Law Commons^™

The Epistemic Function Of Fusing Equal Protection And Due Process, Deborah Hellman

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The fusion of equal protection and due process has attracted significant attention with scholars offering varied accounts of its purpose and function. Some see the combination as productive, creating a constitutional violation that neither clause would generate alone. Others see the combination as merely strategic, offered to make a claim acceptable at a particular historical moment but not genuinely necessary. This Article offers a third alternative. Judges have and should bring both equal protection and due process together to learn what each clause independently requires. On this Epistemic vision of constitutional fusion, a focus on equality helps judges learn what …

The New Jim Crow’S Equal Protection Potential, Katherine Macfarlane

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

In 1954, the Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board of Education opinion relied on social science research to overturn Plessy v. Ferguson’s separate but equal doctrine. Since Brown, social science research has been considered by the Court in cases involving equal protection challenges to grand jury selection, death penalty sentences, and affirmative action. In 2016, Justice Sotomayor cited an influential piece of social science research, Michelle Alexander’s The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness, in her powerful Utah v. Strieff dissent. Sotomayor contended that the Court’s holding overlooked the unequal racial impact of suspicionless …

The Lawfulness Of The Same-Sex Marriage Decisions: Charles Black On Obergefell, Toni M. Massaro

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Orange Is The New Equal Protection Violation: How Evidence-Based Sentencing Harms Male Offenders, Shaina D. Massie

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Shaping California's Prisons: How The Alternative Custody Program, Designed To Remedy The State's Eighth Amendment Violations In The Prison System, Encroaches On Equal Protection, Emilie A. Whitehurst

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Discriminatory Acquittal, Tania Tetlow

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This article is the first to analyze a pervasive and unexplored constitutional problem: the rights of crime victims against unconstitutional discrimination by juries. From the Emmett Till trial to that of Rodney King, there is a long history of juries acquitting white defendants charged with violence against black victims. Modem empirical evidence continues to show a devaluation of black victims; dramatic disparities exist in death sentence and rape conviction rates according to the race of the victim. Moreover, just as juries have permitted violence against those who allegedly violated the racial order, juries use acquittals to punish female victims of …

How The Diversity Rationale Lays The Groundwork For New Discrimination: Examining The Trajectory Of Equal Protection Doctrine, Michael A. Helfand

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Article advocates differentiating between two distinct categories of equal protection cases. The first-what I have termed indicator cases-are instances where courts consider whether there are sufficient factual indications to demonstrate the existence of aprimafacie equal protection violation. The second-violation casesare instances where courts consider, having already determined the existence of an equal protection violation, whether there is a good enough justification for a prima facie equal protection violation. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has not differentiated between these two different types of cases. This has led to a string of decisions where the Supreme Court has erroneously looked for justifications …

The Contradiction Between Equal Protection's Meaning And Its Legal Substance: How Deliberate Indifference Can Cure It, Derek W. Black

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Article highlights the inherent ambiguities of racial antidiscrimination's core legal language: "equal protection under the law" and "discrimination based on race." It then analyzes how and why the Court has never answered fundamental questions regarding the meaning of these terms. Thus, this Article answers these fundamental questions itself by exploring the original intent behind the Equal Protection Clause. Against this backdrop, this Article reveals how the Court's standard for assessing discrimination claims, the intent doctrine, assumes a meaning for equal protection that is inconsistent with its original meaning. Rather than reflecting equal protection's meaning, the standard lacks any basis …

Shrinking Domain Of Individious Intent, K.G. Jan Pillai

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The landmark case of Washington v. Davis made invidious intent the touchstone of violation of the Equal Protection Clause. In this Article, Professor K G. Jan Pillai discusses the current state of the doctrine of invidious intent and its evolving role in Supreme Court jurisprudence. In the area of criminal law enforcement, strict application of the doctrine often produces harsh results. Among the existing three-tiered scrutiny standards, the doctrine appears out of place. In recent racial gerrymandering cases, the Supreme Court substantively modified the meaning of the doctrine. Despite the apparent instability of the doctrine, Professor Pillai concludes the solution …

Transcript Of Speech On American Atheists' Position On Religion In The Public Schools, Ellen Johnson

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Religious discussion in American public schools is one of the more controversial issues in modern education. Ellen Johnson not only explains the American Atheists 'position on the issue, but also presents observations from the often-ignored Atheist perspective. Johnson's remarks serve to remind us that there are other views on the subject besides the popular opinions concerning accommodation and access to school facilities.

The Role Of Suspicion In Federal Equal Protection, Paul E. Mcgreal

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Recently, Professor Jed Rubenfeld wrote an essay arguing that the Supreme Court's strict scrutiny test for equal protection works best to "smoke out" the purpose of laws to determine whether they were enacted because of racial bias or preference. Professor Rubenfeld criticized the Court's most recent affirmative action decision in Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena for departing from this "smoking out" approach.

In this Essay, Professor McGreal explores how this "smoking out" process is applied in federal equal protection cases. Counter to Professor Rubenfeld's view, he argues that the Supreme Court did use a "smoking out" approach in Adarand. His …