Law Commons^™

Lawyering That Has No Name: Title Vi And The Meaning Of Private Enforcement, Olatunde C.A. Johnson

Faculty Scholarship

On the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, this Essay examines the problem of private enforcement of Title VI. The Essay reviews the unduly constrained approach to private enforcement taken by courts in prominent decisions such as Regents of the University of California v. Bakke and Alexander v. Sandoval. Yet the Essay argues that to focus primarily on private court enforcement of Title VI will continue to relegate the provision to the margins of civil rights discourse, to make the provision appear largely as the "sleeping giant" of civil rights law. The practice …

Compulsory Sexuality, Elizabeth F. Emens

Faculty Scholarship

Asexuality is an emerging identity category that challenges the assumption that everyone is defined by some type of sexual attraction. Asexuals – those who report feeling no sexual attraction to others – constitute one percent of the population, according to one prominent study. In recent years, some individuals have begun to identify as asexual and to connect around their experiences interacting with a sexual society. Asexuality has also become a protected classification under the antidiscrimination law of one state and several localities, but legal scholarship has thus far neglected the subject.

This Article introduces asexuality to the legal literature as …

Good Will Hunting: How The Supreme Court's Hunter Doctrine Can Still Shield Minorities From Political-Process Discrimination, Kerrel Murray

Faculty Scholarship

When the Sixth Circuit struck down Michigan’s anti-affirmative-action Proposal 2 in 2012, its reasoning may have left some observers hunting for their Fourteenth Amendment treatises. Rather than applying conventional equal protection doctrine, the court rested its decision on an obscure branch of equal protection jurisprudence known as the Hunter doctrine, which originated over forty years ago. The doctrine, only used twice by the Supreme Court to invalidate a law since its creation, purports to protect the political-process rights of minorities by letting courts invalidate laws that work nonneutrally to make it more difficult for them to “achieve legislation that is …