Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Supreme Court of the United States (28)
- Courts (11)
- Constitutional Law (10)
- Civil Rights and Discrimination (7)
- Criminal Procedure (7)
-
- Labor and Employment Law (6)
- Election Law (5)
- Fourteenth Amendment (4)
- Legal History (4)
- Judges (3)
- Dispute Resolution and Arbitration (2)
- Evidence (2)
- Indigenous, Indian, and Aboriginal Law (2)
- Jurisprudence (2)
- Law and Politics (2)
- Law and Race (2)
- Legislation (2)
- Commercial Law (1)
- Common Law (1)
- Criminal Law (1)
- First Amendment (1)
- Human Rights Law (1)
- Jurisdiction (1)
- Law Enforcement and Corrections (1)
- Law and Gender (1)
- Legal Education (1)
- Legal Writing and Research (1)
- Rule of Law (1)
- State and Local Government Law (1)
- Institution
Articles 1 - 30 of 32
Full-Text Articles in Law
The Constitution In Exile: Is It Time To Bring It In From The Cold?, William W. Van Alstyne
The Constitution In Exile: Is It Time To Bring It In From The Cold?, William W. Van Alstyne
Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.
Section 1: Adarand Constructors V. Mineta, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Section 1: Adarand Constructors V. Mineta, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Supreme Court Preview
No abstract provided.
Section 5: Criminal Law And Procedure, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Section 5: Criminal Law And Procedure, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Supreme Court Preview
No abstract provided.
Section 2: Direction Of The Rehnquist Court, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Section 2: Direction Of The Rehnquist Court, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Supreme Court Preview
No abstract provided.
Section 10: Also This Term, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Section 10: Also This Term, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Supreme Court Preview
No abstract provided.
Section 7: Employment Law, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Section 7: Employment Law, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Supreme Court Preview
No abstract provided.
Section 6: First Amendment, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Section 6: First Amendment, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Supreme Court Preview
No abstract provided.
Section 4: Civil Rights, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Section 4: Civil Rights, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Supreme Court Preview
No abstract provided.
Section 3: Legacy Of Bush V. Gore, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Section 3: Legacy Of Bush V. Gore, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Supreme Court Preview
No abstract provided.
Section 9: Looking Ahead: Upcoming Issues, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Section 9: Looking Ahead: Upcoming Issues, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Supreme Court Preview
No abstract provided.
Section 8: Business Law, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Section 8: Business Law, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Supreme Court Preview
No abstract provided.
Discrimination, Plain And Simple, Henry L. Chambers, Jr.
Discrimination, Plain And Simple, Henry L. Chambers, Jr.
Law Faculty Publications
This short essay is a brief examination of the Court's relatively recent attempts to simplify Title VII and employment discrimination; it is not intended to be a comprehensive review of the Court's discrimination jurisprudence. Rather, it seeks to identify a few concerns with and implications of the Court's apparent desire to simplify Title VII jurisprudence. Part I briefly examines how the Court has simplified employment discrimination through Hicks and Oncale. Part II examines how the Court's simplifications have been used. Part III suggests concerns that should accompany the Court's simplification.
Confronting The Reluctant Accomplice, John G. Douglass
Confronting The Reluctant Accomplice, John G. Douglass
Law Faculty Publications
The Supreme Court treats the Confrontation Clause as a rule of evidence that excludes unreliable hearsay. But where the hearsay declarant is an accomplice who refuses to testify at defendant's trial, the Court's approach leads prosecutors and defendants to ignore real opportunities for confrontation, while they debate the reliability of hearsay. And even where the Court's doctrine excludes hearsay, it leads prosecutors to purchase the accomplice's testimony through a process that raises equally serious questions of reliability. Thus, the Court's approach promotes neither reliability nor confrontation. This Article advocates an approach that applies the Confrontation Clause to hearsay declarants in …
Congress As Culprit: How Lawmakers Spurred On The Court's Anti-Congress Crusade, Neal Devins
Congress As Culprit: How Lawmakers Spurred On The Court's Anti-Congress Crusade, Neal Devins
Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.
Supreme Court Monitoring Of The United States Courts Of Appeals En Banc, Tracey E. George, Michael E. Solimine
Supreme Court Monitoring Of The United States Courts Of Appeals En Banc, Tracey E. George, Michael E. Solimine
Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications
This article considers systematically whether the Supreme Court is more likely to review an en banc court of appeals decision than a panel decision. First, we consider Supreme Court review of en banc cases during the Rehnquist Court. Then, in a multivariate empirical analysis of a three-circuit subset of those cases, we control for other variables found to influence the Court's certiorari decision, such as Solicitor General or amicus curiae support for the certiorari petition, a dissent from the court of appeal's opinion, an outcome contrary to the Court's ideological composition, and an intercircuit conflict. The discussion is situated in …
Conflating Scope Of Right With Standard Of Review: The Supreme Court's Strict Scrutiny Of Congressional Efforts To Enforce The Fourteenth Amendment, Melissa Hart
Publications
No abstract provided.
Beyond Indian Law: The Rehnquist Court’S Pursuit Of States’ Rights, Color-Blind Justice And Mainstream Values, David H. Getches
Beyond Indian Law: The Rehnquist Court’S Pursuit Of States’ Rights, Color-Blind Justice And Mainstream Values, David H. Getches
Publications
No abstract provided.
The Search For Incontrovertible Visual Evidence, Paul F. Campos
The Search For Incontrovertible Visual Evidence, Paul F. Campos
Publications
No abstract provided.
Undoing Indian Law One Case At A Time: Judicial Minimalism And Tribal Sovereignty, Sarah Krakoff
Undoing Indian Law One Case At A Time: Judicial Minimalism And Tribal Sovereignty, Sarah Krakoff
Publications
No abstract provided.
Miranda And Some Puzzles Of 'Prophylactic' Rules, Evan H. Caminker
Miranda And Some Puzzles Of 'Prophylactic' Rules, Evan H. Caminker
Articles
Constitutional law scholars have long observed that many doctrinal rules established by courts to protect constitutional rights seem to "overprotect" those rights, in the sense that they give greater protection to individuals than those rights, as abstractly understood, seem to require.' Such doctrinal rules are typically called "prophylactic" rules.2 Perhaps the most famous, or infamous, example of such a rule is Miranda v. Arizona,' in which the Supreme Court implemented the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination4 with a detailed set of directions for law enforcement officers conducting custodial interrogations, colloquially called the Miranda warnings. 5
Free-Standing Due Process And Criminal Procedure: The Supreme Court's Search For Interpretive Guidelines, Jerold H. Israel
Free-Standing Due Process And Criminal Procedure: The Supreme Court's Search For Interpretive Guidelines, Jerold H. Israel
Articles
When I was first introduced to the constitutional regulation of criminal procedure in the mid-1950s, a single issue dominated the field: To what extent did the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment impose upon states the same constitutional restraints that the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments imposed upon the federal government? While those Bill of Rights provisions, as even then construed, imposed a broad range of constitutional restraints upon the federal criminal justice system, the federal system was (and still is) minuscule as compared to the combined systems of the fifty states. With the Bill of Rights provisions …
Race, Peremptories, And Capital Jury Deliberations, Samuel R. Gross
Race, Peremptories, And Capital Jury Deliberations, Samuel R. Gross
Articles
In Lonnie Weeks's capital murder trial in Virginia in 1993, the jury was instructed: If you find from the evidence that the Commonwealth has proved beyond a reasonable doubt, either of the two alternative aggravating factors], and as to that alternative you are unanimous, then you may fix the punishment of the defendant at death or if you believe from all the evidence that the death penalty is not justified, then you shall fix the punishment of the defendant at life imprisonment ... This instruction is plainly ambiguous, at least to a lay audience. Does it mean that if the …
Gilmer In The Collective Bargaining Context, Theodore J. St. Antoine
Gilmer In The Collective Bargaining Context, Theodore J. St. Antoine
Articles
Can a privately negotiated arbitration agreement deprive employees of the statutory right to sue in court on claims of discrimination in employment because of race, sex, religion, age, disability, and similar grounds prohibited by federal law? Two leading U.S. Supreme Court decisions, decided almost two decades apart, reached substantially different answers to this questionand arguably stood logic on its head in the process. In the earlier case of Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., involving arbitration under a collective bargaining agreement, the Court held an adverse award did not preclude a subsequent federal court action by the black grievant alleging racial discrimination. …
Trying To Make Peace With Bush V. Gore (Symposium: Bush V. Gore Issue 2001), Richard D. Friedman
Trying To Make Peace With Bush V. Gore (Symposium: Bush V. Gore Issue 2001), Richard D. Friedman
Articles
The Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Gore, shutting down the recounts of Florida's vote in the 2000 presidential election and effectively awarding the election to George W. Bush, has struck many observers, including myself, as outrageous.' Decisions of the Supreme Court should be more than mere reflections of ideological or partisan preference thinly camouflaged behind legalistic language. It would therefore be pleasant to be able to believe that they are more than that. Accordingly, Judge Richard Posner's analysis,2 in which he defends the result reached by the Court-though not the path by which it got there-is particularly welcome. Though …
Federalism And International Human Rights In The New Constitutional Order, Mark V. Tushnet
Federalism And International Human Rights In The New Constitutional Order, Mark V. Tushnet
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
This Essay examines the contours of what I have elsewhere called the new constitutional order with respect to international human rights and federalism. The background is my suggestion that the U.S. political-constitutional system is on the verge of moving into a new constitutional regime, following the end of the New Deal-Great Society constitutional regime. The Supreme Court's innovations in the law of federalism in connection with Congress's exercise of its powers over domestic affairs has provoked speculation about the implications of those innovations for the national government's power with respect to foreign affairs. Most of the speculation has been that …
"Shut Up He Explained", Mark V. Tushnet
"Shut Up He Explained", Mark V. Tushnet
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
Part I of this Commentary examines the conversational model of politics. I argue that the virtues Bennett finds in the conversational model exist only when, and to the extent that, participants in civil and political society can engage in undominated conversation. The requirement that conversation be undominated generates a substantial set of social prerequisites, mostly dealing with equality. And yet, determining what social arrangements actually satisfy those prerequisites is itself a matter of constitutional controversy. Resolving such controversies through politics is no solution, because the political arena is where we seek to ensure that nondomination prevails in civil society, and, …
'Appropriate' Means-Ends Constraints On Section 5 Powers, Evan H. Caminker
'Appropriate' Means-Ends Constraints On Section 5 Powers, Evan H. Caminker
Articles
With the narrowing of Congress' Article I power to regulate interstate commerce and to authorize private suits against states, Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment provides Congress with an increasingly important alternative source of power to regulate and police state conduct. However, in City of Boerne v. Flores and subsequent cases, the Supreme Court has tightened the doctrinal test for prophylactic legislation based on Section Five. The Court has clarified Section Five's legitimate ends by holding that Congress may enforce Fourteenth Amendment rights only as they are defined by the federal judiciary, and the Court has constrained Section Five's permissible …
Miranda Thirty-Five Years Later: A Close Look At The Majority And Dissenting Opinions In Dickerson, Yale Kamisar
Miranda Thirty-Five Years Later: A Close Look At The Majority And Dissenting Opinions In Dickerson, Yale Kamisar
Articles
Over the years, Miranda v. Arizona1 has been criticized both for going too far2 and for not going far enough.3 Nevertheless, on the basis of talks with many criminal procedure professors in the sixteen months between the time a panel of the Fourth Circuit upheld a statute (18 U.S.C. § 3501) purporting to "overrule" Miranda and a 7-2 majority of the Supreme Court overturned that ruling in the case of Dickerson v. United States,4 I am convinced that most criminal procedure professors wanted the Supreme Court to do what it did-"reaffirm" Miranda. This is not surprising. As Professor Grano once …
From Miranda To §3501 To Dickerson To...(Symposium: Miranda After Dickerson: The Future Of Confession Law), Yale Kamisar
From Miranda To §3501 To Dickerson To...(Symposium: Miranda After Dickerson: The Future Of Confession Law), Yale Kamisar
Articles
Once the Court granted [certiorari in Dickerson] court-watchers knew the hour had come. At long last the Court would have to either repudiate Miranda, repudiate the prophylactic-rule cases [the cases viewing Miranda's requirements as not rights protected by the Constitution, but merely "prophylactic rules"] or offer some ingenious reconciliation of the two lines of precedent. The Supreme Court of the United States, however, doesn't "have to" do anything, as the decision in Dickerson once again reminds us.
The Changing Role Of Labor Arbitration (Symposium: New Rules For A New Game: Regulating Employment Relationships In The 21st Century), Theodore J. St. Antoine
The Changing Role Of Labor Arbitration (Symposium: New Rules For A New Game: Regulating Employment Relationships In The 21st Century), Theodore J. St. Antoine
Articles
A quarter century ago, in a provocative and prophetic article, David E. Feller lamented the imminent close of what he described as labor arbitration's "golden age." I have expressed reservations about that characterization, insofar as it suggested an impending shrinkage in the stature of arbitration. But Professor Feller was right on target in one important respect. Labor arbitration was going to change dramatically from the autonomous institution in the relatively self-contained world of union-management relations which it had been from the end of World War II into the 1970s. When the subject matter was largely confined to union-employer agreements, arbitration …