Law Commons^™

Commentary On Chy Lung V. Freeman, Julie A. Dahlstrom

Faculty Scholarship

This chapter is a contribution to the forthcoming volume of Rewritten Immigration Opinions to be published by Cambridge University Press. It offers commentary on the rewritten opinion in Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U.S. 275 (1875), authored by Professor Stewart Chang.

In Chy Lung, the Supreme Court struck down a patently racist and gendered California law, allowing allowed state officials to exclude Chinese women suspected of being “lewd” and “debauched” from the United States. In the decision, Justice Samuel Miller, writing for the unanimous Supreme Court, expressed grave concerns about potential abuses of power by immigration officials, and …

Abandoning Animus, Robert L. Tsai

Faculty Scholarship

This Essay presents a preliminary set of arguments against the legal concept of animus grounded in actual practice. After considering the major reasons advanced in support of the animus approach as well as the main objections, I argue that the end of animus may come once we confront the limits of judicial capacity. First, judges have not been willing or able to resort to the animus rationale to call out bigotry where the evidence of hostility is robust. These failures suggest that projects founded upon judicial review to reduce hateful motivations may be overly optimistic. Second, on the occasions the …

Ambivalent Advocates: Why Elite Universities Compromised The Case For Affirmative Action, Jonathan Feingold

Faculty Scholarship

“The end of affirmative action.” The headline is near. When it arrives, scholars will explain that a controversial set of policies could not withstand unfriendly doctrine and less friendly Justices. This story is not wrong. But it is incomplete. Critically, this account masks an underappreciated source of affirmative action’s enduring instability: elite universities, affirmative action’s formal champions, have always been ambivalent advocates.

Elite universities are uniquely positioned to shape legal and lay opinions about affirmative action. They are formal defendants in affirmative action litigation and objects of public obsession. And yet, schools like Harvard and the University of North Carolina—embroiled …