Fourteenth Amendment Commons^™

Oregon V. Elstad Revisited: Urging State Court Judges To Depart From The U.S. Supreme Court's Narrowing Of Miranda, Claudia R. Barbieri

University of the District of Columbia Law Review

Imagine an average young man on the threshold of adulthood, living in a medium-sized town in a middle-class family. Still in his early years, he gets into a little local trouble and one day finds the police at his door. They ask him questions about a burglary. He panics, and as he racks his brain for some scrap of legal knowledge that might get him out of this frightening situation, he admits that he knows about the crime, stating he was there. The police become more persistent, telling him they know about his involvement, asking him if he wants to …

Watkins V. Angelone 133 F.3d 920 (4th Cir. 1998) United States Court Of Appeal, Fourth Circuit

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

A Modest Proposal: Requiring Proof Beyond A Reasonable Doubt For Unadjudicated Acts Offered To Prove Future Dangerousness, Tommy Barrett

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Ohio Adult Parole Authority V. Woodard 1998 Wl 129931 (U.S. Mar. 25, 1998)1 United States Supreme Court

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Gilbert V. Moore 134 F.3d 642 (4th Cir. 1998) United States Court Of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Plath V. Moore 130 F.3d 595 (4th Cir. 1997) United States Court Of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Satcher V. Pruett 126 F.3d 561 (4th Cir. 1997) United States Court Of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

City Of Boerne V. Flores: Defining The Limits Of Congress's Fourteenth Amendment Enforcement Clause Power, R. Brent Hatcher Jr.

Mercer Law Review

In City of Boerne v. Flores,'the United States Supreme Court held that through the enactment of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act ("RFRA) Congress exceeded its Fourteenth Amendment Enforcement Clause Power. The Court invalidated the statute because of its incongruence and its contradiction of vital principles necessary to maintain the Separation of Powers doctrine.

Hopwood, Equal Protection, And Affirmative Action: Can Anyone's Ox Be Gored?, David J. Jannuzzi

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Due Process, Court Of Appeals: People V. Thompson

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Equal Protection, Court Of Appeals: Trustees Of Union College V. Schenectady City Council

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg: Extending The Constitution, 32 J. Marshall L. Rev. 197 (1998), Amy Walsh

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Does New York's Death Penalty Statute Violate The New York Constitution?, Honorable Stewart F. Hancock Jr., Christopher Quinn, Richard Klein

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Voting Rights, Eric Lane

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Due Process, Court Of Appeals: Chaya S. V. Frederick L.

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Due Process, Supreme Court New York County: Ramanadhan V. Wing

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Equal Protection, Supreme Court, New York County: Walter V. City Of New York Police Department

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Women And The Promise Of Equal Citizenship, Jennifer S. Hendricks

Publications

Anticipating the decision in United States v. Morrison (2000), holding that the civil rights remedy of the Violence Against Women Act was not a legitimate exercise of Congress's power to enforce the Equal Protection Clause, this article argues that the Act could be upheld as an exercise of Congress's authority under the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Congress's authority under the Citizenship Clause is analogous to its authority under the "badges and incidents" doctrine of the Thirteenth Amendment, which allows Congress to provide protection from discriminatory violence. This theory would also guide interpretation of the act to focus on …

Constitutional Law: Racial And Political Gerrymandering--Different Problems Require Different Solutions, Robert Redwine

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Congressional Alternatives In The Wake Of City Of Boerne V. Flores: The (Limited) Role Of Congress In Protecting Religious Freedom From State And Local Infringement, Daniel O. Conkle

Articles by Maurer Faculty

This article discusses and analyzes City of Boerne v. Flores, the Supreme Court's 1997 decision invalidating the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) as applied to state and local governments, and it explores a variety of ways in which Congress might respond to Boerne with legislation that might survive constitutional scrutiny. In particular, the article addresses the following statutory possibilities: more narrowly tailored legislation grounded on Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment; RFRA-like legislation grounded on Congress's power over interstate commerce or its power to implement treaties; and spending-power legislation imposing RFRA-like conditions on the receipt of federal funding …

Why Now Is Not The Time For Constitutional Amendment: The Limited Reach Of City Of Boerne V. Flores, Kent Greenawalt

Faculty Scholarship

When the Supreme Court eviscerated the protection of the Free Exercise Clause in Employment Division v. Smith, religious groups and individuals dismayed by the decision chose to pursue statutory relief rather than a constitutional amendment. Now that the Supreme Court has decided in City of Boerne v. Flores that the resulting statute, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA or the "Act"), cannot be justified as a congressional exercise of power under the Fourteenth Amendment, many who care deeply about religious liberty may turn to the amendment process as an alternative. Although disappointed by the Flores decision, I believe it is …

Originalism And The Religion Clauses: A Response To Professor George, Kent Greenawalt

Faculty Scholarship

This response to Professor Robert George's thoughtful remarks tries to preserve the flavor of a brief rejoinder in a debate. I sketch differences with him over some major topics, but I do not develop these at length.

Judicial Supremacy And The Settlement Function, Robert F. Nagel

Publications

No abstract provided.

Subtracting Sexism From The Classroom: Law And Policy In The Debate Over All-Female Math And Science Classes In Public Schools, Carolyn B. Ramsey

Publications

No abstract provided.

The Narrow And Shallow Bite Of Romer And The Eminent Rationality Of Dual-Gender Marriage: A (Partial) Response To Professor Koppelman, Richard F. Duncan

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

In this response to Professor Koppelman, Professor Duncan takes issue with the assertions Koppelman makes in Romer v. Evans and Invidious Intent. Though Duncan agrees with Koppelman's summary of the rule of Romer and the ongoing effects of Bowers v. Hardwick, he rejects Koppelman's claims that laws that discriminate against gays will always be constitutionally doubtful because they disadvantage an unpopular class.

Duncan claims that Koppelman has tried, without success or authority, to fill in the "missing pages" left in Romer by the Supreme Court. Finally, he argues that traditional marriage laws are valid and will survive under Romer and …

Playing Defense, Robert F. Nagel

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Noting that the Romer opinion condemns the motives behind Amendment 2 without pausing even briefly to examine the social context in which it was enacted, Professor Nagel describes the decision as a model of the intolerant impulse in action. He traces this impulse to the Justices' unwillingness to examine their own role--and that of the rest of the constitutional law establishment- in creating the underlying conditions that produced Amendment 2.

In order to identify those conditions, Professor Nagel analyzes the primary document used by Colorado for Family Values during its campaign on behalf of the initiative. He argues that this …

Romer V. Evans And Invidious Intent, Andrew Koppelman

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

In this Essay, Professor Koppelman argues that, notwithstanding numerous scholarly claims to the contrary, the Supreme Court's decision in Romer v. Evans was based on the invalidated law's impermissible purpose. Professor Koppelman examines the Court's understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment, and concludes that its current doctrine is designed to ferret out unconstitutional intent. Such impermissible intent, Koppelman argues, was evident in the law challenged in Romer. Nonetheless, Koppelman acknowledges, Romer is a hard case, and its precedential significance is unclear, particularly in light of Bowers v. Hardwick, which upheld the constitutionality of laws against homosexual sodomy. Laws that facially disadvantage …

The Equal Protection Clause: A Note On The (Non)Relationship Between Romer V. Evans And Hunter V. Erickson, Jay S. Bybee

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

In this Article, Professor Bybee uses the debate surrounding Romer v. Evans to reexamine the Supreme Court's decision in Hunter v. Erickson and the principle that a political majority may not restructure the political process to make it more difficult for a political minority to obtain favorable government action. Professor Bybee explains the questionable bases of Hunter and succeeding cases, and then turns to the Romer decision and discusses its incongruity with Hunter. After analyzing the meaning of Romer in light of Hunter and other "equal process" cases, Professor Bybee concludes that although the Court's analysis of Colorado's Amendment 2 …

Nothing And Everything: Race, Romer, And (Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual) Rights, Robert S. Chang, Jerome Mccristal Culp Jr.

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

In this Article, Professors Chang and Culp propose that the Supreme Court's decision in Romer v. Evans, viewed by some scholars as a progressive case about gay/lesbian/bisexual rights, has little to do with gay/lesbian/bisexual rights as such. They argue that whatever protection Romer provides to gays, lesbians, and bisexuals is provided not because of *their sexuality but, rather, despite it. The authors demonstrate their thesis by examining the racial underpinnings of the Court's opinion, which begins with Justice Harlan's famous dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson and which relies on a specific vision of color-blindness. This submerged racial jurisprudence provides the …

Moral Dilemmas For The Judiciary At The Millennium: Partial-Birth Abortion And Physician-Assisted Suicide, Laura L. Hirschfeld

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.