Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Law
Dehumanization 'Because Of Sex': The Multiaxial Approach To The Title Vii Rights Of Sexual Minorities, Shirley Lin
Dehumanization 'Because Of Sex': The Multiaxial Approach To The Title Vii Rights Of Sexual Minorities, Shirley Lin
Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications
Although Title VII prohibits discrimination against any employee “because of such individual’s . . . sex,” legal commentators have not yet accurately appraised Title VII’s trait and causation requirements embodied in that phrase. Since 2015, most courts assessing the sex discrimination claims of LGBT employees began to intentionally analyze “sex” as a trait using social-construction evidence, and evaluated separately whether the discriminatory motive caused the workplace harm. Responding to what this Article terms a “doctrinal correction” to causation within this groundswell of decisions, the Supreme Court recently issued an “expansive” and “sweeping” reformulation of but-for causation in Bostock v. Clayton …
The Glass Half Full: Envisioning The Future Of Race Preference Policies, Leslie Yalof Garfield
The Glass Half Full: Envisioning The Future Of Race Preference Policies, Leslie Yalof Garfield
Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications
Justice Breyer's concern that the Court's June 2007 ruling in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District. No. 1 "is a decision the Court and nation will come to regret" is not well founded. Far from limiting the constitutionally permissible use of race in education from its present restriction to higher education, the case may allow governmental entities to consider race as a factor to achieve diversity in grades K-12. In Parents Involved, which the Court decided with its companion case, McFarland v. Jefferson County Public Schools four justices concluded that school boards may never consider race when …
Adding Colors To The Chameleon: Why The Supreme Court Should Adopt A New Compelling Governmental Interest Test For Race-Preference Student Assignment Plans, Leslie Yalof Garfield
Adding Colors To The Chameleon: Why The Supreme Court Should Adopt A New Compelling Governmental Interest Test For Race-Preference Student Assignment Plans, Leslie Yalof Garfield
Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications
When the Supreme Court ordered the City of Birmingham to desegregate its schools in 1954, it failed to consider the long range implications of its mandate. School districts across the country responded to the Court’s order by adopting race-preference school assignment plans, created to designate the particular public elementary or secondary school a student should attend. Now that these plans have successfully achieved their goals of desegregating classrooms, the question has become whether the continuation of the very programs that helped achieve those goals remain legal? In other words, as Justice Ginsburg recently said in arguments before the Supreme Court, …
The Cost Of Good Intentions: Why The Supreme Court's Decision Upholding Affirmative Action Admission Programs Is Detrimental To The Cause, Leslie Yalof Garfield
The Cost Of Good Intentions: Why The Supreme Court's Decision Upholding Affirmative Action Admission Programs Is Detrimental To The Cause, Leslie Yalof Garfield
Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications
This article provides an overview of the Federal Courts’ interpretation of equal protection challenges to affirmative action admission policies beginning with University of California v. Bakke through the recent Supreme Court decisions of Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger. The article then identifies and outlines the appropriate elements of a constitutionally sound affirmative action admission policy. Finally, the article concludes that the permissible policy is almost unattainable for schools other than small institutions.
Gideon V. Wainwright Revisited: What Does The Right To Counsel Guarantee Today?, Michael B. Mushlin
Gideon V. Wainwright Revisited: What Does The Right To Counsel Guarantee Today?, Michael B. Mushlin
Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications
In Gideon v. Wainwright, the Supreme Court unanimously held that indigent state felony defendants are constitutionally entitled to the appointment of trial counsel. The opinion aroused wide support, and even enthusiasm, almost from the moment it was announced in 1963. Two and a half decades later this support has not diminished. However, are the words of praise only lip service to the noble idea of the right to counsel? Has Gideon really made a difference? Has its promise of a fair shake for poor criminal defendants been kept, or has Gideon meant only that defendants are provided with the fleeting …
"The Right Of The People": Reconciling Collective And Individual Interests Under The Fourth Amendment, Donald L. Doernberg
"The Right Of The People": Reconciling Collective And Individual Interests Under The Fourth Amendment, Donald L. Doernberg
Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications
Professor Doernberg examines a tension within fourth amendment jurisprudence and sugqests a means of resolving it. On the one hand, the Supreme Court has conferred fourth amendment standing only upon those whose personal privacy interests have been disturbed. On the other hand, the Court has allowed such persons to invoke the exclusionary rule only in circumstances where, in the Court's view, it would serve as an effective deterrent. Professor Doernberg traces these two po1icies to different conceptions of the fourth amendment: the first interprets the amendment as a guarantor of individual rights; the second construes it as an instrument for …