Law Commons^™

Undue Deference To States In The 2020 Election Litigation, Joshua A. Douglas

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

COVID-19 has wreaked havoc on so much of our lives, including how to run our elections. Yet the federal courts have refused to respond appropriately to the dilemma that many voters faced when trying to participate in the 2020 election. Instead, the courts—particularly the U.S. Supreme Court and the federal appellate courts—invoked a narrow test that unduly defers to state election administration and fails to protect adequately the fundamental right to vote.

In constitutional litigation, a law usually must satisfy a two-part test: (1) does the state have an appropriate reason for the law and (2) is the law properly …

Blurred Lines: Disparate Impact And Disparate Treatment Challenges To Subjective Decisions-- The Case Of Reductions In Force, Allan King, Alexandra Hemenway

William & Mary Business Law Review

Subjective employment decisions may be challenged under disparate treatment (intentional discrimination) and/or disparate impact (the discriminatory consequences of a neutral policy) theories of discrimination. However, these theories and supporting evidence often are conflated when the criteria for selecting employees are ill-defined or unrecorded. In those instances, the process by which employees are selected merges with the selections themselves, these legal theories converge as well. This Article critically discusses how courts have struggled to distinguish these theories in cases alleging a discriminatory reduction in force. It suggests how these cases should be submitted to juries, to preserve the liability and remedies …

Judicial Matters, Neal Devins

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.