificial, internally inconsistent, and even conceptually incoherent. Despite a long and continuing history of racial discrimination in the United States, many of the problems with the Supreme Court’s racial jurisprudence stem from the Court’s willingness to view the current distribution of societal resources as establishing a colorblind, race-neutral baseline that can be used to make equality determinations. As a result, the current rules are as likely to facilitate racial discrimination as to prevent it, or to remedy the lingering effects of past discrimination. …