Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
Political Equality, Gender, And Democratic Legitimation In Dobbs, Aliza Forman-Rabinovici, Olatunde C.A. Johnson
Political Equality, Gender, And Democratic Legitimation In Dobbs, Aliza Forman-Rabinovici, Olatunde C.A. Johnson
Faculty Scholarship
This Article examines the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, demonstrating how the Court deploys new arguments about women’s political equality — alongside long-standing arguments about federalism and judicial minimalism — to legitimate the overruling of Roe v. Wade. In contending that abortion rights are better determined by legislatures, the Dobbs Court advances a thin conceptual account of democracy and political equality that ignores a range of anti-democratic features of the political process that shape abortion policy — such as partisan politics and gerrymandering — as well the absence of women in the …
Beyond The Bosses' Constitution: The First Amendment And Class Entrenchment, Jedediah S. Purdy
Beyond The Bosses' Constitution: The First Amendment And Class Entrenchment, Jedediah S. Purdy
Faculty Scholarship
The Supreme Court’s “weaponized” First Amendment has been its strongest antiregulatory tool in recent decades, slashing campaign-finance regulation, public-sector union financing, and pharmaceutical regulation, and threatening a broader remit. Along with others, I have previously criticized these developments as a “new Lochnerism.” In this Essay, part of a Columbia Law Review Symposium, I press beyond these criticisms to diagnose the ideological outlook of these opinions and to propose an alternative. The leading decisions of the antiregulatory First Amendment often associate free speech with a vision of market efficiency; but, I argue, closer to their heart is antistatist fear of entrenchment …
The Contested Right To Vote, Richard Briffault
The Contested Right To Vote, Richard Briffault
Faculty Scholarship
For those who believe the United States is a representative democracy with a government elected by the people, the events of late 2000must have been more than a little disconcerting. In the election for our most important public office – our only truly national office – the candidate who received the most popular votes was declared the loser while his second place opponent, who had received some 540,000 fewer votes, was the winner. This result turned on the outcome in Florida, where approximately 150,000 ballots cast were found not to contain valid votes. Further, due to flaws in ballot design, …
Bush V. Gore As An Equal Protection Case, Richard Briffault
Bush V. Gore As An Equal Protection Case, Richard Briffault
Faculty Scholarship
In Bush v. Gore, the United States Supreme Court applied the Equal Protection Clause to the mechanics of state election administration. The Court invalidated the manual recount of the so-called undervote – that is, ballots that vote-counting machinery had found contained no indication of a vote for President – which the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to determine the winner of Florida's vote for presidential electors in the 2000 presidential election. The United States Supreme Court reasoned that the principles it had previously articulated in applying the Equal Protection Clause to the vote were violated by the Florida court's …
Nixon V. Shrink Missouri Government Pac: The Beginning Of The End Of The Buckley Era?, Richard Briffault
Nixon V. Shrink Missouri Government Pac: The Beginning Of The End Of The Buckley Era?, Richard Briffault
Faculty Scholarship
In Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC, the Supreme Court emphatically reaffirmed a key element of the campaign finance doctrine first articulated in Buckley v. Valeo a quarter-century earlier that governments may, consistent with the First Amendment, impose limitations on the size of contributions to election campaigns. Shrink Missouri was significant because the Eighth Circuit decision reversed by the Supreme Court had sought to strengthen the constitutional protection provided to contributions and had invalidated limitations on donations to Missouri state candidates that were actually higher than the limits on donations to federal candidates that the Supreme Court had previously …