Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 3 of 3

Full-Text Articles in Law

Human Rights And Liberties: 50 Years After Brown V. Board Of Education - Keynote Speakers, Mark Rosenbaum, Erwin Chemerinsky Aug 2019

Human Rights And Liberties: 50 Years After Brown V. Board Of Education - Keynote Speakers, Mark Rosenbaum, Erwin Chemerinsky

Erwin Chemerinsky

No abstract provided.


Judging Opportunity Lost: Assessing The Viability Of Race-Based Affirmative Action After Fisher V. University Of Texas, Austin, Angela Onwuachi-Willig, Mario Barnes, Erwin Chemerinsky Aug 2019

Judging Opportunity Lost: Assessing The Viability Of Race-Based Affirmative Action After Fisher V. University Of Texas, Austin, Angela Onwuachi-Willig, Mario Barnes, Erwin Chemerinsky

Erwin Chemerinsky

In this Article, Mario Barnes, Erwin Chemerinsky, and Angela Onwuachi-Willig examine and analyze one recent, affirmative action case, Fisher v. University of Texas, Austin, as a means of highlighting why the anti-subordination or equal opportunity approach, as opposed to the anti-classification approach, is the correct approach for analyzing equal protection cases. In so doing, these authors highlight several opportunities that the U.S. Supreme Court missed to acknowledge and explicate the way in which race, racism, and racial privilege operate in society and thus advance the anti-subordination approach to equal protection. In the end, the authors suggest that, with regard to …


What Can Brown Do For You?: Addressing Mccleskey V. Kemp As A Flawed Standard For Measuring The Constitutionally Significant Risk Of Race Bias Aug 2019

What Can Brown Do For You?: Addressing Mccleskey V. Kemp As A Flawed Standard For Measuring The Constitutionally Significant Risk Of Race Bias

Erwin Chemerinsky

This Essay asserts that in McCleskey v. Kemp, the Supreme Court created a problematic standard for the evidence of race bias necessary to uphold an equal protection claim under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. First, the Court’s opinion reinforced the cramped understanding that constitutional claims require evidence of not only disparate impact but also discriminatory purpose, producing significant negative consequences for the operation of the U.S. criminal justice system. Second, the Court rejected the Baldus study’s findings of statistically significant correlations between the races of the perpetrators and victims and the imposition of the death …