Law Commons^™

Constitutional Standing In Singapore: A Comment On Tan Eng Fong V Attorney General, Shubhankar Dam

Shubhankar Dam

No abstract provided.

Why Equal Protection Trumps Federalism In The Same-Sex Marriage Cases, Erin Ryan

Erin Ryan

Federalism is once again at the forefront of the Supreme Court’s most contentious cases this Term. The cases attracting most attention are the two same-sex marriage cases that were argued in March. Facing intense public sentiment on both sides of the issue and the difficult questions they raise about the boundary between state and federal authority, some justices openly questioned whether to just defer to the political process. And while this is often a wise prudential approach in review of contested federalism-sensitive policymaking, it’s exactly the wrong course of action when the matter under review is an individual right. This …

Think Of The Children: Advancing Marriage Equality By Renewing The Focus On Same-Sex Adoption Litigation, Jacob M. Reif

Jacob M Reif

No abstract provided.

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 …

Save Our Children: Overcoming The Narrative That Gays And Lesbians Are Harmful To Children, Anthony S. Niedwiecki

Publications

This paper focuses on how gay rights activists had no real choice but to use the court system to advance marriage rights for same-sex couples because they were unable to use the political process to effectively rebut the claim that gays and lesbian were harmful to children. Part I begins with an overview of the ways in which the initiative process has been used to limit gay rights and prevent marriage equality. It then details how, in contrast to the political process, courts have been more receptive to advancing marriage rights for same-sex couples. Part II details Walter Fisher's narrative …

Why Equal Protection Trumps Federalism In The Same-Sex Marriage Cases, Erin Ryan

Scholarly Publications

Federalism is once again at the forefront of the Supreme Court’s most contentious cases this Term. The cases attracting most attention are the two same-sex marriage cases that were argued in March. Facing intense public sentiment on both sides of the issue and the difficult questions they raise about the boundary between state and federal authority, some justices openly questioned whether to just defer to the political process. And while this is often a wise prudential approach in review of contested federalism-sensitive policymaking, it’s exactly the wrong course of action when the matter under review is an individual right. This …

Windsor Products: Equal Protection From Animus, Dale Carpenter

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

The Supreme Court's opinion in United States v. Windsor has puzzled commentators, who have tended to overlook or dismiss its ultimate conclusion that the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional because it arose from animus. What we have in Justice Kennedy’s opinion is Windsor Products — an outpouring of decades of constitutional development whose fountainhead is Carolene Products and whose tributaries are the gay-rights and federalism streams. This paper presents the constitutional anti-animus principle, including what constitutes animus, why it offends the Constitution, and how the Supreme Court determines it is present. The paper also discusses why the Court was …

Liberty V. Elections: Minority Rights And The Failure Of Direct Democracy, David A. Schultz

David A Schultz

Majority rule and special interest politics can threaten individual rights. Madisonian democracy addresses this threat through constitutional mechanisms such as a bill of rights, checks and balances, and representation. The Progressive Era reforms of initiative, referendum, and recall were adopted as a means to further democracy and break entrenched politics captured by interest groups. Yet it is not clear if these experiments in direct democracy have protected rights, let alone confined special interest politics. Using the 2012 Minnesota constitutional amendments on marriage and voter ID as examples,, this paper argues that elections, constitutional politics, and the use of initiative and …