Constitutional Law Commons^™

Why Turner V. Rogers Was And Wasn’T Correctly Decided: How The Fourteenth Amendment Should Be Read For Child Support Contemnors, Gina Rose Lauterio

Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice

No abstract provided.

The "Nixon Sabotage": The Political Origins Of The Equal Protection Challenge To The Voting Rights Act, Danieli Evans

Articles

Critics of the Voting Rights Act argue that the anti-discrimination law requires states to engage in unconstitutional discrimination, as state decisionmakers must be conscious of race in order to ensure that voting policies do not weaken minority representation. This argument relies on the idea that subjective racial motivation is the essence of unconstitutional discrimination (even if benevolent, or to promote racial inclusion). The conventional understanding among constitutional scholars is that this “search for the bigoted decisionmaker” developed in employment and housing discrimination decisions between 1976 and 1979. Previous accounts have not recognized the role that the 1971 school desegregation decision …

A Response To Steve Vladeck And Kevin Jon Heller, Peter Margulies

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Women's Rights On The Right: The History And Stakes Of Modern Pro-Life Feminism, 1968 To The Present, Mary Ziegler

Scholarly Publications

Recently, pro-life advocates have popularized claims that abortion harms rather than helps women. The best known of these arguments are the woman-protective arguments—contentions, such as those endorsed in Gonzales v. Carhart, justifying abortion restrictions on the basis of the physical or psychological harms supposedly produced by the procedure. Woman-protective claims, however, represent only one part of a much larger strategy that this Article calls pro-life feminism. The Article follows pro-life activists’ use of the term “feminist” or “feminism.” As the Article makes clear, activists on competing sides of the abortion issue have contested the meaning of “true” feminism. Taking …

Abortion And Disgust, Courtney Megan Cahill

Scholarly Publications

This Article uses disgust theory — defined as the insights on disgust by psychologists and social scientists — to critique disgust’s role in abortion lawmaking. Its starting point is a series of developments that independently highlight and call into question the relationship between abortion and disgust. First, the Supreme Court introduced disgust as a valid basis for abortion regulation in its 2007 case Gonzales v. Carhart. Second, psychologists have recently discovered a sufficiently strong association between individual disgust sensitivity and abortion opposition to suggest that disgust might drive that opposition. They have also discovered that “abortion disgust” appears to be …

Is The Antidiscrimination Project Being Ended?, Michael J. Zimmer

Indiana Journal of Law and Social Equality

No abstract provided.

Legal Affairs: Dreyfus, Guantánamo, And The Foundation Of The Rule Of Law, David Cole

Touro Law Review

Analogous to the Dreyfus affair, America's reaction to the events of September 11, 2001, subverted the rule of law to impose penalties on those it viewed as a threat. There are lessons to be learned from both the Dreyfus affair and America's reaction to September 11, 2001.

“Lonesome Road”: Driving Without The Fourth Amendment, Lewis R. Katz

Seattle University Law Review

The protections of the Fourth Amendment on the streets and highways of America have been drastically curtailed. This Article traces the debasement of Fourth Amendment protections on the road and how the Fourth Amendment’s core value of preventing arbitrary police behavior has been marginalized. This Article contends that the existence of a traffic offense should not be the end of the inquiry but the first step, and that defendants should be able to challenge the reasonableness even when there is proof of a traffic offense.

The Application Of Anti-Discrimination Laws To Religious Institutions: The Irresistible Force Meets The Immovable Object, Oliver S. Thomas

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

No abstract provided.

Defining The Lifeblood: The Search For A Sensible Ministerial Exception Test, Summer E. Allen

Pepperdine Law Review

Over the past 40 years, the circuit courts have acknowledged a ministerial exception to Title VII and other anti-discrimination laws that gives churches the freedom to determine who serves in ministerial roles as a voice of a church’s faith. In January of 2012, the Supreme Court officially adopted the exception into its jurisprudence. The opinion, however, left many questions unanswered. Mainly, the decision failed to give any guidance to lower courts regarding who is and who is not a minister. This article traces the history of the ministerial exception and the church autonomy doctrine back to the Religion Clauses in …

Seen But Not Heard: Advocating For Children In New York State, Sarah L. Marx

Touro Law Review

On November 1, 2008, the New York State Bar Association House of Delegates approved a resolution affirming their commitment towards establishing a civil right to counsel in New York State. One of the issues identified is a child's right to representation not only in criminal, but also civil proceedings. Unlike other litigant groups, children have a statutorily established right to council in civil proceedings. However, as the white paper, adopted by the New State Bar Association, details, there are gaps in children 's advocacy throughout New York State. While significant steps towards improvement have recently taken place, there is still …

Special Populations: Mobilization For Change

Touro Law Review

This Article is based on a transcript of a break-out discussion which took place at An Obvious Truth: Creating an Action Blueprint for a Civil Right to Counsel in New York State, held at Touro Law Center, Central Islip, New York, in March 2008. The discussion was moderated by Karen L. Nicolson, Michael Williams, and Toby Golick.

This Article assesses the needs of various special populations and the possible strategies and solutions to create change through enacting a civil right to counsel. The Article is intended to capture information and viewpoints of the people who participated in the break-out discussion …

Advocacy In Health Proceedings In New York State, Kia C. Franklin

Touro Law Review

Individuals and communities navigating the healthcare system without an advocate often experience devastating outcomes and become burdened with unnecessary costs. These negative outcomes undermine the very utility of our healthcare system. The creation of a legal right to counsel for individuals with critical health related claims would meet an important and unmet need in our health and legal systems by empowering patients, improving the quality of health for many, and preventing unnecessary costs to the health care system.

A dedicated group of healthcare advocates, lawyers, public policy analysts, and other concerned individuals gathered together at Touro Law Center to strategize …

The Tipping Point On The Scales Of Civil Justice, Dennis A. Kaufman

Touro Law Review

The right to counsel in civil cases-metaphorically known as Civil Gideon-has gained traction in segments of the legal community, but advances have thus far been legislative, and while significant, adoption has been slow, less than cohesive or thematic and inconsistent across the country. Patchwork recognition and implementation by legislatures forms a fragile and uneven safety net. The availability of counsel is far from comprehensive. The preferred path to a comprehensive right to counsel in civil matters goes through the United States Supreme Court, but the Court refused to recognize a due process constitutional right to counsel in a civil matter …

Gideon Meets Goldberg: The Case For A Qualified Right To Counsel In Welfare Hearings, Stephen Loffredo, Don Friedman

Touro Law Review

In Goldberg v. Kelly, the Supreme Court held that welfare recipients have a right under the Due Process Clause to notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard before the state may terminate assistance. However, the Court stopped short of holding due process requires states to appoint counsel to represent claimants at these constitutionally mandated hearings. As a result, in the vast majority of administrative hearings involving welfare benefits, claimants- desperately poor, and often with little formal education- must appear pro se while trained advocates represent the government. Drawing on the theory of underenforced constitutional norms, first articulated by Dean …

Sheltering Counsel: Towards A Right To A Lawyer In Eviction Proceedings, Raymond H. Brescia

Touro Law Review

This Article provides an overview of the current arguments presented by advocates who seek to establish a right to counsel for indigent tenants in eviction proceedings and assesses the strength of those arguments in the current political, social, and economic milieu. It is beyond question that the overwhelming majority of low-income tenants are unrepresented in proceedings in which their homes are in jeopardy and having counsel in such proceedings often prevents eviction and homelessness. Preventing those evictions reduces the human cost of homelessness, saves government substantial money by not having to provide shelter to the homeless, and preserves the stock …

In The Interests Of Justice: Human Rights And The Right To Counsel In Civil Cases, Martha F. Davis

Touro Law Review

This report examines the international human rights treaties binding on the United States as well as other non-binding international human rights documents to ascertain the status of the right to counsel in civil cases, the so-called "Civil Gideon" right. The United Nations treaty monitoring bodies responsible for the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination have both indicated that legal assistance may be required to ensure fairness in civil cases. The Charter of the Organization of American States, to which the United States is a party, goes farther …

Keynote Address: The Evolution And Importance Of Creating A Civil Right To Counsel, Wade Henderson

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Catch Twentywu The Oral Argument In Fisher V. University Of Texas And The Obfuscation Of Critical Mass, Sheldon Bernard Lyke

NULR Online

No abstract provided.

Federal Incarceration By Contract In A Post-Minneci World: Legislation To Equalize The Constitutional Rights Of Prisoners, Allison L. Waks

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

In the 2012 case Minneci v. Pollard, the United States Supreme Court held that federal prisoners assigned to privately-run prisons may not bring actions for violations of their Eighth Amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment and may instead bring actions sounding only in state tort law. A consequence of this decision is that the arbitrary assignment of some federal prisoners to privately-run prisons deprives them of an equal opportunity to vindicate this federal constitutional right and pursue a federal remedy. Yet all federal prisoners should be entitled to the same protection under the United States Constitution-regardless of the type …

The Meaning Of The Seventeenth Amendment And A Century Of State Defiance, Zachary D. Clopton, Steven E. Art

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Nearly a century ago, the Seventeenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution worked a substantial change in American government, dictating that the people should elect their senators by popular vote. Despite its significance, there has been little written about what the Amendment means or how it works. This Article provides a comprehensive interpretation of the Seventeenth Amendment based on the text of the Amendment and a variety of other sources: historical and textual antecedents; relevant Supreme Court decisions; the complete debates in Congress; and the social and political factors that led to this new constitutional provision. Among other things, this analysis …

Proposition 8 Is Unconstitutional, But Not Because The Ninth Circuit Said So: The Equal Protection Clause Does Not Support A Legal Distinction Between Denying The Right To Same-Sex Marriage And Not Providing It In The First Place, Nathan Rouse

Seattle University Law Review

In Perry v. Brown, the Ninth Circuit held that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional. But in doing so, the court stepped back from the breadth of the district court’s decision. The Ninth Circuit did not address whether same-sex marriage is a fundamental constitutional right. Nor did the Ninth Circuit address whether the Equal Protection Clause categorically prevents states from limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples. Instead, the Ninth Circuit reached the narrow conclusion that Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause because it withdrew a preexisting legal right from a marginalized group without any legitimate purpose. The Ninth Circuit should have held …

Is "Different But Equal" The New "Separate But Equal"? Nclb's Single-Sex Schooling Option Signals New Horizons For Some While Challenging Equal Education Convictions For Others , Elaine Ekpo

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

No abstract provided.

Let Me Count The Ways: The Unconstitutionality Of Same-Sex-Marriage Bans, Mark Strasser

Brigham Young University Journal of Public Law

No abstract provided.

The Meaning And Good Of Equality: Toward Enhanced Constitutional Principles, Scott Fitzgibbon

Brigham Young University Journal of Public Law

No abstract provided.

Brief Of Amici Curiae Professors Nan D. Hunter, Et Al., Addressing The Merits In Support Of Respondents, Nan D. Hunter, Suzanne B. Goldberg

U.S. Supreme Court Briefs

In this amicus brief filed in United States v. Windsor, pending before the Supreme Court, amici constitutional law professors argue that all classifications that carry the indicia of invidiousness should trigger a more searching inquiry than the traditional rational basis test under the Equal Protection Clause would suggest. Classifications that already receive heightened scrutiny, such as race or sex, fit easily into this approach. But the Court’s equal protection jurisprudence has become muddied in a series of cases in which it says rational basis review, but appears to do a more rigorous review. Sexual orientation classifications seemingly were analyzed …

Religions As Sovereigns: Why Religion Is "Special", Elizabeth Clark

Faculty Scholarship

Commentators increasingly challenge religion’s privileged legal status, arguing that it is not “special” or distinct from other associations or philosophical or conscientious claims. I propose that religion is “special” because it functions metaphorically as a legal sovereign, asserting supreme authority over a realm of human life. Under a religion-as-sovereign theory, religious freedom can be understood as at least partial deference to a religious sovereign in a system of shared or overlapping sovereignty. This Article suggests that federalism, which also involves shared sovereignty, can provide a useful heuristic device for examining religious freedom. Specifically, the Article examines a range of federalism …

Harris V. Mcrae: Whatever Happened To The Roe V. Wade Abortion Right?, Laura Crocker

Pepperdine Law Review

The controversial Roe v. Wade decision purportedly removed the abortion controversy from the political arena and set constitutional standards by which questions on the issue could be resolved. The enactment of the Hyde Amendment, a bill which generally forbids the use of Medicaid funds for abortions, was a recent political response to the abortion controversy. However, in the recent case of Harris v. McRae, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Hyde Amendment and thus injected the abortion controversy back into the political arena. The author exhaustively examines the abortion controversy from the time of the Roe decision up …

Wengler V. Druggists' Mutual Insurance Company: No More Skirting The Issue Of Sex Discrimination In Workers' Compensation Dependency Statutes, Teresa A. Saggese, Lawson A. Cox Ii

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Rostker V. Goldberg: A Step Backward In Equal Protection, Or A Justifiable Affirmation Of Congressional Power?, Gilbert L. Purcell, Janet Rappaport

Pepperdine Law Review

The Supreme Court in Rostker v. Goldberg upheld a Congressional decision which excluded women from registration for service in the Armed Forces of the United States. Although the case was brought based upon equal protection grounds, the majority took a separation of powers stance and based its decision upon the fact that the Court has traditionally granted deference to the decisions of Congress in the area of military affairs. The minority opinions disagreed with the majority's analysis and claimed that the central issue in Rostker was not military in nature, but was that Congress' plan to register males only, promoted …