Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons^™

Editor's Note

Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice

No abstract provided.

The Devil Is In The Details: The Supreme Court Erodes The Fourth Amendment In Applying Reasonable Suspicion In Navarette V. California, George M. Dery Iii, Kevin Meehan

Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Marriage, The Constitution, And The Future Of Family Law, Mark Strasser

Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Private In Name Only: A Statutory And Constitutional Analysis Of Milwaukee’S Private School Voucher Program, Julie F. Mead

Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice

No abstract provided.

The Military's Sexual Assault Blind Spot, Eric R. Carpenter

Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Revival Of Substantive Equity: Increased Household Risk, Safety Valve Litigation And Availability Of The Erisa Stock Drop Jury, James F. Parker

Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice

No abstract provided.

A Failure To Rehabilitate: Leaving Disability Insurance Out Of The Mental Health Parity Debate, Christopher R. Wilson

Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Centralized Prosecution: Cross-Designated Prosecutors And An Unconstitutional Concentration Of Power, Haley White

Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Plyler Students At Work: The Case For Granting Law Licenses To Undocumented Immigrants, Lindy Stevens

Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Amicus Brief In "Obergefell V. Hodges", Tanya M. Washington, Catherine Smith, Lauren Fontana, Susannah Pollvogt

Faculty Publications By Year

Supreme Court precedent establishes that the government may not punish children for matters beyond their control. Same-sex marriage bans and non-recognition laws (“marriage bans”) do precisely this. The states argue that marriage is good for children, yet marriage bans categorically exclude an entire class of children – children of same-sex couples – from the legal, economic and social benefits of marriage.

This amicus brief recounts a powerful body of equal protection jurisprudence that prohibits punishing children to reflect moral disapproval of parental conduct or to incentivize adult behavior. We then explain that marriage bans punish children of same-sex couples because …

Four Decades Of Federal Civil Rights Litigation, Theodore Eisenberg

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Civil rights cases constitute a substantial fraction of the federal civil docket but that fraction has substantially declined from historic peaks. Trial outcomes, as in other areas of law, constitute a small fraction of case terminations and have changed over time. The number of employment discrimination trials before judges has been in decline for about 30 years, a trend also evident in contract and tort cases. The number of employment trials before juries increased substantially after the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 but has been in decline since 1997. In constitutional tort cases, the number of judge …

The Sins Of Innocence In Standing Doctrine, Elise C. Boddie

Vanderbilt Law Review

Should reverse discrimination plaintiffs always be able to challenge race-conscious selection policies in court? Conventional standing doctrine requires plaintiffs to show that the contested policy or practice has caused a concrete, personal harm. Yet in affirmative action cases, courts seem to have quietly dispensed with this required showing. The Supreme Court's decision in Fisher v. University of Texas is a prime example. The university illustrated that the white plaintiff would not have been admitted whatever her race. Yet the Court completely ignored the standing inquiry, reinforcing the significant confusion among courts and scholars alike about the cognizability of racial injury. …

Federalism, Marriage, And Heather Gerken's Mad Genius, Kristin Collins

Faculty Scholarship

In her characteristically astute and engaging essay, Professor Heather Gerken offers a sensitive and sympathetic reading of Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion in United States v. Windsor.¹ Her core claim is that Windsor—and the transformation of political and legal support for same-sex marriage in the United States—demonstrate how “federalism and rights work together to promote change” and, in particular, how federalism furthers the equality and liberty values of the Fourteenth Amendment.² This is a natural line of argument for Gerken to develop with respect to Windsor, as she has produced an incredible body of scholarship dedicated to what …

Big Philanthropy’S Unrestrained Influence On Public Education: A Call For Change, Noelle Quam

Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice

No abstract provided.

In Abercrombie Case, Supreme Court Should Protect Religious Freedom, Lauren Carasik

Media Presence

No abstract provided.

Religious Accommodations And – And Among – Civil Rights: Separation, Toleration, And Accommodation, Richard W. Garnett

Journal Articles

This paper expands on a presentation at a recent conference, held at Harvard Law School, on the topic of “Religious Accommodations in the Age of Civil Rights.” In it, I emphasize that the right to religious freedom is a basic civil right, the increased appreciation of which is said to characterize our “age.” Accordingly, I push back against scholars’ and commentators’ increasing tendency to regard and present religious accommodations and exemptions as obstacles to the civil-rights enterprise and ask instead if our religious-accommodation practices are all that they should be. Are accommodations and exemptions being extended prudently but generously, in …

Abolish Anonymous Reporting To Child Abuse Hotlines, Dale Margolin Cecka

Catholic University Law Review

All states allow the public to anonymously report suspicions of child abuse or neglect to a toll free central phone number. An extensive examination of the policy and practices behind anonymous reporting hotlines indicates that they are widely unregulated and susceptible to abuse. The possible repercussions of an anonymous phone call create costs to the family and society which do not outweigh the potential benefit of allowing anonymous public reports. Under the guise of protecting children, the law has developed in such a way that it infringes on the fundamental rights of parents and children. At the same time, anonymous …

Following Fisher: Narrowly Tailoring Affirmative Action, Eang L. Ngov

Catholic University Law Review

Affirmative action has been at the forefront of educational policies and to this day continues to enliven debates. For decades, schools have litigated over whether affirmative action can be used to create a diverse student body. Now, the litigation has shifted to whether affirmative action policies are narrowly tailored. The Supreme Court’s most recent affirmative action case, Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, requires that schools prove that there are no workable race neutral alternatives in order to demonstrate that their affirmative action programs are narrowly tailored. This article examines the available race neutral alternatives: percentage plans; socioeconomic …

The Tort Label, Sandra F. Sperino

Florida Law Review

This Article demonstrates the dangers of the tort label, using the lens of two core discrimination statutes: Title VII and the ADEA. However, the discussion has broader implications. Courts have applied the tort label to a variety of statutes and in a wide array of contexts.

This Article proceeds as follows. Part I discusses the move to tortify federal discrimination law. Parts II, III, and IV highlight serious problems with the way the courts understand, use, and apply tort law in the discrimination context. Part V discusses the stakes of the tort label, including its tendency to lead to unsatisfactory …

Unhappy Meals: Sex Discrimination In Toy Choice At Mcdonald’S, Ian Ayres, Antonia Rose Ayres-Brown

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

This Essay reports on a commonplace form of sex discrimination that we unsuccessfully challenged in a lawsuit before the Connecticut Human Rights Commission. In a small-scale pilot study that we conducted 5 years ago (which was the basis of our initial complaint) and in a follow-up study conducted in 2013, we found that McDonald’s franchises, instead of asking drive-through customers ordering a Happy Meal about their toy preference, asked the customer for the sex of the customer’s child (“Is it for a boy or a girl?”) and then gave different types of toys for each sex. Moreover, our 2013 visits …