Law Commons^™

"Because The Constitution Requires It And Because Justice Demands It": Specific Speech Injunctive Relief For Title Vii Hostile Work Environment Claims, Cecilee Price-Huish

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Abusive speech often is used effectively by harassers in the workplace to intimidate, terrorize, objectify, and humiliate their intended victims, thus helping to secure and maintain social inequality in the workforce, especially among racial and gender minority employees. Pursuant to the adoption of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the United States Supreme Court, in Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, interpreted the statute's anti-employment discrimination mandate as imposing liability for conduct or words in the workplace that have the purpose or effect of interfering with an employee's work performance or of creating an intimidating or hostile work …

Suspicionless Drug Testing And Chandler V. Miller: Is The Supreme Court Making The Right Decisions, Ross H. Parr

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

During the last decade, the United States Supreme Court has rendered four major decisions regarding the validity of suspicionless drug testing policies. Such drug testing policies have become a common way for employers and other interested parties-including the government-both to deter the use of drugs and to determine who is acting under the influence of illegal narcotics. Because government officials often randomly select individuals for drug testing, some of these individuals have charged that a governmental drug testing policy violates the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court found this argument unconvincing in three cases decided between 1989 and 1997, but in …

Lincoln, Vallandingham, And Anti-War Speech In The Civil War, Michael Kent Curtis

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

In the early morning hours of May 5, 1863, Union soldiers forcibly arrested Clement L. Vallandigham, a prominent Democratic politician and former congressman, for an anti-war speech which he had given a few days earlier in Mount Vernon, Ohio. Vallandigham's arrest ignited debate about freedom of speech in a democracy during a time of war and the First Amendment rights of critics of an administration. This Article is one in a series by Professor Curtis which examines episodes in the history of free speech before and during the Civil War.

In this Article, Professor Curtis explores the First Amendment's guarantee …

Law And Human Dignity: The Judicial Soul Of Justice Brennan, Stephen J. Wermiel

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The concept of human dignity has emerged in the United States in recent decades as an important theoretical and sometimes practical source of individual rights and liberties. Human dignity is cited in jurisprudential writings and discussed in some court opinions as a means of enhancing the broad phrases of the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment. This Essay examines the pivotal role that the late Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., played on the United States Supreme Court in making concepts of human dignity a valued and essential part of rights formulation. This essay explores Justice Brennan 's vision of …

Physician-Assisted Suicide: State Legislation Teetering At The Pinnacle Of A Slippery Slope, Eunice Park

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Physician-assisted suicide has become the subject of a hotly contested legal and political debate, both in the United States and abroad. In 1997, the United States Supreme Court rendered two decisions concerning physician-assisted suicide, and two states recently enacted legislation on this issue: Oregon in 1997 and Virginia in 1998. Nevertheless, the legality of physician-assisted suicide remains unclear as doctors, pharmacists, legal commentators, and a growing segment of the general population continue to argue over the line between "letting die" and "killing." This Note analyzes both the constitutional and political aspects of the right-to-die debate, focusing primarily on the political …

The History Of The Special (Struck) Jury In The United States And Its Relation To Voir Dire Practices, The Reasonable Cross-Section Requirement, And Peremptory Challenges, James Oldham

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

In this Article, Professor Oldham provides a unique historical study of the special, or struck, jury in the United States. First, Professor Oldham discusses the influence of the 1730 English statute on eighteenth- century American law and reviews the procedures of several states in which the struck jury remains valid, in addition to the once authorized procedures that states have since declared invalid. He also analyzes the relationship between the struck jury and peremptory challenges. Second, Professor Oldham analyzes the special qualifications of the jurors comprising special juries in the context of the "blue ribbon," or "high-class, " jury, the …

Choosing Perspectives In Criminal Procedure, Ronald J. Bacigal

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

In this Article, Professor Bacigal examines the Supreme Court's use of various perspectives in examining the reasonableness of searches and seizures. Although the Supreme Court purports to rely on a consistent method of constitutional analysis when rendering decisions on Fourth Amendment issues, the case law in this area indicates that the Court is influenced sometimes by the citizen's perspective, sometimes by the police officers' perspective, and sometimes by the perspective of the hypothesized reasonable person.

After identifying the role of perspectives in a number of seminal Court decisions, Professor Bacigal discusses the benefits and limitations of the Court's reliance on …

Justice John Marshall Harlan As Prophet: The Plessy Dissenter's Color-Blind Constitution, Molly Townes O'Brien

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The concept of color-blindness has long elicited much debate over its precise meaning and the role it should play in jurisprudence. Such debate was catalyzed by Justice John Marshall Harlan's well-known Plessy dissent. In the wake of the efforts of both civil rights activists and conservatives to use color-blindness to further their respective goals, Professor O'Brien seeks to clarify Harlan's vision of color-blind jurisprudence and examines the ways in which recent Supreme Court decisions echo Harlan's concepts regarding a color-blind constitution.

Professor O'Brien first provides a brief introduction to the concept of color-blindness. O'Brien then examines Harlan's experiences in politics …

The Moral Failure Of The Clear And Present Danger Test, David R. Dow

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The clear and present danger test has been used for almost a century to determine the speech the government may restrain. This test assumes that at some point speech transforms into an act and at that moment the speech becomes punishable. Under the clear and present danger test, the First Amendment does not protect speech that is an incitement to imminent lawless action. Professor Dow suggests that the clear and present danger test protects too little speech. He posits that speech should be protected unless the following three conditions are met: (1) the speaker's specific intent in uttering the words …

And What Of The Meek?: Devising A Constitutionally Recognized Duty To Protect The Disabled At State Residential Schools, Yama Shansab

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Section 1983 provides a statutory right to a remedy for Fourteenth Amendment due process violations. The Supreme Court has suggested that the state only has a duty to protect when an individual is incarcerated, involuntarily institutionalized, or has other similar restraints of his or her personal liberty. Based on this, courts generally have found that schools have no constitutional duty to protect their students against injury from other students or staff members. Lower courts have struggled with what constitutes other similar restraints, but have generally been unwilling to find that a state has a constitutional duty in all but the …

Justice Or Injustice For The Poor?: A Look At The Constitutionality Of Congressional Restrictions On Legal Services, J. Dwight Yoder

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Upon enacting the Legal Services Corporation Act in 1974, Congress created the Legal Services Corporation (LSC), which provides federal funding to grantees that perform legal services for low-income individuals. In recent years, Congress has enacted restrictions upon grantees' receipt of such federal funding, limiting the legal services these legal aid attorneys can provide to their clients. This move has sparked great debate. Proponents of the restrictions argue that they are needed to correct abuse and misuse of the legal services program, while opponents argue that the restrictions only harm low-income individuals.

In this Note, the author addresses this controversial issue …

Murder In The Abstract: The First Amendment And The Misappropriation Of Brandenburg, Amy K. Dilworth

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

When Paladin Enterprises published Hit Man, a manual about murder for hire, it knew and intended that the book would be used for such a purpose. When James Perry used the information contained in Hit Man to murder three innocent persons, he started a legal debate about the scope of First Amendment protections for books that instruct how to commit criminal acts. Many scholars and commentators indicated that Brandenburg v. Ohio contains the applicable constitutional standard; however, in litigation against Paladin, the survivors of the decedents challenged the conventional wisdom.

This Note examines the Brandenburg test for its applicability to …

Old Chief, Crowder, And Trials By Stipulation, David Robinson Jr.

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

In this Article, Professor Robinson argues that the meaning of "unfair prejudice" and the scope of trial judges' discretion in employing Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence is still uncertain following the Supreme Court's recent decision in United States v. Old Chief and its vacation and remand of United States v. Crowder and United States v. Davis. Robinson evaluates the evidentiary implications of the Supreme Court's recent decisions by discussing each case and analyzing the implications of the three cases read together.

Professor Robinson examines the possible effects of stipulations and admissions on the Rule 403 balancing test …

Aggravating And Mitigating Factors: The Paradox Of Today's Arbitrary And Mandatory Capital Punishment Scheme, Jeffrey L. Kirchmeier

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Over twenty years ago, the United States Supreme Court held that both mandatory capital sentencing schemes and total discretionary capital sentencing schemes violate the Eighth Amendment. According to Jeffrey Kirchmeier, the "guided discretion" capital sentencing scheme of sentencing factors that has developed, however, has the constitutional problems of both mandatory death penalties and unlimited discretion death penalties.

Justices Scalia, Blackmun, and Thomas have noted that the mandate of unlimited mitigating circumstances has resulted in an arbitrary system. Kirchmeier argues that today's sentencing scheme is arbitrary also because of undefined aggravating factors, unlimited nonstatutory aggravating factors, and victim impact evidence. According …

The Constitution And Private Government: Toward The Recognition Of Constitutional Rights In Private Residential Communities Fifty Years After Marsh V. Alabama, Steven Siegel

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Article considers the application of the Supreme Court's state-action theory to residential commmunity associations (RCAs), a form of housing and community governance that has experienced extraordinary growth in recent years. Fewer than 500 RCAs were in existence in the United States before 1960. In the early 1990s, it was estimated that 32 million Americans lived in 150,000 RCAs. A continuing boom in RCA construction has led to predictions that twenty-five to thirty percent of Americans will be living in RCAs by early in the next century. Steven Siegel argues that this trend, although largely unnoticed, carries significant implications for …

Board Of County Commissioners V. Umbehr: The Inadequacies Of Extending Pickering Analysis To Government Contractors, Luther D. Tupponce

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Note challenges the restrictive First Amendment free speech protection that the Supreme Court gave to government contractors in Board of County Commissioners v. Umbehr when it applied the Pickering balancing test, developed nearly thirty years ago in Pickering v. Board of Education in the context of government employees. It does so by first questioning whether the First Amendment free speech protections given to government employees should be similar for government contractors. It then explores whether the Pickering balancing test should be applied to cases involving government contractors as it was in Umbehr.

The author concludes that the Court improperly …