Fourteenth Amendment Commons^™

Inequities Of The Drug War: Legislative Discrimination On The Cocaine Battlefield, Andrew N. Sacher

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Equal Protection, Class Legislation, And Colorblindness, Melissa L. Saunders

Michigan Law Review

Scholars and judges have long assumed that the Equal Protection Clause is concerned only with state action that has the effect of singling out certain persons or groups of persons for special benefits or burdens. Under the traditional doctrinal framework, state action that has this purpose and effect bears a certain burden of justification under the clause, a burden whose stringency varies, depending on the criteria used to define the class being singled out for special treatment and the importance of the interest affected. But state action that lacks such a "discriminatory effect" is not, on the traditional understanding, subject …

Diversity: The Red Herring Of Equal Protection, Sharon E. Rush

UF Law Faculty Publications

Couching the constitutional inquiry in cases like Bakke and VMI in the context of integration also puts in perspective the diversity justification. Affirmative action policies are constitutional because they integrate state programs. Integration on the basis of race and sex also diversifies state programs. In contrast, attempts to justify sex-segregation in state programs by arguing the policy promotes diversity is irrelevant to an equal protection analysis. Voluntarily created all-female schools should be constitutional because they promote the equal citizenship of women without damaging the equal citizenship stature of men. This is true for voluntarily race-segregated programs for minorities; as well. …

Booth V. Maryland 112 F.3d 139 (4th Cir. 1997) United States Court Of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Great Myths: Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny & Virginia's Proportionality Review, Deborah A. Hill

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

O'Dell V. Netherland 117 S. Ct. 1969 (1997) United States-Supreme Court

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Arnold V. Evatt 113 F.3d 1352 (4th Cir. 1997) United States Court Of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Mu'min V. Pruett 1997 Wl 597978 (4th Cir. Aug. 18, 1997) United States Court Of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Pope V. Netherland 113 F.3d 1364 (4th Cir. 1997)1 United States Court Of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Reflections On Constitutional Interpretation, Raoul Berger

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Antidisestablishmentarianism: Why Rfra Really Was Unconstitutional, Jed Rubenfeld

Michigan Law Review

Two months ago, the Supreme Court struck down the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), handing down its most important church-state decision, and one of its most important federalism decisions, in fifty years. Through RFRA, Congress had prohibited any state actor from "substantially burden[ing] a person's exercise of religion" unless imposing that burden was the "least restrictive means" of furthering "a compelling governmental interest." RFRA was a response to Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, in which the Supreme Court abandoned the very same compelling interest test that RFRA mandated. Smith, overturning decades-old precedent, held …

From Piracy To Prostitution - State Forfeiture Of An Innocent Owner's Property: Bennis V. Michigan, Charlena Toro

Brigham Young University Journal of Public Law

No abstract provided.

Bmw Of North America, Inc. V. Gore: The Supreme Court Rejects A Punitive Damage Award On Due Process Grounds, Rob S. Register

Mercer Law Review

The Supreme Court of the United States has addressed the validity of punitive damages awards many times over the years, but until now has never overturned one based on a claim of excessiveness under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore is the first case in which the Court reversed and remanded a large punitive damage amount based on those grounds.

How Many Times Was Lochner-Era Substantive Due Process Effective?, Michael J. Phillips

Mercer Law Review

According to Justice David Souter, it is "most familiar history" that back when the Supreme Court took a restricted view of the commerce power, it also "routinely invalidated state social and economic legislation under an expansive conception of Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process." As the word "routinely" suggests, Souter evidently believed that this Lochner Court struck down a large number of laws on substantive due process grounds' during the years 1897 to 1937.

As discussed later, other observers agree. Although they recognize that the old Court rejected more substantive due process attacks than it accepted, they also suggest that cases …

Gray V. Netherland 99 F.3d 158 (4th Circuit 1996) United States Court Of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Mueller V. Murray 252 Va. 356,478 S.E.2d 542 (1996) Supreme Court Of Virginia

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Hoke V. Netherland 92 F.3d 1350 (4th Cir. 1996) United States Court Of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Beaver V. Thompson 93 F.3d 1186 (4th Cir. 1996) United States Court Of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

George V. Angelone 100 F.3d 353 (4th Cir. 1996) United States Court Of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Buchanan V. Angelone 103 F.3d 344 (4th Cir. 1996) United States Court Of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Matthews V. Evatt 105 F.3d 907 (4th Cir. 1997) United States Court Of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Toward A More Effective Use Of Batson In Virginia Capital Trials, Daryl L. Rice, C. Cooper Youell, Iv

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

Is A Standard Of Proof Required For The Evaluation Of Unadjudicated Acts In Capital Sentencing?, David T. Mcindoe

Capital Defense Journal

No abstract provided.

The Casey Standard For Evaluating Facial Attacks On Abortion Statutes, John Christopher Ford

Michigan Law Review

Since the Supreme Court declared in 1973 that the Constitution grants women a limited right to an abortion, the Justices have decided abortion cases with reference to such weighty matters as religious freedom, the disadvantaged position of women in society, and the proper role of the judiciary. Understandably, the Supreme Court's writings on abortion deal extensively with these large themes. The Court, and certainly others, view abortion cases as rivaling Brown v. Board of Education in their importance to the nation. While the Court has focused on the big issues, however, it has neglected an equally important, if less emotionally …

Punishing Bias: An Examination Of The Theoretical Foundations Of Bias Crime Statutes, Anthony M. Dillof

Law Faculty Research Publications

No abstract provided.

Race, Redistricting And A Republican Poll Tax: The Supreme Court's Voting Rights Decisions Of The 1995-96 Term, Frank Parker

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Gift Or Loan Of State Money, Court Of Appeals Gagliardo V. Dinkins

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Self-Incrimination, Supreme Court, Appellate Division Second Department People V. Hendricks

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

No More Excuses: Closing The Door On The Voluntary Intoxication Defense, 30 J. Marshall L. Rev. 535 (1997), Chad J. Layton

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Women's Powerless Tool: How Congress Overreached The Constitution With The Civil Rights Remedy Of The Violence Against Women Act, 30 J. Marshall L. Rev. 803 (1997), Lisa A. Carroll

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.