Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Equal Protection And Welfare Legislation: The Need For A Principled Approach, Lynda D. Frazier
Equal Protection And Welfare Legislation: The Need For A Principled Approach, Lynda D. Frazier
Seattle University Law Review
The Supreme Court decision in Maher v. Roe, denying an equal protection claim to Medicaid payments for elective abortions, illustrates the Court's inconsistent application of minimal rationality standards to socioeconomic legislation. This comment analyzes Maher in light of recent irreconcilable Supreme Court decisions involving similar equal protection claims to welfare payments. It shows that the Court's standard of review vacillates between deferential abdication to the legislature and unexplained judicial interventionism, and concludes that until the Court adheres to a consistent and principled approach to minimal rationality review, equal protection will remain an area for unrestrained imposition of judicial, rather …
United States Trust Co. V. New Jersey-State Promises And The Contract Clause: An Untimely Resurrection, Clifford D. Foster Jr.
United States Trust Co. V. New Jersey-State Promises And The Contract Clause: An Untimely Resurrection, Clifford D. Foster Jr.
Seattle University Law Review
This comment examines the impact of United States Trust on traditional contract clause doctrines and policies. After an initial discussion of the factual and legal background, a historical survey will show the decision employs a new approach to contract clause analysis. Next, this comment will analyze the Court's new approach, especially the Court's treatment of impairments when a state is a contractual party, its willingness to make policy judgments formerly left to legislative discretion, and the decision's probable effect on any future municipal debt crises. Finally, in accord with Justice Brennan's dissent in United States Trust, this comment will …
A Case For Judicial Balancing: Justice Stevens And The First Amendment, Richard G. Birinyi
A Case For Judicial Balancing: Justice Stevens And The First Amendment, Richard G. Birinyi
Seattle University Law Review
This comment discusses four of Justice Stevens's opinions that analyze first amendment issues. Two dissenting opinions in Splawn v. California and Smith v. United States deal expressly with obscenity, and reject the Court's present method of analysis. Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc. and Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation both develop a balancing approach to ascertain the constitutionality of government regulation of nonobscene offensive speech. The comment concludes that Justice Stevens correctly identifies the factors necessary to insure proper Court protection of speech interests.