Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Reclaiming Establishment: Identity And The ‘Religious Equality Problem’, Faraz Sanei
Reclaiming Establishment: Identity And The ‘Religious Equality Problem’, Faraz Sanei
Faculty Scholarship
Since at least 2017, the Court has implicitly recognized a right of equal access to generally available public benefits based on the beneficiary's religious identity or status. In Carson v. Makin (2022), the Court went a step further and, for the first time, concluded that the “status-use distinction lacks a meaningful application” in both theory and practice. It then held that restrictions on the use of public benefits for sacral purposes amount to religious discrimination because they impose substantial burdens on free exercise rights. Carson's holding, and the rationale underlying it, contravene settled case law and effectively gut the Establishment …
Random Justice, Girardeau A. Spann
Random Justice, Girardeau A. Spann
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
As recent Senate confirmation practices suggest, the Supreme Court is best understood as the head of a political branch of government, whose Justices are chosen in a process that makes their ideological views dispositive. Throughout the nation’s history, the Supreme Court has exercised its governing political ideology in ways that sacrifice the interests of nonwhites in order to advance the interests of Whites. In the present moment of heightened cultural sensitivity to structural discrimination and implicit bias, it would make sense to use affirmative action to help remedy the racially disparate distribution of societal resources that has been produced by …
White Vigilantism And The Racism Of Race-Neutrality, Christian Sundquist
White Vigilantism And The Racism Of Race-Neutrality, Christian Sundquist
Articles
Race-neutrality has long been touted in American law as central to promoting racial equality while guarding against race-based discrimination. And yet the legal doctrine of race-neutrality has perversely operated to shield claims of racial discrimination from judicial review while protecting discriminators from liability and punishment. This Article critiques the doctrine of race-neutrality by examining the law’s response to white vigilantism in the much-publicized criminal trials of Kyle Rittenhouse and that of Ahmaud Arbery’s assailants.