Law Commons^™

Rewriting Whren V. United States, Jonathan Feingold, Devon Carbado

Faculty Scholarship

In 1996, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Whren v. United States—a unanimous opinion in which the Court effectively constitutionalized racial profiling. Despite its enduring consequences, Whren remains good law today. This Article rewrites the opinion. We do so, in part, to demonstrate how one might incorporate racial justice concerns into Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, a body of law that has long elided and marginalized the racialized dimensions of policing. A separate aim is to reveal the “false necessity” of the Whren outcome. The fact that Whren was unanimous, and that even progressive Justices signed on, might lead one to conclude that …

From Loving V. Virginia To Washington V. Davis: The Erosion Of The Supreme Court's Equal Protection Intent Analysis, Angela Onwuachi-Willig

Faculty Scholarship

In 1967, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion that contained its most searing and explicit condemnation of white supremacy: Loving v. Virginia. At issue in Loving was the constitutionality of a statutory scheme in the state of Virginia that prohibited marriages between individuals solely on the basis of race. Among other things, provisions in this statutory scheme punished intermarriage between a "white person" and a "colored person," meaning not only Blacks, but also Asian Americans and American Indians who did not fall under the Pocahontas Exception. The provisions also punished evasion of the state's interracial marriage ban by …

Just Another Brother On The Sct?: What Justice Clarence Thomas Teaches Us About The Influence Of Racial Identity, Angela Onwuachi-Willig

Faculty Scholarship

Justice Clarence Thomas has generated the attention that most Justices receive only after they have retired. He has been boycotted by the National Bar Association, caricatured as a lawn jockey in Emerge Magazine, and protested by professors at an elite law school. As a general matter, Justice Thomas is viewed as a "non-race" man, a Justice with a jurisprudence that mirrors the Court's most conservative white member, Justice Antonin Scalia­, in other words, Justice Scalia in "blackface." This Article argues that, although Justice Thomas's ideology differs from the liberalism that is more widely held by Blacks in the United States, …

Using The Master’S “Tool” To Dismantle His House: Why Justice Clarence Thomas Makes The Case For Affirmative Action, Angela Onwuachi-Willig

Faculty Scholarship

Justice Clarence Thomas, the second black man to sit on the Supreme Court, is famous, or rather infamous, for his opposition to affirmative action. His strongest critics condemn him for attacking the very preferences that helped him reach the Supreme Court. None, however, have considered how Thomas's life itself may be used as a justification for affirmative action. In what ways can the master's "tool" be used to dismantle his house? This Article analyzes Justice Thomas's appointment to the Supreme Court and contends that his nomination to and performance on the Court ironically make the case for forward-looking affirmative action. …

The Unhappy History Of Civil Rights Legislation, Fifty Years Later, Jack M. Beermann

Faculty Scholarship

Seldom, if ever, have the power and the purposes of legislation been rendered so impotent.... All that is left today are afew scattered remnants of a once grandiose scheme to nationalize the fundamental rights of the individual.

These words were written fifty years ago by Eugene Gressman, now William Rand Kenan, Jr. Professor Emeritus, University of North Carolina School of Law, as a description of what the courts, primarily the Supreme Court of the United States, had done with the civil rights legislation passed by Congress in the wake of the Civil War. Professor Gressman's article, The Unhappy History of …