Fourteenth Amendment Commons^™

Guilty Until Proven Innocent: California's Prop. 50 Turns The Concept Of Due Process On Its Head, Brantley I. Pepperman

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

For decades, “good governance” has been little more than a talking point for politicians on the road to reelection or a promotion to higher office. In 2014, the California Legislature attempted to give teeth to the idea, successfully spearheading an amendment to the California Constitution approved by voters in 2016. But despite its efforts to “drain the swamp,” the Legislature gave itself a powerful tool, the authority to suspend or expel legislators without pay, that presents more problems than solutions. This article explores the implications of that amendment, including the extent to which it, as codified, comports with procedural due …

The School To Deportation Pipeline, Laila L. Hlass

Georgia State University Law Review

The United States immigration regime has a long and sordid history of explicit racism, including limiting citizenship to free whites, excluding Chinese immigrants, deporting massive numbers of Mexican immigrants and U.S. citizens of Mexican ancestry, and implementing a national quotas system preferencing Western Europeans. More subtle bias has seeped into the system through the convergence of the criminal and immigration law regimes.

Immigration enforcement has seen a rise in mass immigrant detention and deportation, bolstered by provocative language casting immigrants as undeserving undesirables: criminals, gang members, and terrorists. Immigrant children, particularly black and Latino boys, are increasingly finding themselves in …

Dead Canaries In The Coal Mines: The Symbolic Assailant Revisited, Jeannine Bell

Georgia State University Law Review

The well-publicized deaths of several African-Americans—Tamir Rice, Philando Castile, and Alton Sterling among others—at the hands of police stem from tragic interactions predicated upon well-understood practices analyzed by police scholars since the 1950s. The symbolic assailant, a construct created by police scholar Jerome Skolnick in the mid-1960s to identify persons whose behavior and characteristics the police view as threatening, is especially relevant to contemporary policing. This Article explores the societal roots of the creation of a Black symbolic assailant in contemporary American policing.

The construction of African-American men as symbolic assailants is one of the most important factors characterizing police …

Due Process And The Right To Legal Counsel For Unaccompanied Minors, Marielos G. Ramos

Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects

Unaccompanied minors arriving to the United States fleeing violence and seeking protection are apprehended, detained in facilities, and placed in removal proceedings in accordance with U.S. immigration laws. Like adults, these children have to appear in immigration court to fight deportation and must apply for any form of legal relief for which they may be eligible. However, removal proceedings work as a civil and not a criminal process, and immigration laws have established that while noncitizens have the right to an attorney, they are not entitled to legal counsel at the government’s expense. This thesis examines how the denial of …

Give Me Your Tired, Your Poor, Your Pregnant: The Jurisprudence Of Abortion Exceptionalism In Garza V. Hargan, Kaytlin L. Roholt

Texas A&M Law Review

Since a majority of Supreme Court justices created the abortion right in 1973, a troubling pattern has emerged: The Supreme Court has come to ignore—and even nullify—longstanding precedent and legal doctrines in the name of preserving and expanding the abortion right. And with a Supreme Court majority that is blithe to manipulate any doctrine or principle—no matter how deeply rooted in U.S. legal tradition—in the name of expansive abortion rights, it should come as no surprise that lower courts are following suit. Most recently, the D.C. Circuit fired up the “ad hoc nullification machine,” but this time, its victim of …

Neil Gorsuch And The Return Of Rule-Of-Law Due Process, Nathan Chapman

Popular Media

Something curious happened at the Supreme Court last week. While the country was glued to the Cirque du Trump, the rule of law made a comeback, revived by Neil Gorsuch, whose place on the Court may prove to be one of Trump’s most important legacies.

Unlike the partisan gerrymander and First Amendment cases currently pending before the Court, immigration cases are usually long on textual analysis and short on grand themes. Accordingly, court-watchers didn’t have especially high expectations for Sessions v. Dimaya.

Prevailing Wage Legislation And The Continuing Significance Of Race, David E. Bernstein

Journal of Legislation

No abstract provided.

If It's Tuesday, This Must Be Procreation: Methodology And Subject-Matter In Fourteenth Amendment Pedagogy, William Araiza

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

When Constitutional Rights Clash: Masterpiece Cakeshop's Potential Legacy, Ken Hyle

ConLawNOW

The narrow question presented to the U.S. Supreme Court in Masterpiece Cakeshop is undoubtedly one of great national importance. The decision will likely yield a framework for courts to resolve conflicts that specifically involve religious freedom, artistic expression, and anti-discrimination laws in the context of public accommodations. However, my essay suggests that Masterpiece Cakeshop is an appropriate vehicle for the Court to expound upon a broader, more fundamental constitutional issue: what is the optimal framework for resolving direct conflicts between constitutional rights? The essay begins by exploring the inherent flaw in a framework grounded in the traditional levels of judicial …

Schuette And Antibalkanization, Samuel Weiss, Donald Kinder

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

In Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Justice Kennedy’s controlling plurality revised the political process doctrine and ended the practice of affirmative action in Michigan. In this opinion, Kennedy followed in the Court’s tradition of invoking antibalkanization values in equal protection cases, making the empirical claims both that antibalkanization motivated the campaign to end affirmative action in Michigan and that the campaign itself would, absent judicial intervention, have antibalkanizing effects.

Using sophisticated empirical methods, this Article is the first to examine whether the Court’s claims on antibalkanization are correct. We find they are not. Support for the Michigan …

Fifty Shades And Fifty States: Is Bdsm A Fundamental Right? A Test For Sexual Privacy, Elizabeth Mincer

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

The Hard Truth About The Penile Plethysmograph: Gender Disparity And The Untenable Standard In The Fourth Circuit, Lindsay Blumberg

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

No abstract provided.

State Immunity Doctrine: Demoting The Patent System, Charles C. Wong

Maine Law Review

Congress enacted the Patent Remedy Clarification Act (PRCA) in 1992, which authorized patent holders to sue a state for patent infringement in federal court. The PRCA clearly expressed Congress's intent to abrogate Eleventh Amendment state sovereign immunity as required by Atascadero State Hospital v. Scanlon. In 1996, Seminole Tribe v. Florida changed the landscape of congressional power to abrogate state immunity by declaring Congress may do so only if acting pursuant to its powers under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. In his dissent, Justice Stevens forecasted that the Seminole Tribe decision would effectively leave patent holders injured by an …

Can They Do That?: The Limits Of Governmental Power Over Medical Treatment, Paul Jerome Mclaughlin Jr.

Library Faculty Publications

The government’s power over health care is strongest when health care treatments and precautions to protect the public welfare, such as quarantines and vaccinations, are at issue. Governmental power over health care decisions weakens when an individual’s health care decisions are in question. When health care decisions would only affect the individual making them, the government’s power is even less. This article argues that government agents must be cautious in making health care determinations for others and that they should aim to protect an individual’s right to self-determination so long as those choices do not pose a threat to the …

Multiracial Malaise: Multiracial As A Legal Racial Category, Taunya L. Banks

Faculty Scholarship

One byproduct of increased interracial marriages post Loving is a growing number of multiracial children. This cohort of multiracials tends to overshadow older and larger generations of multiracial people whose genealogical mixture is more distant. Some interracial couples, their multiracial children and others support a multiracial category on the U.S. Census. Proponents argued that multiracial individuals experience a unique type of discrimination that warrants treating them as a separate racial category. This article concedes that multiracial individuals should enjoy the freedom to self-identify as they wish, and like others, be protected by anti-discrimination law. It concludes, however, that current arguments …

“Show Me Your Papers”: An Equal Protection Violation Of The Rights Of Latino Men In Trump’S America, Monica Chawla

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

State Action That Penalizes Children As Evidence Of A Desire To Harm Politically Unpopular Parents, Catherine E. Smith

Scholarly Articles

This Article is the first to advance the position that when the government takes the extreme step of denying children basic rights and benefits because of their parents, such state action should be recognized not just as evidence of animus against the children, but also as evidence of "a bare desire to harm" their "politically unpopular" parents. Identifying this type of government motivation and calling it what it is--animus toward parents--is just as important as condemning animus against the children themselves. Anti-parent animus that motivates harmful government behavior towards children should be prohibited as an impermissible means to accomplish an …

Did The African-American Electorate Unintentionally Help Elect Donald Trump President?, C. Daniel Chill

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Liberty Is Not Loco-Motion: Obergefell And The Originalists' Due Process Fallacy, Andrew T. Bodoh

Campbell Law Review

In an effort to discredit substantive due process, originalists often misinterpret the federal Due Process Clauses. Justice Clarence Thomas's Obergefell v. Hodges dissent illustrates this. In this dissent, Justice Thomas cites Blackstone's Commentaries to argue that Due Process "liberty" is merely freedom from physical restraint, what Blackstone describes as the power of "loco-motion."

This Article challenges Justice Thomas's narrow view of Due Process liberty from Obergefell v. Hodges on its own terms. It distills from the dissent and its sources five assumptions or premises supporting Justice Thomas's view, and it confronts each of these with contrary evidence from the historical …

Due Process Of War, Nathan Chapman

Scholarly Works

The application of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the government’s deprivation of rights during war is one of the most challenging and contested questions of constitutional law. The Supreme Court has not provided a consistent or historically informed framework for analyzing due process during war. Based on the English background, the text and history of the U.S. Constitution, and early American practice, this Article argues that due process was originally understood to apply to many but not to all deprivations of rights during war. It proposes a framework for analyzing due process during war that accords …

Non-Alj Adjudicators In Federal Agencies: Status, Selection, Oversight, And Removal, Kent H. Barnett, Russell Wheeler

Scholarly Works

This article republishes—in substantively similar form—our 2018 report to the Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS) concerning federal agencies’ adjudicators who are not administrative law judges (ALJs). (We refer to these adjudicators as “non-ALJ Adjudicators” or “non-ALJs.”) As our data indicate, non-ALJs significantly outnumber ALJs. Yet non-ALJs are often overlooked and difficult to discuss as a class because of their disparate titles and characteristics. To obtain more information on non-ALJs, we surveyed agencies on non-ALJs’ hearings and, among other things, the characteristics concerning non-ALJs’ salaries, selection, oversight, and removal. We first present our reported data on these matters, which …

Eyes Wide Open: What Social Science Can Tell Us About The Supreme Court's Use Of Social Science, Jonathan Feingold, Evelyn Carter

Faculty Scholarship

In McCleskey v. Kemp, the Supreme Court rendered statistical evidence of racial disparities doctrinally irrelevant to a criminal defendant’s equal protection claim. Fifteen years later in Grutter v. Bollinger, Chief Justice Rehnquist—part of the McCleskey majority—invoked admissions data to support his conclusion that the University of Michigan Law School had unconstitutionally discriminated against White applicants. This facially inconsistent treatment of statistical data invites the following inquiry: Why do judges (including Supreme Court Justices) rely on social science in some cases, yet reject it in others? We suggest that one answer lies at the intersection of Critical Race Theory and empirical …

From The Dark Tower: Unbridled Civil Asset Forfeiture, Saleema Saleema Snow

Journal Articles

The Black Lives Matter movement reinforces that race dominates all aspects of the judicial system. Police officers are significantly more likely to stop African Americans than Whites. Even when a stop or arrest is unwarranted, law enforcement agencies can still profit from the property seized under the guise of forfeiture statutes. Various state and federal civil asset forfeiture statutes legitimize law enforcement seizing cash, homes, cars, and office equipment—all with nominal due process protections. Despite evidence of discriminatory police practices, the U.S. Supreme Court deems these forfeiture practices constitutional.

This article seeks to reignite the conversation about discriminatory policing and …

Bailing On Bail: The Unconstitutionality Of Fixed, Monetary Bail Systems And Their Continued Use Throughout The United States, Margaret E. Margaret

Georgia Law Review

Incarceratingdefendants prior to trial was designed to be
the exception, not the norm. Many state and local
jurisdictionsthroughout the United States, however, employ
fixed, monetary bail systems that result in the systematic pre-
trial incarceration of indigent defendants solely because of
their inability to pay for their release. Not only do such bail
systems violate indigent defendants' constitutional rights,
they also contribute to the billions spent by local governments
each year on maintainingovercrowded jails and have lasting
effects on those indigent defendants wrongfully detained.
This Note explores the constitutionalityof fixed, monetary
bail systems through the lens of a recent Georgiacase, …

The Next Reapportionment Revolution, Ashira Ostrow

Indiana Law Journal

In the 1960s, the Supreme Court famously imposed the one-person, one-vote requirement on federal, state, and local legislatures. The doctrine rapidly resolved the problem of malapportioned districts. Within just a few years, legislatures across the nation were reapportioned to equalize the population between districts. Sadly, however, the national commitment to equal-population districts has led directly to the current crisis of political gerrymandering. The boundaries of equal-population districts must be redrawn every ten years to maintain population equality. Even with rigid adherence to population requirements, district boundaries are easily manipulated to secure incumbent seats and advance partisan interests. Redistricting is rightly …

Reciprocal Immunity, Colin Miller

Indiana Law Journal

This essay advances a reciprocal rights theory. It argues that the Constitution precludes statutes and rules from providing nonreciprocal benefits to the State when the lack of reciprocity interferes with the defendant’s ability to secure a fair trial, unless reciprocity would implicate a significant state interest. Therefore, unless a significant State interest is involved, a grant of immunity to a prosecution witness should trigger reciprocal immunity to a directly contradictory defense witness.

Unequal Protection: Examining The Judiciary’S Treatment Of Unwed Fathers, Brett Potash

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Judge Murphy's Indian Law Legacy, Kirsten Matoy Carlson

Law Faculty Research Publications

No abstract provided.

A "Chinese Wall" At The Nation's Borders: Justice Stephen Field And The Chinese Exclusion Case, Polly J. Price

Faculty Articles

First, the sweeping implications of The Chinese Exclusion Case had as much to do with the Supreme Court's concerns about its relationship with both Congress and the President as it did with the Chinese as a disparaged racial group. There are other dimensions beyond race, and one of these was the Supreme Court's view of its role with respect to the other branches of government. Importantly, the Court did not decide the balance of authority between the President and Congress on matters of immigration, an omission that surely lessens its precedential value today.

Second, the Court's pronouncement in the Chinese …

Buck V. Davis: Anti-Discriminatory Principles In Habeas Corpus Cases, Daniella Rubin

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

No abstract provided.