Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 10 of 10
Full-Text Articles in Law
Student Rights Under The Due Process Clause . . . Suspensions From Public Schools; Goss V. Lopez, Glenn W. Soden
Student Rights Under The Due Process Clause . . . Suspensions From Public Schools; Goss V. Lopez, Glenn W. Soden
Akron Law Review
IN ADDRESSING ITSELF to the constitutionality of Section 3316.66 of the Ohio Revised Code,' the United States Supreme Court in Goss v. Lopez has ruled for the first time upon the extent to which the rights of students are to be protected under the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment in conjunction with any disciplinary removal from a public school. By its action the Court has tacitly undertaken to lift the cloud on student rights which has existed under the common law doctrine of in loco parentis, and interpose procedural safeguards upon any decision of school officials to deprive …
Standing; Assertion Of Jus Tertii; Sex Discrimination; Equal Protection; Twenty-First Amendment; Craig V. Boren, Anthony Sadowski
Standing; Assertion Of Jus Tertii; Sex Discrimination; Equal Protection; Twenty-First Amendment; Craig V. Boren, Anthony Sadowski
Akron Law Review
"A PPELLANTS brought an action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The complaint charged that the operation of two Oklahoma statutes, which prohibited the sale of 3.2% beer to males under the age of 21 while allowing females over the age of 18 to purchase the commodity, violated the fourteenth amendment to the Federal Constitution. The three-judge court held that the gender-based classification did not violate the equal protection clause. In Craig v. Boren, on direct appeal, the United States Supreme Court reversed, finding that the gender-based classification could …
Equal Protection; Sex Discrimination; Veterans' Preference Statutes, Feeney V. Massachusetts, Eloise Taylor
Equal Protection; Sex Discrimination; Veterans' Preference Statutes, Feeney V. Massachusetts, Eloise Taylor
Akron Law Review
"Historically, the armed services have been predominantly male. The result has been that the operation of veterans' preferences has placed women as a class at a particular disadvantage in comparison to men when in or entering into civil service.' To nullify this stigma, the first successful challenge to veterans' preference, Feeney v. Massachusetts,' was litigated."
First Amendment; Freedom Of The Press; Access Of News Media To County Jail; Houchins V. Kqed, Inc., Thomas W. Renwand
First Amendment; Freedom Of The Press; Access Of News Media To County Jail; Houchins V. Kqed, Inc., Thomas W. Renwand
Akron Law Review
"Although United States history is replete with struggles over the rights and prerogatives of the press, until recently these disputes rarely made their way to the nation's highest court.' In the last several years the Supreme Court has been confronted with a number of important, complex questions dealing with the role of a free press in a free society.'"
Equal Protection; State Alimony Statutes; Sex Discrimination; Orr V. Orr, David A. Detec, Jane L. Thomas-Moore
Equal Protection; State Alimony Statutes; Sex Discrimination; Orr V. Orr, David A. Detec, Jane L. Thomas-Moore
Akron Law Review
In Orr v. Orr the United States Supreme Court held unconstitutional the Alabama alimony statutes which provided that husbands, but not wives, may be required to pay alimony upon divorce. The Court's principal reason for so holding was the statutes' violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the fourteenth amendment on the basis of sex discrimination.
Kant's Categorical Imperative: An Unspoken Factor In Constitutional Rights Balancing, Donald L. Beschle
Kant's Categorical Imperative: An Unspoken Factor In Constitutional Rights Balancing, Donald L. Beschle
Donald L. Beschle
No abstract provided.
Jones, Lackey, And Teague, Richard Broughton
Jones, Lackey, And Teague, Richard Broughton
Richard Broughton
In a recent, high-profile ruling, a federal court finally recognized that a substantial delay in executing a death row inmate violated the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishments. Courts have repeatedly rejected these so-called “Lackey claims,” making the federal court’s decision in Jones v. Chappell all the more important. And yet it was deeply flawed. This paper focuses on one of the major flaws in the Jones decision that largely escaped attention: the application of the non-retroactivity rule from Teague v. Lane. By comprehensively addressing the merits of the Teague bar as applied to Lackey claims, and making …
Does The Right To Elective Abortion Include The Right To Ensure The Death Of The Fetus?, Stephen G. Gilles
Does The Right To Elective Abortion Include The Right To Ensure The Death Of The Fetus?, Stephen G. Gilles
Stephen G Gilles
Is the right to an elective abortion limited to terminating the woman’s pregnancy, or does it also include the right to ensure the death of the fetus? Important as this question is in principle, in today’s world the conduct that would squarely raise it cannot occur in practice. The right to elective abortion applies only to fetuses that are not viable, which by definition means that they have been determined to have no realistic chance of surviving outside the uterus. Even if abortion providers used fetus-sparing methods rather than the fetus-killing methods they currently prefer, pre-viable fetuses would die within …
Brief For Foreign And Comparative Law Experts Harold Hongju Koh Et Al. As Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioners, Harold Hongju Koh, Thomas Buergenthal, Sarah H. Cleveland, Laurence R. Helfer, Ryan Goodman, Sujit Choudhry
Brief For Foreign And Comparative Law Experts Harold Hongju Koh Et Al. As Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioners, Harold Hongju Koh, Thomas Buergenthal, Sarah H. Cleveland, Laurence R. Helfer, Ryan Goodman, Sujit Choudhry
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Bait And Switch: Why United States V. Morrison Is Wrong About Section Five, Kermit Roosevelt Iii
Bait And Switch: Why United States V. Morrison Is Wrong About Section Five, Kermit Roosevelt Iii
All Faculty Scholarship
As the title suggests, the article examines Morrison’s creation of the rule that the Section Five power cannot be used to regulate private individuals. This is one of the most meaningful and, thus far, durable constraints that the Court has placed on federal power. It is the more surprising, then, that it turns out to be based on essentially nothing at all. The Morrison Court asserted that its rule was derived by—indeed, “controlled by”—precedent, but a closer reading of the Reconstruction-era decisions it cites shows that this is simply not the case. An independent evaluation of the rule against regulation …