Fourteenth Amendment Commons^™

Mired In Meyer'S Mischief A Century After Fabrication Of Constitutional Parents' Rights, James G. Dwyer

Faculty Publications

The seminal Supreme Court decisions Meyer v. Nebraska and Pierce v. Society of Sisters, now commemorated on their centenary anniversary, are odd doctrinal ducks. They are both still routinely cited as the foundation for ascribing to persons on whom the state has conferred legal parent status a right under the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. (According to Westlaw, judicial citation count for Meyer now nears 3000, and secondary-source citations have surpassed 7000.) It is a constitutional right to force states to confer on them greater legal power than the state is otherwise inclined to …

Volume 48 Masthead, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

Volume 48 Masthead

Voting Matters: Materiality Considerations And The Shareholder Vote, Renee M. Jones

Seattle University Law Review

For the shareholder franchise to have meaning, shareholders must have access to relevant information to inform their voting decisions. The securities laws’ disclosure requirements play an essential role in informing the shareholder vote.

This Essay focuses on the question of the materiality of information in the context of shareholder voting. It addresses the question of whether ESG-related information is material, positioning the materiality inquiry within the context of shareholders’ voting decisions. It explores the definition of materiality with a focus on the “reasonable investor” concept embedded within the definition. The Essay argues that the implicit expectations of many commentators that …

Volume 48 Masthead, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

Volume 48 Masthead

Understanding The Big Three’S Wavering Support Of Environmental And Social Shareholder Proposals, Jeff Schwartz, Jefferson Jensen

Seattle University Law Review

Because of their substantial equity portfolios, BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street (the Big 3) are central players in corporate governance. It is, therefore, critical to understand how they vote. One puzzle is that their support for shareholder proposals on environmental and social matters appears to waiver. In 2020, for instance, BlackRock supported 11.1% of environmental proposals at S&P 500 firms. In 2021, it seemingly reversed course, supporting 55.2%. It then flipped again, supporting 32.1% in 2022. Such statistics suggest that the Big 3 are constantly changing their views on these topics. This Article seeks to better understand whether this is …

Volume 48 Masthead, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

Volume 48 Masthead

Religious Liberty, Public Accommodations, And Non-Discrimination: A Rapidly Emerging Injustice, Gordon Babst

Political Science Faculty Books and Book Chapters

The decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., suggested to many that the scope of religious liberty was in a principled, logical way expanded to include free expression rights of corporate entities. It is concerning that many champion the decision as a basis for expanding religious exemptions to non-discrimination law as regards public accommodations, especially since the same reasoning that is being used with respect to the contemporary target of discrimination based in religious belief—American citizens who happen to be in a sexual minority—would apply by analogy, as it once did explicitly, to racial minorities. Unfortunately, given the …

Confession And Confrontation, William Ortman

Scholarly Works

The constitutional law of confessions has a critical blind spot. In theory, the law serves two interests. First, it protects the autonomy of suspects by stipulating that they can be questioned while in custody only with their consent. Second, it restrains official misconduct by forbidding interrogation methods that overbear a suspect's will. Even if the law adequately safeguards those interests, something is missing: reliability. As false confessions emerge as a major source of wrongful convictions and as social scientists expose how standard interrogation tactics prompt innocent people to confess, the Supreme Court and conventional wisdom insist that the reliability of …

Equitable Incorporation: How History And Tradition Can Progressively Redefine The Fourteenth Amendment, Robert D'Alessandro

Cardozo Journal of Equal Rights & Social Justice

The Fourteenth Amendment, designed to ensure equality before the law, has been misinterpreted by the Supreme Court through its incorporation doctrine, leading to rulings that harm marginalized communities. The article advocates for "Equitable Incorporation," a doctrine requiring courts to consider the impact of their decisions on historically discriminated groups, ensuring the Amendment's purpose of equity and justice is upheld. This approach would necessitate the incorporation of unincorporated rights and reinterpret existing ones to reflect the Amendment's equitable intent.

A Crust Of Bread: Religious Resistance And The Fourteenth Amendment, Kurt T. Lash, Stephanie Hall Barclay

Law Faculty Publications

In Employment Division v. Smith, the U.S. Supreme Court denied heightened constitutional protection to religiously motivated exercise burdened by neutral and generally applicable laws. The history presented in this Article suggests that the Smith approach conflicts with the original understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment. Out of the crucible of religious abolitionist resistance to the Fugitive Slave Act emerged a substantive theory of constitutional religious freedom: American citizens should have the right to obey the Biblical command to care for the needy and provide the hungry a "crust of bread," even if doing so was contrary to neutral and generally …

The Right To Acquire Property, John G. Sprankling

American University Law Review

Can government prohibit the acquisition of all types of property? The intuitive answer to this question is “no.” But why? Is there a constitutional right to acquire property? And, if so, how does it apply if government merely prohibits acquisition of a certain type of property, such as contraceptives?

The Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments restrict when property may be “taken” or “seized” and when a person may be “deprived” of property. Thousands of law review articles and hundreds of books have analyzed the scope of these provisions. But almost no modern attention has been devoted to their logical counterpart—the …

Amending Rule 15.3 Of The Mississippi Rules Of Criminal Procedure To Fully Capture Boykin V. Alabama And Acknowledge Systemic Coercion Indigent Defendants Face In Mississippi, Sarina P. Larson

MC Law Review

The U.S. Constitution—not a state—is what governs questions of constitutionality. It follows that for a state court to make a constitutionally sufficient record of a defendant’s waiver at their plea, the complete interpretation as to sufficiency by the United States Supreme Court must be followed. This Comment stands for the proposition that when Rule 15.3 of the Mississippi Rule of Criminal Procedure was adopted in 2017, it misinterpreted the call of the United States Supreme Court in Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969). Ultimately, this Comment suggests amendments to Rule 15.3 that would place it in compliance with Boykin, …

Free Movement Rights And The American City, Ryan Stoa

FIU Law Review

American cities are facing an inflection point. Widespread dissatisfaction with urban planning outcomes is making land use and transportation policies (such as congestion pricing) a mainstream topic of debate. Suburban sprawl and housing shortages are moving urban populations into the periphery, commuting times (and associated mental health problems) are increasing, and pedestrian and cyclist deaths caused by vehicles are at all-time highs. American cities that were largely planned and built in the twentieth century based on assumptions that we now know are flawed are not meeting the needs of their residents, and urban planners are making changes to reshape urban …

Being Pregnant In Someone Else's Body, Jennifer S. Hendricks

FIU Law Review

In the wake of the Dobbs decision overturning the right to abortion, now is a critical time to re-assess how legal feminism theorizes the pregnant body. Before Dobbs, feminist legal scholarship had blazed a path of anti-maternalism, a stance rooted in liberal, formalist notions of equality that denigrates the “feminine” and too often minimizes the importance of reproductive issues both as tools of sex-based subordination in the present and as foundations for liberation in the future. Anti-maternalism is attractive to legal scholars because it minimizes sex and gender differences and may appear to be gender-inclusive. It has produced arguments that …

What Is Deeply Rooted In The Constitution?, Thomas P. Crocker

BYU Law Review

In a series of cases stretching over a century, the Court made a right’s roots a constitutive feature of its identity. Highlighting the analytic centrality of deep roots to the recognition of rights, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health withdrew prior judicial recognition of a woman’s right to reproductive choice, arguing that such a right was not properly rooted in the American legal tradition. But what does it mean for a right to have deep roots? A surprising feature of American constitutionalism is that there is no single answer to the basic analytic question of what it means for a right …

Foia Vs. Fair Trial: How The Freedom Of Information Act Limits The Ability To Uncover Brady Material In Federal Post-Conviction Proceedings, Anna Marchiony

University of Cincinnati Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Search For Unenumerated Fundamental Rights, Alina Sluzhyvenkova

Student Theses and Dissertations

There are certain rights that are explicitly enumerated in the Constitution, e.g., right to bear arms, right to free speech, right to a speedy and public trial. There are also rights that aren’t specifically written out but are nevertheless enjoyed by people nationwide. Rights that aren’t explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, but which are fundamental to are called the unenumerated rights. Unenumerated rights are just as important and can be derived from natural law, enumerated rights, the Ninth Amendment, precedents, judicial opinions, and substantive due process.

Substantive due process is a principle guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which …

The Trouble With Classifications, Aziz Z. Huq

Notre Dame Law Review

The Supreme Court relies increasingly on anticlassification rules to implement the Constitution’s various commands of evenhanded state treatment. These rules direct attention to whether an instance of a forbidden classification is present on the face of a challenged law. They contain two necessary steps. First, a court defines a general category of impermissible terms. Second, a court ascertains whether an instance of the category is found in enacted text—so triggering the familiar strict scrutiny analysis. So defined, anticlassification rules now dominate equal protection, free speech, “dormant” Commerce Clause, and even free exercise jurisprudence. The Roberts Court celebrates these doctrinal tests …

Batson Challenges In Federal, Kansas, And Missouri Courts, Matt Champagne

Law Student Works

In Batson v. Kentucky, 474 U.S. 79 (1986), the Supreme Court of the United States (“SCOTUS”) ruled generally that the use of peremptory strikes to disqualify potential jurors based solely on their race violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Specifically, the Court held that the use of peremptory strikes by the prosecution to exclude all four Black potential jurors from a jury pool, thus seating an all-white petit jury, on no other grounds besides the perspective jurors’ race violated a Black man’s right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court reasoned that the exclusion of …

Freedom And Families: Reconstruction Republicans And The Question Of Women's Reproductive Autonomy, Kate Masur

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Essay proceeds in three Parts. In the first, I illuminate how congressional Republicans discussed women, gender, and families in the context of policymaking associated with abolishing slavery. Many Republicans worried that enslaved people’s family relationships had been damaged by the imposition of slavery and sought to impose on freedpeople what they saw as normative family values, including by encouraging heterosexual marriage and by insisting on patriarchal gender roles within families. Second, I show that Republicans were at pains to demonstrate that when they talked about equality, they meant race but not gender. Finally, I reflect on the limits of …