Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Splitting Hairs: Why Courts Uphold Prison Grooming Policies And Why They Should Not, Mara R. Schneider
Splitting Hairs: Why Courts Uphold Prison Grooming Policies And Why They Should Not, Mara R. Schneider
Michigan Journal of Race and Law
Part I of this Note describes the substance of prison grooming policies and provides a sampling of cases that have challenged these policies under the Equal Protection and Free Exercise Clauses. Part II explores three theories of discrimination that describe certain types of discriminatory conduct that could be prohibited by the Equal Protection and Free Exercise Clauses. These theories inform the definition of "equal protection of the laws" and impact the analysis of equal protection challenges to prison grooming policies. Part III explores the "religious exemptions" doctrine and explains how courts have interpreted the protections offered to religious groups by …
Defending A Rule Of Institutional Autonomy On "No-Harm" Grounds, Mark V. Tushnet
Defending A Rule Of Institutional Autonomy On "No-Harm" Grounds, Mark V. Tushnet
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
The argument I sketch here for institutional autonomy is basically empirical and agrees with Professor Hamilton in making harm-reduction the overriding social goal. The argument proceeds in two steps. First, I suggest that autonomous institutions may be able to socialize their adherents more effectively than institutions that lack autonomy and that - if the institutions' values are compatible with the legislature's - their more effective socialization can produce a net reduction in the harms inflicted by the institutions' members. Second, autonomy for all institutions can be defended if the gains from assuring autonomy for groups whose values are compatible with …
Two Wrongs Make A Right: Hybrid Claims Of Discrimination, Ming Hsu Chen
Two Wrongs Make A Right: Hybrid Claims Of Discrimination, Ming Hsu Chen
Publications
This Note reinterprets and recontextualizes the pronouncement in Employment Division v. Smith (Smith II) that exemptions from generally applicable laws will not be granted unless claims of free exercise are accompanied by the assertion of another constitutional right. It argues that when Arab American Muslims, and others who are of minority race and religion, bring claims for exemption from generally applicable laws on the basis of free exercise and equal protection principles, they ought to be able to invoke Smith II's hybridity exception, thus meriting heightened judicial scrutiny and increased solicitude from courts.