Law Commons^™

Supreme Court Report 2006-2007: Closing Of The Courthouse Doors?, Julie M. Cheslik, Andrea Mcmurty, Kristin Underwood

Faculty Works

This article reviews the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court for the 2006-2007 term focusing on decisions of particular relevance to state and local government. In reviewing those decisions, we focus on the shifts in the Court over time on those issues.

The expectation that the Supreme Court would shift to the right came to fruition in the 2006-07 term by the sheer lack of clear decisions on the merits. Time and again, the Court decided cases on the standing issue, never reaching the merits and frustrating litigants and citizens attempts to define their rights. Yale law professor Judith Resnick …

The Press As An Interest Group: Mainstream Media In The United States Supreme Court, Eric Easton

All Faculty Scholarship

There can be little doubt that the institutional press is an interest group to be reckoned with in the Supreme Court, its aversion to such a designation notwithstanding. Over the past century, and especially since 1964, the press has secured for itself the greatest legal protection available anywhere in the world. While some of that protection has come from Congress, by far the greatest share has come from the Supreme Court's expansive interpretation of the First Amendment's Press Clause. Although the role of the press in American politics has been studied extensively for nearly two centuries, the role of the …

After 150 Years, Worst Supreme Court Decision Ever Continues To Haunt, F. Michael Higginbotham

All Faculty Scholarship

In 1857, the Supreme Court rendered a decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, declaring that it had no jurisdiction to hear Dred Scott's claim to freedom because he was black and, therefore, not a citizen of the United States. This article argues that not only was the decision morally reprehensible, it was also based on an erroneous interpretation of the Constitution.

Mandatory Guidelines: The Oxymoronic State Of Sentencing After United States V. Booker, Hon. Graham C. Mullen, J. P. Davis

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Silenced Citizens: The Post-Garcetti Landscape For Public Sector Employees Working In National Security, Jamie Sasser

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Supreme Court Of The United States, Poplar Creek Public Library District

Democracy/Government

Bibliography and photograph of a display of government documents from Poplar Creek Public Library District, Illinois.

Politics Of Deference And Inclusion: Toward A Uniform Framework For The Analysis Of ‘Fundamental Alteration’ Under The Ada, Kerri Lynn Stone

Faculty Publications

In 2001, a disabled professional golfer prevailed in his claim to use a golf cart on the PGA Tour in the Supreme Court case of PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin. While the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) mandates that essential and reasonable accommodations be made for plaintiffs like Martin, it does not require any actions that would fundamentally alter the nature of a defendant’s “goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations.” This article surveys federal opinions that undertook the fundamental alteration query posed by Titles II and III of the ADA in the five years since Martin was decided, and …

The Double Standard In Judicial Selection, Edwin Meese Iii

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Georgia V. Randolph: Whose Castle Is It, Anyway?, Lesley Mccall

University of Richmond Law Review

The Fourth Amendment protects individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures. Generally, a warrant is required to conduct a lawful search of a person's home, and a warrantless search is unreasonable per se. However, there are some exceptions to this requirement. A warrantless search is reasonable if police obtain voluntary consent from a person to search their home or effects. The Supreme Court has also recognized that a third party with common authority over a household may consent to a police search affecting an absent co-occupant. The Supreme Court of the United States recently addressed whether third party consent was effective …

Breaking Free Of Chevron's Constraints: Zuni Public School District No. 89 V. U.S. Department Of Education, Osamudia R. James

Articles

No abstract provided.

Fighting Discrimination While Fighting Litigation: A Tale Of Two Supreme Courts, Scott A. Moss

Publications

The U.S. Supreme Court has issued an odd mix of pro-plaintiff and pro-defendant employment law rulings. It has disallowed harassment lawsuits against employers even with failed antiharassment efforts, construed statutes of limitations narrowly to bar suits about ongoing promotion and pay discrimination, and denied protection to public employee internal complaints. Yet the same Court has issued significant unanimous rulings easing discrimination plaintiffs' burdens of proof.

This jurisprudence is often miscast in simple pro-plaintiff or pro-defendant terms. The Court's duality traces to its inconsistent and unaware adoption of competing policy arguments:

Policy 1: Employees must try internal dispute resolution before suing--or …

Majority Politics And Race Based Remedies, Darren L. Hutchinson

Faculty Articles

This Essay applies the principles of social movement theory and analyzes the legal status of race-based remedies. Many scholars have debated the constitutionality and efficacy of affirmative action, the appropriateness of race-consciousness (from legal and social perspectives) and the legitimacy of structural judicial remedies for various types of discrimination. This paper will add to this literature by demonstrating the influence of conservative race politics and ideology on Court doctrine concerning affirmative action and other race-based remedies. In particular, this Essay will demonstrate that, consistent with broader political trends, the Court disfavors governmental usage of race as a remedy for discrimination …