Law Commons^™

Baker V. State And The Promise Of The New Judicial Federalism, Charles Baron, Lawrence Friedman

Charles H. Baron

In Baker v. State, the Supreme Court of Vermont ruled that the state constitution’s Common Benefits Clause prohibits the exclusion of same-sex couples from the benefits and protections of marriage. Baker has been praised by constitutional scholars as a prototypical example of the New Judicial Federalism. The authors agree, asserting that the decision sets a standard for constitutional discourse by dint of the manner in which each of the opinions connects and responds to the others, pulls together arguments from other state and federal constitutional authorities, and provides a clear basis for subsequent development of constitutional principle. This Article explores …

Weather Permitting: Incrementalism, Animus, And The Art (And Sometimes Artifice) In Forecasting Marriage Equality After U.S. V. Windsor, Jeremiah A. Ho

Jeremiah A Ho

Within LGBT rights, the law is abandoning essentialist approaches toward sexual orientation by incrementally de-regulating restrictions on identity expression of sexual minorities. Simultaneously, same-sex marriages are become increasingly recognized on both state and federal levels. This Article examines the Supreme Court’s recent decision, U.S. v. Windsor, as the latest example of these parallel journeys. By overturning DOMA, Windsor normatively revises the previous incrementalist theory for forecasting marriage equality’s progress studied by William Eskridge, Kees Waaldijk, and Yuval Merin. Windsor also represents a moment where the law is abandoning antigay essentialism by using animus-focused jurisprudence for lifting the discrimination against …

Something To Lex Loci Celebrationis: Federal Marriage Benefits Following United States V. Windsor, Meg Penrose

Meg Penrose

This article provides one of the first substantive treatments of United States v. Windsor, the Supreme Court's recent same-sex marriage case. The article's thesis proposes lex loci celebrationis (the place of marriage) as the proper method for determining marriage for federal law purposes. Failure to adopt lex loci celebrationis may violate the Fifth Amendment equal protection guarantee or the constitutional right to travel. Further, adoption of the lex loci celebrationis standard furthers marital stability and predictability.

Something To Lex Loci Celebrationis: Federal Marriage Benefits Following United States V. Windsor, Mary Margaret Meg Penrose

Meg Penrose

Something To Lex Loci Celebrationis: Federal Marriage Benefits Following United States V. Windsor, Meg Penrose

Meg Penrose

This article provides one of the first substantive treatments of United States v. Windsor, the Supreme Court's recent same-sex marriage case. The article's thesis proposes lex loci celebrationis (the place of marriage) as the proper method for determining marriage for federal law purposes. Failure to adopt lex loci celebrationis may violate the Fifth Amendment equal protection guarantee or the constitutional right to travel. Further, adoption of the lex loci celebrationis standard furthers marital stability and predictability.

Daddy Warriors: The Battle To Equalize Paternity Leave In The United States By Breaking Gender Stereotypes; A Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Analysis, Abraham Z. Melamed

Abraham Z Melamed

No abstract provided.

Gay Talk: Protecting Free Speech For Public School Teachers, Stephen J. Elkind, Peter D. Kauffman

Stephen J Elkind

In Garcetti v. Ceballos, the Supreme Court held that public employees are not entitled to free speech when speaking “pursuant to their official duties.” In most situations, this strips teachers of First Amendment protection when they discuss controversial subjects, such as homosexuality, with their students. To ensure their classrooms are tolerant and accepting environments for homosexual and questioning youth, teachers need free speech protection against adverse employment action their schools might take. The Garcetti Court, acknowledging that “expression related to academic scholarship and classroom instruction implicates” unique constitutional concerns, explicitly left open whether its decision applied in the education …

Mirror, Mirror On The Wall, Who Are You To Say Who Is Fairest Of Them All?, Ashley R. Brown

Ashley R Brown

No abstract provided.

The Issue Is Being Intersex: The Current Standard Of Care Is A Result Of Ignorance, And It Is Amazing What A Little Analysis Can Conclude., Marla J. Ferguson

marla j ferguson

The Constitution was written to protect and empower all citizens of the United States, including those who are born with Disorders of Sex Development. The medical community, as a whole, is not equipped with the knowledge required to adequately diagnose or treat intersex babies. Intersex simply means that the baby is born with both male and female genitalia. The current method that doctors follow is to choose a sex to assign the baby, and preform irreversible surgery on them without informed consent. Ultimately the intersex babies are mutilated and robbed of many of their fundamental rights; most notably, the right …

Fetal Personhood Laws As Limits To Maternal Personhood At Any Stage Of Pregnancy: Balancing Fetal & Maternal Interests At Post-Viability Among Fetal Pain & Fetal Homicide Laws, Bernice M. Bird

Bernice M. Bird

Collectively, fetal pain and homicide laws serve to effectively diminish maternal personhood at any stage of pregnancy. At pre-viability, fetal pain laws unconstitutionally infringe on women’s right to reproduce without state interference, as reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey. In tandem, at post-viability, fetal homicide laws act as undue burdens because the laws lack life or health exceptions to maternal prosecution for the death of the fetus. Ultimately, both types of laws encroach on women's liberty interests to continue or terminate pregnancies at all stages. This paper proposes that state fetal pain and homicide laws should only …

Sex Is Less Offensive Than Violence: A Call To Update Obscenity Jurisprudence, Rachel Simon

Rachel Simon

This article addresses the gender bias presented by the disparate treatment of sex and violence under current obscenity jurisprudence. Under the controlling standard set forth by the Supreme Court in Miller v. California, sexual works may readily be regulated as obscenity, while violent works unequivocally may not. This article posits that this disparate treatment is the product of entrenched stereotypes about the way men and women “should” react to sex and violence, and notes the hypocrisy of failing to apply the same reasoning to assessments of violent versus sexual material.

First, reliance on “community standards” to define what material …

Dancing Around Equality: Public Schools And Prejudice At The Prom, Jeffrey S. Thomas

Jeffrey S. Thomas

No abstract provided.

Which Is Greater: The Right To Parent Or The Rights Of A Parent? The Legal And Ethical Quandaries When A Minor Child Diagnosed With Cancer Wishes To Utilize Oocyte Cryopreservation And Advanced Reproductive Technology For Future Procreation., Jessica M. Hallgren

Jessica M Hallgren

No abstract provided.

Deadly Dicta: Roe’S “Unwanted Motherhood”, Gonzales’S “Women’S Regret” And The Shifting Narrative Of Abortion Jurisprudence, Stacy A. Scaldo

Stacy A Scaldo

For thirty-four years, the narrative of Supreme Court jurisprudence on the issue of abortion was firmly focused on the pregnant woman. From the initial finding that the right to an abortion stemmed from a constitutional right to privacy[1], through the test applied and refined to determine when that right was abridged[2], to the striking of statutes found to over-regulate that right[3], the conversation from the Court’s perspective maintained a singular focus. Pro-life arguments focusing on the fetus as the equal or greater party of interest were systematically pushed aside by the Court.[4] The consequences of an unwanted pregnancy, or as …

Think Of The Children: Advancing Marriage Equality By Renewing The Focus On Same-Sex Adoption Litigation, Jacob M. Reif

Jacob M Reif

No abstract provided.

The First Amendment Right To Bare All: How Should Courts Apply The Secondary Effects Doctrine To Strip Bars And Other Sexually Oriented Businesses?, Andrew L. Arons

Andrew L Arons

The U.S. Supreme Court has developed a deferential First Amendment Doctrine that can be used to uphold laws that target speakers on the basis of the content of their speech. This so-called “secondary effects” doctrine relies on a fictional premise: state and local laws that target certain forms of speech are actually aimed at the adverse secondary effects of the speech. The doctrine supposedly applies to any form of speech that produces secondary effects. It also theoretically permits targeted speakers to challenge the constitutionality of such laws by disproving the existence of secondary effects. Nevertheless, lower courts have impliedly limited …