Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
-
- University of Michigan Law School (254)
- Seattle University School of Law (235)
- Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center (172)
- Yeshiva University, Cardozo School of Law (114)
- William & Mary Law School (108)
-
- UIC School of Law (57)
- Washington and Lee University School of Law (42)
- The University of Akron (40)
- University of Georgia School of Law (35)
- Pepperdine University (33)
- Florida State University College of Law (32)
- Northwestern Pritzker School of Law (32)
- University of Colorado Law School (28)
- Maurer School of Law: Indiana University (27)
- St. John's University School of Law (26)
- Fordham Law School (25)
- Cleveland State University (24)
- Brooklyn Law School (22)
- Notre Dame Law School (21)
- University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law (20)
- Cornell University Law School (19)
- University of Kentucky (19)
- University of Nebraska - Lincoln (19)
- Brigham Young University Law School (17)
- Columbia Law School (17)
- University of Cincinnati College of Law (17)
- University of Washington School of Law (17)
- Florida A&M University College of Law (16)
- The Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law (16)
- University of Maine School of Law (16)
- Keyword
-
- Fourteenth Amendment (257)
- Due process (191)
- Equal protection (152)
- Fourteenth amendment (127)
- Supreme Court (125)
-
- Equal Protection Clause (107)
- Constitution (105)
- Constitutional law (98)
- United States Constitution 14th Amendment (79)
- Due Process (74)
- Constitutional Law (69)
- Due Process Clause (66)
- Discrimination (63)
- Equal Protection (59)
- Fifth Amendment (57)
- New York (50)
- Federal (48)
- Federalism (42)
- Abortion (40)
- First Amendment (40)
- Race (39)
- Affirmative action (38)
- Civil rights (33)
- Law (32)
- Due Process of Law (31)
- Segregation (31)
- United States Supreme Court (31)
- Brown v. Board of Education (30)
- Bill of Rights (29)
- Equal protection clause (29)
- Publication Year
- Publication
-
- Michigan Law Review (231)
- Seattle University Law Review (199)
- Touro Law Review (147)
- Faculty Scholarship (74)
- UIC Law Review (54)
-
- Cardozo Law Review (45)
- William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal (44)
- Akron Law Review (36)
- Articles (35)
- William & Mary Law Review (32)
- Cardozo Journal of Equal Rights & Social Justice (30)
- Scholarly Works (29)
- Publications (28)
- Florida State University Law Review (27)
- Pepperdine Law Review (26)
- Seattle Journal for Social Justice (26)
- Faculty Publications (25)
- Northwestern University Law Review (22)
- The Catholic Lawyer (20)
- Cornell Law Faculty Publications (19)
- BYU Law Review (17)
- Cleveland State Law Review (17)
- Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity (17)
- Nebraska Journal on Advancing Justice (17)
- Kentucky Law Journal (16)
- Maine Law Review (16)
- Scholarly Articles (16)
- Law Faculty Publications (15)
- Maryland Law Review (15)
- Notre Dame Law Review (15)
- Publication Type
- File Type
Articles 1291 - 1320 of 1911
Full-Text Articles in Fourteenth Amendment
Questioning The Relevance Of Miranda In The Twenty-First Century, Richard A. Leo
Questioning The Relevance Of Miranda In The Twenty-First Century, Richard A. Leo
Michigan Law Review
Miranda v. Arizona is the most well-known criminal justice decision - arguably the most well-known legal decision - in American history. Since it was decided in 1966, the Miranda decision has spawned voluminous newspaper coverage, political and legal debate, and academic commentary. The Miranda warnings themselves have become so well-known through the media of television that most people recognize them immediately. As Patrick Malone has pointed out, the Miranda decision has added its own lexicon of words and phrases to the American language. Perhaps with this understanding in mind, George Thomas recently suggested that the Miranda warnings are more well-known …
In The Stationhouse After Dickerson, Charles D. Weisselberg
In The Stationhouse After Dickerson, Charles D. Weisselberg
Michigan Law Review
Miranda v. Arizona established the high water mark of the protections afforded an accused during a custodial interrogation. During the decades that followed, the United States Supreme Court allowed Miranda's foundation to erode, inviting a direct challenge to the landmark ruling. In Dickerson v. United States, the Court turned back such a challenge and placed Miranda upon a more secure, constitutional footing. This Article explores the impact of Dickerson in the place where Miranda was meant to matter most: the stationhouse. As I have described elsewhere, Supreme Court decisions have influenced a number of California law enforcement agencies to instruct …
Miranda'S Failure To Restrain Pernicious Interrogation Practices, Welsh S. White
Miranda'S Failure To Restrain Pernicious Interrogation Practices, Welsh S. White
Michigan Law Review
As Yale Kamisar's writings on police interrogation demonstrate, our simultaneous commitments to promoting law enforcement's interest in obtaining confessions and to protecting individuals from overreaching interrogation practices have created a nearly irreconcilable tension. If the police must be granted authority to engage in effective questioning of suspects, it will obviously be difficult to insure that "the terrible engine of the criminal law . . . not . . . be used to overreach individuals who stand helpless against it." If we are committed to accommodating these conflicting interests, however, some means must be found to impose appropriate restraints on the …
Miranda, The Constitution, And Congress, David A. Strauss
Miranda, The Constitution, And Congress, David A. Strauss
Michigan Law Review
Are Miranda warnings required by the Constitution, or not? If they are, why has the Supreme Court repeatedly said that the rights created by Miranda are "not themselves rights protected by the Constitution"? If not, why can't an Act of Congress, such as 18 U.S.C. 3501, declare them to be unnecessary? These were the central questions posed by United States v. Dickerson. It is not clear that the majority opinion ever really answered them. The majority said that "Miranda is constitutionally based," that Miranda has "constitutional underpinnings," that Miranda is "a constitutional decision," and that Miranda "announced a constitutional rule." …
Miranda'S Mistake, William J. Stuntz
Miranda'S Mistake, William J. Stuntz
Michigan Law Review
The oddest thing about Miranda is its politics - a point reinforced by the decision in, and the reaction to, Dickerson v. United States. In Dickerson, the Supreme Court faced the question whether Miranda ought to be overturned, either directly or by permitting legislative overrides. The lawyers, the literature, and the Court split along right-left - or, in the Court's case, right-center - lines, with the right seeking to do away with Miranda's restrictions on police questioning, and the left (or center) seeking to maintain them. The split is familiar. Reactions to Miranda have always divided along ideological lines, with …
Separated At Birth But Siblings Nonetheless: Miranda And The Due Process Notice Cases, George C. Thomas Iii
Separated At Birth But Siblings Nonetheless: Miranda And The Due Process Notice Cases, George C. Thomas Iii
Michigan Law Review
Paraphrasing Justice Holmes, law is less about logic than experience. Courts and scholars have now had thirty-four years of experience with Miranda v. Arizona, including the Court's recent endorsement in Dickerson v. United States last Term. Looking back over this experience, it is plain that the Court has created a Miranda doctrine quite different from what it has said it was creating. I think the analytic structure in Dickerson supports this rethinking of Miranda. To connect the dots, I offer a new explanation for Miranda that permits us to reconcile Dickerson and the rest of the post-Miranda doctrine with the …
Deceptive Police Interrogation Practices: How Far Is Too Far?, Laurie Magid
Deceptive Police Interrogation Practices: How Far Is Too Far?, Laurie Magid
Michigan Law Review
Virtually all interrogations - or at least virtually all successful interrogations - involve some deception. As the United States Supreme Court has placed few limits on the use of deception, the variety of deceptive techniques is limited chiefly by the ingenuity of the interrogator. Interrogators still rely on the classic "Mutt and Jeff," or "good cop, bad cop," routine. Interrogators tell suspects that nonexistent eyewitnesses have identified them, or that still at-large accomplices have given statements against them. Interrogators have been known to put an unsophisticated suspect's hand on a fancy, new photocopy machine and tell him that the "Truth …
Q: Will The Supreme Court Intervention In Florida Fail The Test Of Time?, Ira Glasser, Alan J. Meese
Q: Will The Supreme Court Intervention In Florida Fail The Test Of Time?, Ira Glasser, Alan J. Meese
Popular Media
No abstract provided.
Is Zippo's Sliding Scale A Slippery Slope Of Uncertainty? A Case For Abolishing Web Site Interactivity As A Conclusive Factor In Assessing Minimum Contacts In Cyberspace, 34 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1051 (2001), Jason Green
UIC Law Review
No abstract provided.
Mary Daly V. Boston College: The Impermissibility Of Single-Sex Classrooms Within A Private University, Maryam Ahranjani
Mary Daly V. Boston College: The Impermissibility Of Single-Sex Classrooms Within A Private University, Maryam Ahranjani
Scholarly Works
No abstract provided.
Stopping A Moving Target, Sherry F. Colb
Stopping A Moving Target, Sherry F. Colb
Cornell Law Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.
"Invidious" American Indian Tribal Sovereignty: Morton V. Mancari Contra Adarand Constructors, Inc. V. Pena, Rice V. Cayetano, And Other Recent Cases, Frank Shockey
American Indian Law Review
No abstract provided.
'Appropriate' Means-Ends Constraints On Section 5 Powers, Evan H. Caminker
'Appropriate' Means-Ends Constraints On Section 5 Powers, Evan H. Caminker
Articles
With the narrowing of Congress' Article I power to regulate interstate commerce and to authorize private suits against states, Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment provides Congress with an increasingly important alternative source of power to regulate and police state conduct. However, in City of Boerne v. Flores and subsequent cases, the Supreme Court has tightened the doctrinal test for prophylactic legislation based on Section Five. The Court has clarified Section Five's legitimate ends by holding that Congress may enforce Fourteenth Amendment rights only as they are defined by the federal judiciary, and the Court has constrained Section Five's permissible …
Why Federalism Must Be Enforced: A Response To Professor Kramer, Marci A. Hamilton
Why Federalism Must Be Enforced: A Response To Professor Kramer, Marci A. Hamilton
Articles
The United States Supreme Court has issued a series of opinions that turn on the Constitution's inherent principles of federalism, decisions that have alarmed many a legal scholar. Some scholars have attacked the Court for overstepping its bounds, and others have criticized the Court on the ground that the federal/state balance should be maintained through the political process rather than judicial review. The most recent advocate of this position, Professor Larry Kramer, recently argued in the Columbia Law Review that the political party structure ensures that state interests are taken into account at the federal level, and therefore the Supreme …
The Second Amendment: Structure, History, And Constitutional Change, David Yassky
The Second Amendment: Structure, History, And Constitutional Change, David Yassky
Michigan Law Review
A fierce debate about the Second Amendment has been percolating in academia for two decades, and has now bubbled through to the courts. The question at the heart of this debate is whether the Amendment restricts the government's ability to regulate the private possession of firearms. Since at least 1939 - when the Supreme Court decided United States v. Miller, its only decision squarely addressing the scope of the right to "keep and bear Arms" - the answer to that question has been an unqualified "no." Courts have brushed aside Second Amendment challenges to gun control legislation, reading the Amendment …
Where Hannah Arendt Went Wrong, David Abraham
Because We Love You, Rosemary B. Quigley
Because We Love You, Rosemary B. Quigley
Michigan Law Review
I remember the impotence I felt on the eve of the Gulf War in January 1991. No one could have known at that moment what a brief conflict it would be. We had every reason to believe that the Middle East would be hurled into turmoil. And if protracted war ensued, a draft would surely follow. I watched my college boyfriend sink into despair, with the help of a Bob Mould CD, at the prospect of being called to give his life for his country. I remained uncharacteristically mute. In the face of this battle, our positions were too unequal …
Healing The Blind Goddess: Race And Criminal Justice, Mark D. Rosenbaum, Daniel P. Tokaji
Healing The Blind Goddess: Race And Criminal Justice, Mark D. Rosenbaum, Daniel P. Tokaji
Michigan Law Review
Once again, issues of race, ethnicity, and class within our criminal justice system have been thrust into the public spotlight. On both sides of the country, in our nation's two largest cities, police are being called to account for acts of violence directed toward poor people of color. In New York City, a West African immigrant named Amadou Diallo was killed by four white police officers, who fired forty-one bullets at the unarmed man as he stood in the vestibule of his apartment building in a poor section of the Bronx. Did race influence the officers' decisions to fire the …
Litigation In The United States And Mexico: A Comparative Overview, Robert M. Kossick, Jr.
Litigation In The United States And Mexico: A Comparative Overview, Robert M. Kossick, Jr.
University of Miami Inter-American Law Review
No abstract provided.
Are State-Supported Historically Black Colleges And Universities Justifiable After Fordice?—A Higher Education Dilemma, John A. Moore
Are State-Supported Historically Black Colleges And Universities Justifiable After Fordice?—A Higher Education Dilemma, John A. Moore
Florida State University Law Review
No abstract provided.
Out The Window--Prospects For The Epa And Fmla After Kimel V. Florida Board Of Regents, Brian E. Ray
Out The Window--Prospects For The Epa And Fmla After Kimel V. Florida Board Of Regents, Brian E. Ray
Law Faculty Articles and Essays
This note considers how the heightened scrutiny standard that the Court has used in gender cases under the Fourteenth Amendment will impact the congruence and proportionality test that the Court has applied in a recent series of cases examining congressional power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. The purpose of this note is twofold First it closely analyzes Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents, the Court's most recent decision concerning Section 5 and argues that the Court's analysis in Kimel indicates that a statute that involves heightened scrutiny has a much greater possibility of meeting the standards the Court …
The American 'Legal' Dilemma: Colorblind I/Colorblind Ii--The Rules Have Changed Again: A Semantic Apothegmatic Permutation, John C. Duncan Jr
The American 'Legal' Dilemma: Colorblind I/Colorblind Ii--The Rules Have Changed Again: A Semantic Apothegmatic Permutation, John C. Duncan Jr
Journal Publications
"Our Constitution is colorblind" initially meant that white majority preferences could not and should not be reflected in government action. The maxim now means race should not be reflected at all in government action. The answer to racism lies somewhere between well-reasoned "blind" hope and historically-proven skepticism. Part I of this Article discusses the ideal of the colorblind society; Part II discusses what this Article deems as Colorblind I. Part III places each colorblind argument in perspective, and seeks to illustrate that the concept of colorblindness could be an ideal, but has rather become meaningless rhetoric in an endless racial …
Sovereign Immunity, Due Process, And The Alden Trilogy, Carlos Manuel Vázquez
Sovereign Immunity, Due Process, And The Alden Trilogy, Carlos Manuel Vázquez
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
In Alden v. Maine, the Court held that the principle of sovereign immunity protects states from being sued without their consent in their own courts by private parties seeking damages for the states' violation of federal law. The Court thus rejected the "forum allocation" interpretation of the Eleventh Amendment, under which the Amendment serves merely to channel suits against the states based on federal law into the state courts, which are required by the Supremacy Clause to entertain such suits. The Court held instead that the Eleventh Amendment protects the states from being subjected to private damage liability by …
Section 1983 Litigation - Supreme Court Developments, Martin A. Schwartz
Section 1983 Litigation - Supreme Court Developments, Martin A. Schwartz
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Equal Protection, Rational Basis Review, And The Impact Of Cleburne Living Center, Inc., Richard B. Saphire
Equal Protection, Rational Basis Review, And The Impact Of Cleburne Living Center, Inc., Richard B. Saphire
Kentucky Law Journal
No abstract provided.
Private Remedies For Public Wrongs Under Section 5 (Symposium: New Directions In Federalism), Evan H. Caminker
Private Remedies For Public Wrongs Under Section 5 (Symposium: New Directions In Federalism), Evan H. Caminker
Articles
The Supreme Court has ushered in the new millennium with a renewed emphasis on federalism-based limits to Congress's regulatory authority in general, and Congress's Section 5 power to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment in particular. In a recent string of cases, the Court has refined and narrowed Section 5's enforcement power in two significant ways.1 First, the Court made clear that Congress lacks the authority to interpret the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment's substantive provisions themselves, and may only "enforce" the judiciary's definition of Fourteenth Amendment violations. 2 Second, the Court embraced a relatively stringent requirement concerning the relationship between means …
Race And The Right To Vote After Rice V. Cayetano, Ellen D. Katz
Race And The Right To Vote After Rice V. Cayetano, Ellen D. Katz
Articles
Last Term, the Supreme Court relied on Gomillion [v. Lightfoot] to hold that Hawaii, like Alabama before it, had segregated voters by race in violation of the Fifteenth Amendment. The state law at issue in Rice v. Cayetano provided that only "Hawaiians" could vote for the trustees of the state's Office of Hawaiian Affairs ("OHA"), a public agency that oversees programs designed to benefit the State's native people. Rice holds that restricting the OHA electorate to descendants of the 1778 inhabitants of the Hawaiian Islands embodied a racial classification that effectively "fenc[ed] out whole classes of ...ci tizens from decisionmaking …
Writing Off Race, Girardeau A. Spann
Writing Off Race, Girardeau A. Spann
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
The constitutionality of affirmative action has now become one of the central topics in the politics of race. Ironically, the United States Constitution says absolutely nothing about affirmative action. The text never mentions the term, and the equal protection language in the Fourteenth Amendment simply begs the question of whether equality requires or precludes the use of affirmative action. The intent of the Framers is similarly unhelpful. We know that the drafters of the Fifth Amendment owned slaves, and the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment envisioned a racially stratified society. But the Fourteenth Amendment was itself an affirmative action measure, …
Public School Officials' Use Of Physical Force As A Fourth Amendment Seizure: Protecting Students From The Constitutional Chasm Between The Fourth And Fourteenth Amendments, Kathryn R. Urbonya
Public School Officials' Use Of Physical Force As A Fourth Amendment Seizure: Protecting Students From The Constitutional Chasm Between The Fourth And Fourteenth Amendments, Kathryn R. Urbonya
Faculty Publications
No abstract provided.
Introduction: Fidelity, Economic Liberty, And 1937, Editors Of The William And Mary Law Review
Introduction: Fidelity, Economic Liberty, And 1937, Editors Of The William And Mary Law Review
William & Mary Law Review
No abstract provided.