Supreme Court of the United States Commons^™

Keynote Address: Indigenous Peoples And Their Mark On The International Legal System, S. James Anaya

Publications

No abstract provided.

Sending The Self-Execution Doctrine To The Executioner, Aya Gruber

Publications

No abstract provided.

Who's Afraid Of Geneva Law?, Aya Gruber

Publications

According to many internationalists, the terrorism detention cases Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld are exemplary of a movement on the part of the Supreme Court toward greater incorporation of and respect for international law. Recent death penalty cases, statements of individual justices, and the increasing transnationalism of the Court's docket have lead many to believe, as Justice Ginsburg does, that the Court's "island or lone ranger mentality is beginning to change." This Article takes the contrary position that Hamdi and Hamdan are not internationalist because of their meticulous avoidance of the issue of Geneva Convention self-execution. Briefly, the …

Raising The Red Flag: The Continued Relevance Of The Japanese Internment In The Post-Hamdi World, Aya Gruber

Publications

In the years since the terrorist attacks of September 11th, the Japanese interment has re-emerged as a topic of serious discourse among legal scholars, politicians, civil libertarians, and society in general. Current national security policies have created concerns that the government has stepped dangerously close to the line crossed by the Roosevelt administration during World War II. Civil libertarians invoke the internment to caution policy-makers against two of the most serious dangers of repressive national security policies: racial decision-making and incarceration without process. Bush defenders advance several arguments in response to internment comparisons. The most conservative is an ardent defense …

The Great Writ Of Incoherence: An Analysis Of Supreme Court's Rulings On "Enemy Combatants", Gregory Dolin

All Faculty Scholarship

On June 28, 2004, the United States Supreme Court released its much awaited decisions in the cases posing a challenge to the Executive's self-professed authority to detain and indefinitely hold individuals designated as "enemy combatants." The cases arose from the "war on terrorism" that was launched after the attack on the United States on September 11, 2001. When each decision is looked at individually, the result seems to make sense and, given the outcome (affording detainees rights of judicial review), feels good. Yet when these decisions are looked at collectively, it is hard to believe that they were issued by …

Of Federalism, Human Rights, And The Holland Caveat: Congressional Power To Iplement Treaties, Ana Maria Merico-Stephens

Michigan Journal of International Law

This Article explores whether the Rehnquist Court's federalism doctrine, as elaborated during this last decade, should or ought to extend to the domestication of discrete provisions of ratified human rights treaties. It explores this question by examining the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Covenant) and by considering the civil remedy provision of Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) as potential implementing legislation for the equality provisions of the Covenant. In the context of this inquiry, the discussion engages federalism, as developed by the current Court, on its own terms. That is, I do not seek here to defend it …

Homophobia And The “Matthew Shepard Effect” In Lawrence V. Texas, Kris Franklin

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.

American Racial Jusice On Trial - Again: African American Reparations, Human Rights, And The War On Terror, Eric K. Yamamoto, Susan K. Serrano, Michelle Natividad Rodriguez

Michigan Law Review

Much has been written recently on African American reparations and reparations movements worldwide, both in the popular press and scholarly publications. Indeed, the expanding volume of writing underscores the impact on the public psyche of movements for reparations for historic injustice. Some of that writing has highlighted the legal obstacles faced by proponents of reparations lawsuits, particularly a judicial system that focuses on individual (and not group-based) claims and tends to squeeze even major social controversies into the narrow litigative paradigm of a two-person auto collision (requiring proof of standing, duty, breach, causation, and direct injury). Other writings detail the …

The Effect Of 8 U. S. C. 1324(D) In Transporting Prosecutions: Does The Confrontation Clause Still Apply To Alien Defendants, Donna F. Coltharp

Faculty Articles

No abstract provided.

Immigration Law In The Supreme Court: The Flagging Spirit Of The Law, 28 J. Legis. 113 (2002), Michael G. Heyman

UIC Law Open Access Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Repairing The Legacy Of Ins V. Elias-Zacarias, Shayna S. Cook

Michigan Journal of International Law

This Article examines the evolution of the nexus requirement in United States refugee law since the Elias-Zacarias decision. Part I discusses the Supreme Court's decision in Elias-Zacarias, identifying the choices the Court made among the arguments presented before it that resulted in the motive-oriented approach to nexus. This Part also delves into the Court's statement about the evidence required to demonstrate motive, concluding that the Court's treatment of the evidence before it foreshadows the confusion lower courts have demonstrated in evaluating evidence of motive. Part II looks at appellate decisions on the nexus issue since 1992, highlighting cases that …

The Treaty Power And American Federalism, Part Ii, Curtis A. Bradley

Michigan Law Review

In an article published in this Review two years ago, I described and critiqued what I called the "nationalist view" of the treaty power. Under this view, the national government has the constitutional power to enter into treaties, and thereby create binding national law by virtue of the Supremacy Clause, without regard to either subject matter or federalism limitations. This view is reflected in the writings of a number of prominent foreign affairs law scholars, as well as in the American Law Institute's Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law of the United States. In my article, I argued that this …

Refugee Rights Are Not Negotiable, James C. Hathaway, Anne K. Cusick

Articles

America's troubled relationship with international law, in particular human rights law, is well documented. In many cases, the United States simply will not agree to be bound by international human rights treaties. For example, the United States has yet to ratify even such fundamental agreements as the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. When the United States does agree to become a party to an international human rights treaty, it has often sought to condition its acceptance …

Pinochet And International Human Rights Litigation, Curtis A. Bradley, Jack L. Goldsmith

Michigan Law Review

The British House of Lords recently considered whether Augusto Pinochet was subject to arrest and possible extradition to Spain for alleged acts of torture and other egregious conduct carried out during his reign as Chile's head of state. The Law Lords held that a large majority of the charges against Pinochet were not proper grounds for extradition under British law. They also held, however, that Pinochet could potentially be extradited for alleged acts of torture committed after Britain's 1988 ratifica· tion of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. In reaching this latter conclusion, …

Judicial Review As A Tool For The Safeguard Of Human Rights: Prospects And Problems Of The U.S. Model In Malawi, Janet Laura Banda

LLM Theses and Essays

Judicial review is a judicial action that involves the review of an inferior legislative or executive act for conformity with a higher legal norm, with the possibility that the inferior norm may be invalidated or suspended if necessary. Although judicial review has been explicitly provided for in some written post-independence African constitutions, such review has not developed into a significant principle of African juridical democracy. This lack of development can be attributed to the emergence of dictatorships in the post-colonial era. However, Malawi’s weak judiciary system was remedied by the 1994 Constitution which gave the Malawian judiciary a central position, …

Permissible Accommodation Of Religion And The Alternative Burden, Ei Ichiro Takahata

LLM Theses and Essays

In this thesis, the author discusses the extent to which the government can afford to give accommodation within the limits of the Establishment Clause. In Chapter II, the author reviews the theory of the permissible accommodation referred to in the Supreme Court of the United States. In Chapter III, the author examines scholarly debates on the accommodation. Then, the author discusses German and Japanese law of the accommodation in Chapter IV. There, those cases suggest the possibility of alternative burdens on religious believers. The alternative burdens are considered the price of the accommodation. The author concludes that the government has …

Irreconcilable Differences? Divorcing Regugee Protections From Human Rights Norms, Karen Musalo

Michigan Journal of International Law

This article will discuss in greater detail the profound defects of the Court's Zacarias decision. Section I will discuss the interpretation of key provisions of the 1980 Refugee Act, and describe the case of Jairo Elias Zacarias. Section II will review the plain language and legislative intent of the Act, including the congressional purpose of conforming to the 1967 Protocol. Section III will consider issues of burden of proof, and will examine the substantive impact which Zacarias has had on refugee cases. Section IV will focus on religious persecution as a paradigm of the inadequacy of an intent-based requirement and …

The Haitian Refugee Crisis: A Quest For Human Rights, Thomas David Jones

Michigan Journal of International Law

On June 14, 1993, the Vienna Conference on Human Rights, sponsored by the United Nations, commenced its opening session mired in controversy over the validity of a universal human rights doctrine. Many Third World or developing nations contended that Western norms of justice and fairness were not applicable to their societies. Thus, the developing nations articulated a culture-bound or relativistic concept of fundamental human rights. The developing nations' particularistic position was championed by such nations as China, Iran, Cuba, and Vietnam, signatories to the Bangkok Declaration of 1993. The Bangkok Declaration provides, inter alia, that though human rights are …

The United States Supreme Court And The Protection Of Refugees, Lung-Chu Chen

Articles & Chapters

No abstract provided.

The United States Supreme Court And The Protection Of Refugees, Lung-Chu Chen

Articles & Chapters

The problem of refugees is a worldwide phenomenon. The

twentieth century has been called the century of refugees. Its

history is replete with mass displacements of peoples fleeing war,

political oppression, human rights deprivations or disasters of one

kind or another. Currently, there are about seventeen million refugees

around the world. The specter of masses of refugees huddled

at national boundaries seeking asylum is common to the experience

of many nations. The United States, being a nation of

immigrants and a land of opportunity, is certainly not immune

from such pressures, as most recently illustrated by the exodus of

the …

Extraterritoriality Of Restrictive State Abortion Laws: States Can Abort Plans To Abort At Home But Not Abroad, Andrew King-Ries

Faculty Law Review Articles

The question of a state's authority to legislate abortion extraterritorially may appear largely academic because of the United States Supreme Court's holding in Roe v. Wade, in which the Court prohibited states from restricting abortions in the first trimester of pregnancy.' At first glance, the Supreme Court's recent decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey' appears to remove further the issue of extraterritorial abortion legislation from the states because the decision purportedly reaffirmed Roe.3 The Casey decision, however, does not preclude returning the abortion issue to the states. An extremely tenuous coalition of justices reaffirmed Roe, while a united group of …

Can Mental Health Professionals Predict Judicial Decisionmaking? Constitutional And Tort Liability Aspects Of The Right Of The Institutionalized Mentally Disabled To Refuse Treatment: On The Cutting Edge, Michael L. Perlin

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Quest To Enforce The Old Promises: Indian Law In The Modern Era, Charles Wilkinson

Publications

No abstract provided.