Law Commons^™

Atkins V. Virginia At Twenty: Still Adaptive Deficits, Still In The Developmental Period, Sheri Lynn Johnson, John H. Blume, Brendan Van Winkle

Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice

Twenty years ago, in Atkins v. Virginia, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Eighth Amendment prohibited states from executing persons with intellectual disability. While the Court’s decision is laudable and has saved many of the most vulnerable persons from the executioner, its effect has been undermined by recalcitrant states attempting to exploit language in the opinion permitting states to create procedures to implement the (then) new categorical prohibition. In this article, we examine how some states have adopted procedures which are fundamentally inconsistent with the clinical consensus understanding of the disability and how one state, …

Pretext After Bostock—Disproving One Of The Employer’S Reasons Is Enough, Robert S. Mantell

Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice

When an employer gives a pretextual reason for an employee’s termination, that falsehood can help prove that the true reason was discrimination. The dishonesty constitutes “affirmative evidence of guilt.” The trier of fact may “infer the ultimate fact of discrimination from the falsity of the employer’s explanation.” However, when an employer provides multiple reasons for firing an employee, there has been a split of opinion whether the plaintiff must disprove one or all of those reasons.

The Supreme Court’s recent discussion of multiple motives in Bostock v. Clayton County provides the tools to resolve this split and compels rejection of …

Senseless Sentencing: The Uneven Application Of The Career Offender Guidelines, Christopher Ethan Watts

Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice

Federal appellate courts are currently split on the definition of “controlled substance” in the career offender guideline, with one side using federal law to define the phrase, and the other side allowing standalone state law offenses to trigger the guideline. Allowing state law to define the phrase allows countless substances Congress never intended to penalize to be able to trigger one of the most severe penalties in the Sentencing Guidelines. This Note assesses the landscape of the circuit split and analyzes the arguments for and against federally defining “controlled substance offense.” This Note then proposes a novel way to resolve …