Law Commons^™

Unfinished Business: Protecting Voting Rights In The Twenty-First Century, Gilda R. Daniels

All Faculty Scholarship

While minorities have experienced great progress because of the Voting Rights Act, particularly section 5 of the Act, the work to achieve an electoral process free of discrimination remains unfinished. In Shelby County v. Holder, the Supreme Court struck down section 4 of the Act, which provided the coverage formula through which section 5 was implemented. Without section 4, there is no section 5. The historical and contemporaneous discrimination that minorities in states formerly covered under section 5 continue to face is substantial and outpaces that in noncovered states. Scholars cannot divorce the debate surrounding section 5’s constitutionality, which continues …

The Dangers Of Psychotropic Medication For Mentally Ill Children: Where Is The Child’S Voice In Consenting To Medication? An Empirical Study, Donald H. Stone

All Faculty Scholarship

When a child with a mental illness is being prescribed psychotropic medication. who decides whether the child should take the medication — the parent or the child? What if the child is sixteen years of age? What if the child is in foster care: Should the parent or social service agency decide? Prior to administering psychotropic medication, what specific information should be provided to the person authorized to consent on behalf of the child? Should children be permitted to refuse psychotropic medications? If so, at what age should a child he able to refuse such medication What procedures should be …

Lining Up: Ensuring Equal Access To Vote, Gilda R. Daniels

All Faculty Scholarship

This booklet ( a joint project of the Advancement Project and the Lawyer's Committee for Civil Rights Under Law) provides an extensive overview of restrictive voting laws, especially concerning minority voters. Daniels begins with a summary of voter obstructions and intimidation in the 2012 election, and then places that within the context of the history of voting and race in America.

Most recently, the Section 5 protections of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were effectively removed by the Shelby County v. Holder Supreme Court decision. Daniels then explains what this means practically and legally for minority voters and how …

A Visual Guide To United States V. Windsor: Doctrinal Origins Of Justice Kennedy’S Majority Opinion, Colin Starger

All Faculty Scholarship

After finding the Court had jurisdiction, Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion in United States v. Windsor reached the merits and concluded that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was in violation of the Fifth Amendment. In his dissent, Justice Scalia attacked the majority’s doctrinal reasoning on the merits as “nonspecific handwaving” that invalidated DOMA “maybe on equal-protection grounds, maybe on substantive due process grounds, and perhaps with some amorphous federalism component playing a role.”

This Visual Guide is a “doctrinal map” that responds to Scalia’s accusation by charting the doctrinal origins of Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion. Specifically, the map shows how …

It's Not Just Name Calling, Kenneth Lasson

All Faculty Scholarship

I’m afraid that universities, which like to perceive themselves as places of culture in a chaotic world, are not quite that wonderful. Of course, some are better than others; not all of them are hotbeds of radical turmoil, but a disturbing number have come to be focal points of loud and strident opposition to the state of Israel.

Although the volume of overt antisemitic acts may have in fact declined over the past few years, there has been a significant increase in anti-Zionist rhetoric and activity on campuses around the country and around the world. The two concepts are not …

The Virtue Of Obscurity, Colin Starger

All Faculty Scholarship

The critics have panned Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion in United States v. Windsor. Supporters and opponents of same-sex marriage have together bemoaned what may be called Kennedy’s “doctrinal obscurity” in Windsor. Doctrinal obscurity describes the opinion’s failure to justify striking down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) using any discernable accepted test for substantive due process or equal protection. Specifically, Kennedy does not ask whether DOMA burdens a right “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,” nor does he identify sexual orientation as a suspect or semi-suspect classification, nor does he subject DOMA to explicit rational …