Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
Fire, Aim, Ready! Militarizing Animus: “Unit Cohesion” And The Transgender Ban, Eric Merriam
Fire, Aim, Ready! Militarizing Animus: “Unit Cohesion” And The Transgender Ban, Eric Merriam
Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)
President Trump’s currently litigated “transgender ban,” which excludes transgender persons from military service, is premised in part upon a claim that transgender persons’ presence in the military adversely affects “unit cohesion.” This use of identity- based “unit cohesion” as a justification for excluding a group from military service is the latest episode in a long history of the government asserting “unit cohesion” to justify excluding people from military service based on their identities. This Article contends that unit cohesion, when premised on identity, is always an impermissible justification for exclusion from military service because it is unconstitutional animus. Though …
Recalibrating Cy Pres Settlements To Restore The Equilibrium, Michael J. Slobom
Recalibrating Cy Pres Settlements To Restore The Equilibrium, Michael J. Slobom
Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)
Class action settlement funds become “non-distributable” when class members fail to claim their share of the settlement or the cost of distribution exceeds the value of individual claims. Before 1974, parties had two options for disposing of non-distributable funds: escheatment to the state or reversion to the defendant. Both options undermine unique objectives of the class action—namely, compensating small individual harms and deterring misconduct.
To balance the undermining effects of escheatment and reversion, courts incorporated the charitable trust doctrine of cy pres into the class action settlements context. Cy pres distributions direct non-distributable settlement funds to charities whose work aligns …
Enough Said: A Proposal For Shortening Supreme Court Opinions, Meg Penrose
Enough Said: A Proposal For Shortening Supreme Court Opinions, Meg Penrose
Faculty Scholarship
The role of the judiciary, Chief Justice Marshall famously advised, is “to say what the law is.” Yet, how often do the justices issue a written opinion that ordinary Americans can understand? The Supreme Court increasingly issues lengthy and complex opinions, often containing multiple concurring and dissenting opinions. These opinions can be as confusing as they are verbose.
“To Say What the Law Is Succinctly: A Brief Proposal,” analyzes the justices’ legal writing. Are the justices effective in saying what the law is? Insufficient attention has been devoted to evaluating the justices’ writing and their efficacy at communicating the law. …
Opinions In Context: An Exploration Of The Rhetoric Used By Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia And Ruth Bader Ginsburg Regarding The Separation Of Church And State, Catherine Evans
Senior Honors Projects, 2010-2019
Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg represented opposite ends of the political spectrum on the Court, having been appointed by presidents from different parties. Their opinions on cases revolving around the interpretation of separation of church and state do/did not occur within a vacuum, and this paper examines both the context surrounding these opinions and rhetoric of the opinions themselves, closing with a discussion of the former’s effect on the latter. Specifically, four cases (two for each) from the beginning and end of the justices’ careers will be analyzed: Capitol Square Review and Advisory Board v. Pinette …
Law Library Blog (January 2018): Legal Beagle's Blog Archive, Roger Williams University School Of Law
Law Library Blog (January 2018): Legal Beagle's Blog Archive, Roger Williams University School Of Law
Law Library Newsletters/Blog
No abstract provided.