Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Constitutional Law (51)
- Civil Rights and Discrimination (32)
- First Amendment (19)
- Arts and Humanities (17)
- Legislation (16)
-
- Law and Gender (15)
- Human Rights Law (13)
- Privacy Law (13)
- Sexuality and the Law (13)
- Health Law and Policy (12)
- Supreme Court of the United States (12)
- Criminal Law (11)
- Criminal Procedure (11)
- Labor and Employment Law (11)
- Disability Law (10)
- Family Law (10)
- Housing Law (10)
- Legal History (10)
- Legal Remedies (10)
- Consumer Protection Law (9)
- Immigration Law (9)
- Intellectual Property Law (9)
- Juvenile Law (9)
- Land Use Law (9)
- Law and Psychology (9)
- Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility (9)
- National Security Law (9)
- Other Law (9)
- Institution
-
- St. John's University School of Law (17)
- Seattle University School of Law (10)
- Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center (7)
- Yeshiva University, Cardozo School of Law (6)
- University of Michigan Law School (5)
-
- Notre Dame Law School (4)
- Barry University School of Law (3)
- Brooklyn Law School (2)
- Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School (2)
- Maurer School of Law: Indiana University (2)
- New York Law School (2)
- University of Arkansas Little Rock (2)
- University of Baltimore Law (2)
- University of Central Florida (2)
- University of Georgia School of Law (2)
- University of Miami Law School (2)
- University of Nevada, Las Vegas -- William S. Boyd School of Law (2)
- University of Richmond (2)
- University of Tennessee College of Law (2)
- William & Mary Law School (2)
- Boston University School of Law (1)
- Cleveland State University (1)
- Duke Law (1)
- Duquesne University (1)
- Florida State University College of Law (1)
- Louisiana State University Law Center (1)
- Roger Williams University (1)
- Saint Louis University School of Law (1)
- St. Mary's University (1)
- Texas A&M University School of Law (1)
- Keyword
-
- Fourteenth Amendment (21)
- Due process (7)
- Equal Protection Clause (7)
- Equal protection (7)
- Abortion (5)
-
- First Amendment (5)
- Supreme Court (5)
- 14th Amendment (4)
- Constitutional law (4)
- Discrimination (4)
- Fourteenth amendment (4)
- Civil rights (3)
- Justice (3)
- Obergefell v. Hodges (3)
- Privacy (3)
- Americans with Disabilities Act (2)
- Appellate Division (2)
- Congress (2)
- Constitutional law -- United States -- Cases (2)
- Disparate impact (2)
- Due Process (2)
- Due Process Clause (2)
- Firearms (2)
- Fourth amendment (2)
- Gun (2)
- History (2)
- Originalism (2)
- Police (2)
- Race (2)
- Racial bias (2)
- Publication
-
- The Catholic Lawyer (16)
- Seattle Journal for Social Justice (8)
- Touro Law Review (7)
- Faculty Scholarship (4)
- All Faculty Scholarship (3)
-
- Articles (3)
- Cardozo Journal of Equal Rights & Social Justice (3)
- Cardozo Law Review (3)
- Law Faculty Publications (3)
- Brooklyn Law Review (2)
- Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law (2)
- Honors Undergraduate Theses (2)
- Indiana Law Journal (2)
- Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review (2)
- Notre Dame Law Review (2)
- Other Publications (2)
- Seattle University Law Review (2)
- Tennessee Journal of Race, Gender, & Social Justice (2)
- University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review (2)
- William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal (2)
- Barry Law Review (1)
- Catholic University Journal of Law and Technology (1)
- Contributions to Books (1)
- Court Briefs (1)
- Florida State University Law Review (1)
- Gender, Women's, and Sexuality Studies Summer Fellows (1)
- Global Business Law Review (1)
- Jeffrey S. Moorad Sports Law Journal (1994 - ) (1)
- Journal Articles (1)
- Journal of Legislation (1)
- Publication Type
Articles 91 - 97 of 97
Full-Text Articles in Fourteenth Amendment
Shock Incarceration And Parole: A Process Without Process, Adam Yefet
Shock Incarceration And Parole: A Process Without Process, Adam Yefet
Brooklyn Law Review
The idea that an inmate could possess a liberty interest in parole is a relatively recent development in Fourteenth Amendment law. It was not until 1979, in Greenholtz v. Inmates of the Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex, that the Supreme Court examined Nebraska’s parole scheme and found that inmates could have a liberty interest in parole. The primary implication of Greenholtz was that parole statutes that contained certain mandatory language could confer upon inmates a liberty interest in parole. Applying the Greenholtz analysis, numerous parole schemes across the country were held to create a liberty interest and to require …
Book Review (Reviewing Louis Fisher's Congress: Protecting Individual Rights), Adeen Postar
Book Review (Reviewing Louis Fisher's Congress: Protecting Individual Rights), Adeen Postar
All Faculty Scholarship
Fisher is currently the Scholar in Residence at the Constitution Project, and is well known for his many years as Senior Specialist on Separation of Powers at the Congressional Research Service and as Specialist in Constitutional Law at the Law Library of Congress. He has extensive experience testifying before Congress on topics that include Congress and the constitution, war powers, executive power and privilege, and several aspects of the federal budget and its processes. He has written numerous books on these topics, including (to name only a few) The President and Congress: Power and Policy (1972); Defending Congress and the …
The High Power Of The Lower Courts, Doni Gewirtzman
The High Power Of The Lower Courts, Doni Gewirtzman
Other Publications
No abstract provided.
Roe As We Know It, Cary Franklin
Roe As We Know It, Cary Franklin
Michigan Law Review
The petitioners in last year’s historic same-sex marriage case cited most of the Supreme Court’s canonical substantive due process precedents. They argued that the right of same-sex couples to marry, like the right to use birth control and the right to guide the upbringing of one’s children, was among the liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court in Obergefell v. Hodges agreed, citing many of the same cases. Not once, however, did the petitioners or the majority in Obergefell cite the Court’s most famous substantive due process decision. It was the dissenters in Obergefell who invoked Roe v. Wade.
Thou Shall Not Adopt: Sexual Orientation Discrimination In The Adoption Process, Peter Gallucci
Thou Shall Not Adopt: Sexual Orientation Discrimination In The Adoption Process, Peter Gallucci
Cardozo Journal of Equal Rights & Social Justice
The note addresses the issue of sexual orientation discrimination in the adoption process, highlighting how religious-based adoption agencies often deny services to LGBTQ+ couples, despite the growing need for foster care placements. It critiques current laws that permit such discrimination and proposes an enhanced version of the Every Child Deserves a Family Act to ensure equal adoption rights while mitigating the impact on states and foster children.
Housing Intersex Juvenile Offenders, Janae Hunte
Housing Intersex Juvenile Offenders, Janae Hunte
Cardozo Journal of Equal Rights & Social Justice
The note examines the legal and societal challenges faced by intersex individuals, particularly in the U.S. prison system, arguing that current laws and policies fail to adequately protect their rights. It highlights the need for standardized guidelines and protections, advocating for federal standards that respect intersex individuals' autonomy and safety in prison housing. The analysis focuses on the intersection of medical normalization practices, constitutional rights, and legislative shortcomings, emphasizing the importance of addressing these issues through legal reform and policy changes.
Fundamental Rights In A Post-Obergefell World, Peter Nicolas
Fundamental Rights In A Post-Obergefell World, Peter Nicolas
Articles
In this Article, I identify and critically examine three substantive criticisms raised by the dissents in the Supreme Court's 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which struck down state laws and constitutional provisions barring same-sex couples from marrying within the state or having their out-of-state marriages recognized by the state. First, that the majority improperly framed the right at issue broadly as the right to marriage instead of narrowly as the right to same-sex marriage, conflicting with the Court's holding in Washington v. Glucksberg that in fundamental rights cases the right at issue must be framed narrowly, and in …