Law Commons^™

The New Dread, Part Ii: The Judicial Overthrow Of The Reasonableness Standard In Police Shooting, Kindaka J. Sanders

Cleveland State Law Review

This Article series argues that the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on excessive force from Graham v. Connor to the present has undermined the objectivity of the reasonableness standard. In its place, the Court has erected a standard that reflects modern conservative political ideology, including race conservatism, law and order, increased police discretion, and the deconstruction of the Warren Court’s expansion of civil rights and civil liberties. Indeed, the Court, dominated by law-and-order conservatives, is one of the greatest triumphs of conservatism. Modern conservatism developed as a backlash against various social movements like the Civil Rights Movement and spontaneous urban rebellions during …

The Roberts Court’S Anti-Democracy Jurisprudence And The Reemergence Of State Authoritarian Enclaves, Reginald Oh

Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity

This Essay argues that the Roberts Court has been a pivotal institutional player in destabilizing constitutional democracy. It has enabled states to freely pursue agendas that are authoritarian in nature. And because authoritarianism is contrary to core principles of the Constitution, the Roberts Court’s constitutional jurisprudence has no basis in the Constitution and must ultimately be rejected.

Instead of taking steps to block authoritarian legislation and promote a fair and open political process, the Court has issued rulings catalyzing and reinforcing the authoritarian impulses of the former Jim Crow states. The Roberts Court has engaged in judicial review reinforcing authoritarianism, …

The Effects Of National Security On Supreme Court Case Decisions Involving Civil Liberties, Callie Gerzanics

Williams Honors College, Honors Research Projects

This research project will analyze the effects that national security laws and tensions have on civil liberties and Supreme Court case decisions. National security has been a primary objective for the United States of America for as long as wars have been fought and enemies have been made. National security continues to be a concern for the U.S. government, especially with the prominence of technology that has made the U.S. more vulnerable to breaches in security, such as cybernetic attacks. The motivations behind this project stem from a concern of how national security can influence Supreme Court decisions, police arrests, …

The Supreme Court’S Two Constitutions: A First Look At The “Reverse Polarity” Cases, Arthur D. Hellman

Articles

In the traditional approach to ideological classification, “liberal” judicial decisions are those that support civil liberties claims; “conservative” decisions are those that reject them. That view – particularly associated with the Warren Court era – is reflected in numerous academic writings and even an article by a prominent liberal judge. Today, however, there is mounting evidence that the traditional assumptions about the liberal-conservative divide are incorrect or at best incomplete. In at least some areas of constitutional law, the traditional characterizations have been reversed. Across a wide variety of constitutional issues, support for claims under the Bill of Rights or …

Justice Brandeis And Civic Duty In A Pluralistic Society, Joel K. Goldstein

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Justice Harlan's Enduring Importance For Current Civil Liberties Issues, From Marriage Equality To Dragnet Nsa Surveillance, Nadine Strossen

Articles & Chapters

No abstract provided.

To Catch A Terrorist: The Improper Use Of Profiling In U.S. Post-9/11 Counterterrorism, Kamillia Crawford

Honors Undergraduate Theses

The attacks of September 11, 2001 (9/11) caused thousands of deaths, national and global panic, and immediate action by the federal government to protect the borders of the United States of America (USA) from terrorism. In response to these attacks, the United States (U.S.) government enacted laws for law enforcement agencies to protect against terrorist activities. Law enforcement agencies are effective in combating terrorism, but their measures contain a major flaw - the improper use of race in profiling to address national security and public safety concerns. Racial profiling is an ineffective measure for preventing terrorism. There are solutions to …

Justice Blackmun And Criminal Justice: A Modest Overview, Stephen L. Wasby

Akron Law Review

Justice Harry A. Blackmun was nominated for a position on the Supreme Court in 1970 by President Richard M. Nixon after the Senate rejected Nixon's nominations of Judges Clement Haynsworth and G. Harrold Carswell. Blackmun, as a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit for eleven years, had written opinions that reflected "judicial restraint, an appreciation for the limits of judicial authority and deference to state and legislative prerogatives" as well as conservatism on defendants' rights and civil liberties issues. These strains of thought made him attractive to a president looking for someone supporting the "war …

Up In Smoke: Fourth Amendment Rights And The Burger Court, Gerald S. Reamey

Faculty Articles

When Warren Burger was appointed Chief Justice in 1969, he was expected to lead the Supreme Court away from its liberal, value-laden approach to constitutional adjudication. Indeed, a retrospective of the court’s work during the seventeen years Warren Burger served as Chief Justice reveals the expected conservative trend of the Chief Justice himself, as well as the Supreme Court generally. It does not, however, reflect wholesale rejection of the most controversial civil liberties decisions rendered by the Warren Court. It is also unclear that Chief Justice Burger was responsible for the Court’s retrenchment on civil liberties where it did occur. …

Book Reviews, Wythe Holt, Kermit L. Hall

Vanderbilt Law Review

The recent death of Earl Warren reminds us, rather sadly, that the great Chief Justice and "his" Court have been subjected to withering and sometimes vicious and unfair criticism from within the academic circle.' The heart of the criticism (most charitably put) has been that the Warren Court hastily, simplistically, and even unnecessarily attempted to elevate egalitarianism into a high,perhaps the highest, social value and standard for constitutional and governmental decision making. We like to think that we believe in a democracy free for all-that is the way we portray ourselves propagandistically to the rest of the world-but the truth …

The Supreme Court And Individual Liberties Since 1952, Paul A. Porter

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Freund: On Understanding The Supreme Court., Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

A Review of ON UNDERSTANDING THE SUPREME COURT. By Paul A. Freund.

The Divided Supreme Court, 1944-1945, C. Herman Pritchett

Michigan Law Review

The United States Supreme Court has in recent years been supplying fascinating material for students interested in the interplay of personal and institutional factors in the judicial decision-making process. Contrary to the more restrictive practices of some other legal systems, the traditions of the American judiciary have never insisted that justices sitting en banc should hide the existence of division among themselves behind a facade of pretended unanimity. Justices who dissent from a decision of their brethren have been permitted to say so, and to give their reasons. This practice has had an immeasurably great effect in facilitating the growth …