Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Supreme Court of the United States Commons™
Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Constitutional Law (21)
- Legislation (19)
- Courts (17)
- Criminal Procedure (17)
- Civil Rights and Discrimination (16)
-
- First Amendment (14)
- Law Enforcement and Corrections (12)
- Fourth Amendment (11)
- Jurisprudence (10)
- Law and Race (9)
- Administrative Law (7)
- Labor and Employment Law (7)
- Litigation (7)
- Civil Procedure (6)
- Criminal Law (6)
- Education Law (6)
- Evidence (6)
- State and Local Government Law (6)
- Dispute Resolution and Arbitration (5)
- Communications Law (4)
- Fourteenth Amendment (4)
- Legal Remedies (4)
- Securities Law (4)
- Environmental Law (3)
- Immigration Law (3)
- Judges (3)
- Law and Politics (3)
- Law and Society (3)
- Keyword
-
- United States Supreme Court (85)
- Law reform (23)
- Race and law (10)
- Class actions (9)
- Discrimination (9)
-
- Police (9)
- Department of Justice Office of Legal Policy (7)
- Minorities (7)
- Truth in Criminal Justice Series (7)
- Affirmative action (6)
- Freedom of speech (6)
- African Americans (5)
- Arbitration (5)
- Disparate treatment (5)
- Employees (5)
- Federal Arbitration Act (5)
- Punishment (5)
- Searches (5)
- Sentencing (5)
- Colleges and universities (4)
- Congress (4)
- Constitutional violations (4)
- Employment discrimination (4)
- Equal Protection Clause (4)
- Federal agencies (4)
- History (4)
- Incentives (4)
- Racial discrimination (4)
- Regulation (4)
- Rule 23 (4)
Articles 91 - 96 of 96
Full-Text Articles in Supreme Court of the United States
Congressional Discretion In Dealing With The Federal Rules Of Evidence, Stuart M. Lockman
Congressional Discretion In Dealing With The Federal Rules Of Evidence, Stuart M. Lockman
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
On November 20, 1972, the Supreme Court, pursuant to statutory authority, adopted the Federal Rules of Evidence. The new rules of evidence were not to take effect, however, until ninety days after they had been submitted to Congress. The rules were officially submitted on February 5, 1973, but even before that date they had become the subject of extensive legislative debate. While some attorneys praise the codification of evidence rules as a progressive step, others maintain that certain of these promulgations will have an objectionable impact on the federal judicial system or that the Supreme Court has exceeded its authority …
The Confrontation Clause And The Scope Of The Unavailability Requirement, Jerry J. Phillips
The Confrontation Clause And The Scope Of The Unavailability Requirement, Jerry J. Phillips
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
The confrontation clause is that language of the sixth amendment to the United States Constitution which provides, "[I]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right… to be confronted with the witnesses against him." Despite the seemingly absolute language of the confrontation clause, which would suggest that no hearsay evidence may be admitted against an accused in a criminal proceeding, its guarantee has been subject to exception. For example, when either a witness to an event or his testimony is shown to be unavailable, others will be allowed to testify as to the information which the declarant-witness has related …
Campus Pamphleteering: The Emerging Constitutional Standards, Morton M. Rosenfeld
Campus Pamphleteering: The Emerging Constitutional Standards, Morton M. Rosenfeld
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
Beginning with Lovell v. City of Griffin, the Supreme Court has consistently held the distribution of handbills to be a fundamental right under the first amendment. Since Lovell, the Court has liberally construed the concept of a public forum where first amendment rights can be properly exercised. More recently, the Court has held that schools cannot arbitrarily or absolutely regulate students' constitutional rights of expression. These three principles would suggest great protection for handbilling rights on state university campuses. A further analysis of case law indicates that broad free speech standards governing such rights exist and that the …
The Broad Role, Robert P. Griffin
The Broad Role, Robert P. Griffin
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
This article will expand on two major points: first, the nature of the higher responsibility which the Senate owes to considerations of judicial nominations; and second, the factors generally influencing non-consent in the Fortas case. The purpose is not to reopen a discussion of the particularities of Justice Abe Fortas' quality for appointment as Chief Justice of the United States. Rather we will be concerned only with the types of factors influencing a Senate determination.
The Fortas Controversy: The Senate's Role Of Advice And Consent To Judicial Nominations, Prospectus: A Journal Of Law Reform
The Fortas Controversy: The Senate's Role Of Advice And Consent To Judicial Nominations, Prospectus: A Journal Of Law Reform
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
Introduction to the Articles, The Broad Role by Robert P. Griffin, and The Discriminating Role by Philip A. Hart
The Discriminating Role, Philip A. Hart
The Discriminating Role, Philip A. Hart
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
The controversy which arose in the summer of 1968 over the nomination of Mr. Justice Abe Fortas to be Chief Justice of the United States has raised serious questions about the proper role of the Senate in advising and consenting to such nominations. That Sen. Hart’s remarks may be read in perspective, it should be mentioned that he supported strongly the nomination of Mr. Fortas. Hart believes that were it not for the unique circumstances of the summer of 1968- the erosion of the power of the President with the approach of a political campaign, the nearness of the end …