Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Constitutional Law (1497)
- Supreme Court of the United States (1046)
- Courts (746)
- Judges (457)
- Civil Rights and Discrimination (325)
-
- Jurisprudence (268)
- First Amendment (263)
- State and Local Government Law (255)
- Criminal Law (237)
- Criminal Procedure (207)
- Legal History (201)
- Social and Behavioral Sciences (181)
- Fourteenth Amendment (177)
- Law and Politics (165)
- Law and Society (153)
- Legislation (153)
- Law and Philosophy (135)
- Litigation (120)
- Fourth Amendment (119)
- Law and Race (117)
- Administrative Law (116)
- Civil Procedure (103)
- Intellectual Property Law (103)
- Election Law (98)
- Law and Gender (87)
- Jurisdiction (86)
- Environmental Law (82)
- Health Law and Policy (79)
- Political Science (79)
- Institution
-
- Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center (618)
- Maurer School of Law: Indiana University (202)
- Georgetown University Law Center (136)
- University of Richmond (123)
- Duquesne University (120)
-
- Columbia Law School (96)
- New York Law School (82)
- St. Mary's University (82)
- St. John's University School of Law (78)
- University of Georgia School of Law (73)
- Vanderbilt University Law School (71)
- Fordham Law School (70)
- Pepperdine University (69)
- Boston University School of Law (65)
- Duke Law (62)
- American University Washington College of Law (59)
- Emory University School of Law (57)
- Notre Dame Law School (57)
- University of Baltimore Law (56)
- Saint Louis University School of Law (54)
- The University of Akron (53)
- University of Miami Law School (44)
- University of Colorado Law School (42)
- University of Nevada, Las Vegas -- William S. Boyd School of Law (42)
- Cleveland State University (38)
- Chicago-Kent College of Law (35)
- Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School (31)
- University of Kentucky (31)
- University of Cincinnati College of Law (29)
- University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law (28)
- Publication Year
- Publication
-
- Touro Law Review (493)
- Faculty Scholarship (291)
- Indiana Law Journal (177)
- Scholarly Works (150)
- Hallowed Secularism (116)
-
- Faculty Articles (110)
- Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works (102)
- Law Faculty Publications (80)
- Faculty Publications (79)
- All Faculty Scholarship (70)
- Pepperdine Law Review (66)
- Journal Articles (56)
- Vanderbilt Law Review (56)
- University of Richmond Law Review (53)
- Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity (41)
- NYLS Law Review (37)
- Fordham Law Review (32)
- Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review (30)
- Law Faculty Scholarly Articles (28)
- Scholarship@WashULaw (28)
- Articles & Chapters (27)
- Articles (26)
- Faculty Articles and Other Publications (25)
- Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals (25)
- Law Faculty Articles and Essays (21)
- Saint Louis University Law Journal (21)
- University of Miami Law Review (21)
- Nevada Law Journal (20)
- Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters (19)
- Supreme Court Overviews (19)
- Publication Type
- File Type
Articles 2791 - 2820 of 3331
Full-Text Articles in Law
The Supreme Court's Use Of Per Curiam Dispositions: The Connection To Oral Argument, Stephen L. Wasby, Steven Peterson, James Shubert, Glendon Shubert
The Supreme Court's Use Of Per Curiam Dispositions: The Connection To Oral Argument, Stephen L. Wasby, Steven Peterson, James Shubert, Glendon Shubert
Northern Illinois University Law Review
This study is an empirical examination of a set of the Supreme Court's per curiam rulings issued after oral argument between 1969 and 1981. The authors use transcripts of Supreme Court oral argument and the Court's opinions to untangle relationships between oral argument and dispositions, particularly when the Court does not reach the merits. The authors note that oral argument clarifies issues and helps the justices narrow them. The Court's comments in its per curiam dispositions indicate that oral argument is relevant for the Court's dispositions and at times it has been more determinative of outcomes, for example, when counsel's …
The Supreme Court, Abortion, And The Jurisprudence Of Class, Wendy K. Mariner
The Supreme Court, Abortion, And The Jurisprudence Of Class, Wendy K. Mariner
Faculty Scholarship
The US Supreme Court's decision in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v Casey both protects a woman's liberty to choose to terminate her pregnancy and permits the state to make it more difficult for her to exercise her choice. In their opinion on the case, Justices O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter eloquently defend constitutional protection of the right to make intimate decisions like continuing or ending a pregnancy. At the same time, they permit the state to try to persuade pregnant women not to have abortions and to make abortion harder to obtain and more costly, as long as the state's …
"The Right Of Privacy", Fernando Bustos
"The Right Of Privacy", Fernando Bustos
Brigham Young University Prelaw Review
The concept of a right of privacy is one that is currently the focal point of the argument for legalized abortion, and for women's rights in general. By examining the history of this issue, along with its influence upon the U.S. Constitution, and the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, we will be better enabled to understand the legal debate at hand.
Letter To Rjm From Craig Isaacs, Criag Isaacs
Beyond Maryland V. Craig: Can And Should Adult Rape Victims Be Permitted To Testify By Closed-Circuit Television?, Lisa Hamilton Thielmeyer
Beyond Maryland V. Craig: Can And Should Adult Rape Victims Be Permitted To Testify By Closed-Circuit Television?, Lisa Hamilton Thielmeyer
Indiana Law Journal
No abstract provided.
Mum's The Word: The Supreme Court And Family Planning, Wendy K. Mariner
Mum's The Word: The Supreme Court And Family Planning, Wendy K. Mariner
Faculty Scholarship
On May 23, 1991, the US Supreme Court upheld federal regulations that prohibit federally funded family planning programs from counseling about or referring for abortion. As a result, government benefits may now entail substantial costs. The regulations changed the nature of government-assisted family planning from comprehensive care and counseling to limited services and government-prescribed information. The reasoning in Rust v Sullivan allows government to limit freedom of speech in federally funded programs. The decision may have been influenced by antiabortion sentiment, but it does not affect the legality of abortion. Instead, it sets a precedent for government control of whether …
Free Trade And Environmental Protection In An Integrated Market: A Survey Of The Case Law Of The United States Supreme Court And The European Court Of Justice, Damien Geradin
Florida State University Journal of Transnational Law & Policy
No abstract provided.
When “Special Needs” Meet Probable Cause: Denying The Devil Benefit Of Law, Gerald S. Reamey
When “Special Needs” Meet Probable Cause: Denying The Devil Benefit Of Law, Gerald S. Reamey
Faculty Articles
Removing laws to pursue the lawbreaker may be well intentioned, but the result is that society is susceptible to the evils those laws protect against. The traditional Fourth Amendment safeguards--probable cause and warrants--have been abandoned due to the development of a reasonableness standard because of the presence of “special needs” that were used to justify searches. The adoption of this alternative approach to Fourth Amendment interpretation was signalled by the truly landmark case of Terry v. Ohio.
By adopting the “reasonableness” analysis, the Supreme Court altered the impact of the exclusionary rule without directly modifying the rule. After Griffin v. …
No Harm, No Foul: Pornography (Violent And Otherwise), Victoria M. Mather
No Harm, No Foul: Pornography (Violent And Otherwise), Victoria M. Mather
Faculty Articles
At the heart of the entire pornography debate is the lack of understanding or agreement of what is regulated. Society does not agree about what pornography means, what is hardcore or softcore, what is obscene, or what is "adult." The disagreement tends to derive from two very different viewpoints—the liberal view, and the feminist view. On the liberal side of the debate, pornography should be protected speech but on the feminist side, society should take into account the feminist perspective and the harmful effects of these graphic depictions.
Applying the Miller-Roth test, liberals believe that pornography is protected speech until …
The Gender Gap: Separating The Sexes In Public Education, Sharon K. Mollman
The Gender Gap: Separating The Sexes In Public Education, Sharon K. Mollman
Indiana Law Journal
No abstract provided.
A Matter Of "Governing' Importance": Providing Business Defamation And Product Disparagement Defendants Full First Amendment Protection, Lisa Magee Arent
A Matter Of "Governing' Importance": Providing Business Defamation And Product Disparagement Defendants Full First Amendment Protection, Lisa Magee Arent
Indiana Law Journal
No abstract provided.
A Medical-Legal Dilemma: When Can "Inappropriate" Nutrition And Hydration Be Removed In Indiana?, Kathleen M. Anderson
A Medical-Legal Dilemma: When Can "Inappropriate" Nutrition And Hydration Be Removed In Indiana?, Kathleen M. Anderson
Indiana Law Journal
No abstract provided.
Free Speech And School Governance In The Wake Of Hazelwood, Rosemary C. Salomone
Free Speech And School Governance In The Wake Of Hazelwood, Rosemary C. Salomone
Faculty Publications
(Excerpt)
The Supreme Court's 1988 decision in Hazelwood School District v. KuhImeier upholding public school officials' authority to censor material in a high school student newspaper sent immediate shock waves throughout the educational and legal communities. The Court's sweeping language in Hazelwood moved far beyond the narrow issue of school newspaper censorship. It even moved beyond the question of appropriate or acceptable speech in public secondary schools. It was clear that Hazelwood could have far-reaching consequences for student rights, school governance, and the scope of official authority to make curricular decisions that reflect the values of the local community.
Some …
Who's In Charge Of U.S. Indian Policy?: Congress And The Supreme Court At Loggerheads Over American Indian Religious Freedom, David E. Wilkins
Who's In Charge Of U.S. Indian Policy?: Congress And The Supreme Court At Loggerheads Over American Indian Religious Freedom, David E. Wilkins
Jepson School of Leadership Studies articles, book chapters and other publications
The federal government's three branches—executive, legislative, judicial, and that unwieldy mass known simply as "the bureaucracy" have, during the last half-decade—1987-1991—produced a dizzying crop of laws, policies, proclamations, regulations, and court decisions which have served simultaneously to 1) reaffirm tribal sovereignty; 2) permit and encourage greater state interference within Indian Country; 3) enhance federal legislative authority over tribes; and 4) deny constitutional free-exercise protections both to individual Indians and to tribes.
On the legislative side, Congress has established the experimental Tribal Self-Governance Demonstration Project which is a major step towards restoring the tribal right of self-determination, and is discussing the …
Evidence Of Religion And The Religion Of Evidence, Michael S. Ariens
Evidence Of Religion And The Religion Of Evidence, Michael S. Ariens
Faculty Articles
When testimony about the religiosity of a victim is elicited, a jury will likely become aware of the religious affiliation of the victim. Any revelation to a jury of the religiosity of a victim can be an aid to the jury in assessing the punishment to be given to the defendant, since being religious and talking with people about religion is deemed a communal good. However, prescribing a harsher punishment to a defendant because of the religious affiliation of a victim is a form of religious discrimination which is unconstitutional. In light of this inherent difficulty of evidence of religion, …
The Paradox Of United State Democracy, C. A. Gearty
The Paradox Of United State Democracy, C. A. Gearty
University of Richmond Law Review
This program is about a paradox at the heart of American democracy. We take it for granted that elected officials, like President Bush and members of Congress, run America. In fact, many of the country's most important decisions are taken by nine unelected lawyers accountable to no one. It is a paradox which is increasingly under scrutiny as more and more Americans are coming to question the power of their Supreme Court.