Fourteenth Amendment Commons^™

Coercive Ideology, Tyler Rose Clemons

Faculty Publications

Current equal protection jurisprudence does not permit challenges to discriminatory government expression, no matter how blatant or extreme. This doctrine, which I label the discriminatory treatment requirement, is a manifestation of anticlassification, the prevailing equal protection framework since the mid-1970s. According to anticlassification, only suspect government classifications implicate the Equal Protection Clause. In this Article, I contend that discriminatory government expression violates the Clause because it contributes integrally to racial subordination. Through a process I call coercive ideology, discriminatory government expression serves as a veiled threat that manipulates individuals into performing public compliance with the dominant ideology. Like the script …

Students For Fair Admissions: Affirming Affirmative Action And Shapeshifting Towards Cognitive Diversity?, Steven A. Ramirez

Seattle University Law Review

The Roberts Court holds a well-earned reputation for overturning Supreme Court precedent regardless of the long-standing nature of the case. The Roberts Court knows how to overrule precedent. In Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (SFFA), the Court’s majority opinion never intimates that it overrules Grutter v. Bollinger, the Court’s leading opinion permitting race-based affirmative action in college admissions. Instead, the Roberts Court applied Grutter as authoritative to hold certain affirmative action programs entailing racial preferences violative of the Constitution. These programs did not provide an end point, nor did they require assessment, review, periodic expiration, or revision for greater …

Traditional Notions Of Fair Play And Substantial Justice?: The Interplay Between Remote Work, State Regulations, And Personal Jurisdiction, Kathryn M. Couture

Roger Williams University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Racial Preferences In Employment After Students For Fair Admissions V. Harvard, Michael Yelnosky

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

In Pursuit Of Collective Liberation In Feminist Constitutionalism, Yvette Butler

Articles by Maurer Faculty

A review of After Misogyny: How The Law Fails Women and What to Do About It. By Julie C. Suk.

Subjectively Speaking, The Applicable Standard For Deficient Medical Treatment Of Pretrial Detainees Should Be One Of Objective Reasonableness, Benjamin R. Black

Touro Law Review

There is no uniformity amongst the circuits when it comes to pretrial detainees claims for inadequate medical care. The circuits are currently grappling with this problem, applying two separate tests to pretrial detainees’ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims depending on the jurisdiction in which the incident arose. The test that should be applied across all circuits is one of objective reasonableness. However, some circuits do not see it that way, applying the deliberate indifference standard, also known as the subjective standard test. The circuits applying the subjective standard are relying on case law that does not properly analyze the rights …

Mental Hygiene Law Article 81 Proceedings In New York State And The Associated Deprivation Of One’S Civil Rights And Autonomy: Are We Really Helping?, Giulia R. Marino

Touro Law Review

New York State Mental Hygiene Law Article 81 affords a population that is vulnerable to abuse and exploitation an opportunity to have their personal and/or property management needs met by the least restrictive means available, often entailing a severe deprivation of their rights.1 But what is meant by the term “least restrictive means available,” how is this determined, and how are these “means” implemented and monitored? Is this deprivation of an individual’s rights the only way they can be helped, or is this unnecessarily harmful? Are there other ways to protect the vulnerable in our society without taking away these …

The Evolution Of Race-Based Admissions In American Higher Education, Chenglin Liu

Faculty Articles

This Article examines the Supreme Court’s evolving position on race-based admissions policies over the past 127 years. Between Plessy and Brown, universities used race-based policies to exclude black applicants from white universities. Brown shifted admissions policies from blocking black students to accepting them. As affirmative action gained momentum, universities escalated from merely accepting minority candidates to proactive recruitment by using quotas and lowering their admissions standards. The Court in Bakke set the ground rules for race-based admissions during that period. In 2003, Grutter upheld the university’s pursuit for a “critical mass” of minority students in its entering class. Two …

Corporate Takeover: A New Clash In The Old Struggle Between Corporate Rights And Public Health, John J. Locurto, Rachel Radke, Xyruz Villariz, Jasmine Ann Castillejos

Faculty Articles

Corporations have used the federal courts to secure many of the same constitu­tional rights as individuals. As corporate rights proliferate so does corporate power to influence and resist laws that protect the public. One such law is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act—legislation that reformed health insurance coverage with important implications for public health.

The ACA has been a frequent target of litigation. Recent corporate lawsuits have invoked the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to challenge the ACA’s preventive care mandate, which requires health plans to cover preventive services without cost sharing. In Braidwood Management, Inc. v. Becerra, a …

The Meaning And Ambiguity Of Section Three Of The Fourteenth Amendment, Kurt T. Lash

Law Faculty Publications

The Fourteenth Amendment established the constitutional conditions for the readmission of those states which had attempted to secede from the Union during the American Civil War. Section Three of that amendment, when enforced under the powers granted by Section Five, prevented the leaders of the recent rebellion from returning to Congress, holding any state level office, or receiving any appointment by Democrat President Andrew Johnson, absent congressional permission. Its focus, in other words, was on rebellious disruption of state level decisionmaking and the potentially disruptive appointments by President Johnson. Whether Section Three accomplishes anything more remains unclear as a matter …

Channeling A Federal Right To Education Through State Constitutions And Courts, Nicole Sunderlin, Evan Caminker

Articles

Professor Black attributes the ubiquitous adoption of education clauses in state constitutions in the immediate pre- and especially post-Reconstruction era to a “constitutional compromise” struck by Congress and the states. The State Citizenship commitment was designed to enhance the republican nature of both levels of governance by ensuring broader access to political participation through voting and broader access to public education to inform and support democratic deliberation. The education component of this commitment was uniquely secured, argues Black, through a state-federal compromise using two complementary mechanisms: first, by mandating states to embrace a state constitutional obligation to provide basic educational …

Narrow But Deep: The Mcculloch Principle, Collective-Action Theory, And Section Three Enforcement, Neil S. Siegel

Faculty Scholarship

In Trump v. Anderson, 144 S. Ct. 662 (2024), the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Colorado Supreme Court erred in excluding President Donald J. Trump from the Republican Party's primary ballot in the state.  The Court reasoned that the Constitution makes Congress, not the states, solely responsible for enforcing Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.  Scholars of Section 3 have demonstrated that Section 3 is self-executing, so the Court's rationale lacks a sound basis in the original or contemporary meaning of the text of the Civil War Amendments, the original intent of their drafters, or …

The Anti-Constitutionality Of The Deeply Rooted Test In Dobbs V. Jackson, Reginald Oh

Cleveland State Law Review

The deeply rooted in history test used by Justice Alito in Dobbs v. Jackson to overturn Roe v. Wade is anti-constitutional. In Dobbs, Alito concluded that, because a majority of states in 1868 criminalized abortion, abortion is not deeply rooted in history, and is therefore not a fundamental liberty under the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause. However, relying on state laws in 1868 to interpret constitutional text not only has no basis in the Constitution, it goes against the fundamental nature of the Constitution as an integrated whole. What I call the Integrated Constitution is based on Chief Justice John …

R.E.S.P.E.C.T.: The Court's Forgotten Virtue, Camille Pollutro

Cleveland State Law Review

This Article recommends a shift in constitutional interpretation that requires the existence of respect for the class at issue when a fundamental right is being considered under the narrow, historical deeply rooted test of the Fourteenth Amendment. By focusing on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, this Article highlights that the class at issue—women—are having their fundamental rights decided for them by the legal sources of 1868. In applying this strict and narrow historical deeply rooted test, the Court fails to consider the lack of respect and autonomy that women had in 1868. To the Court, if twenty-eight out …

Dobbs And The Future Of Liberty And Equality, Kim Forde-Mazrui

Cleveland State Law Review

This lecture critiques Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization and assesses its implications for liberty and equality. Dobbs’ immediate effect was major disruption to abortion rights. In the longer term, by discarding fifty years of precedent and by basing constitutional rights exclusively on long-standing history and tradition, Dobbs jeopardizes liberty and equality rights that the Court has recognized in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. Such modern liberty rights include contraception, interracial marriage, adult sexual intimacy and same-sex marriage. Modern equality rights include strong bars on discrimination based on race and sex, and moderate protections for LGBTQ+ status. …

Holding The Big House Accountable: The Sixth Circuit Concludes A Pretrial Detainee's Fourteenth Amendment Deliberate Indifference Claim Is A Wholly Objective Determination, Noah Speitel

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

Inactive Exercise & Unequal Protection: Espinoza & Carson Under The Equal Protection Clause, Griffith B. Bludworth

University of Cincinnati Law Review

No abstract provided.

Education, The First Amendment, And The Constitution, Erwin Chemerinsky

University of Cincinnati Law Review

No abstract provided.

School Matters, Ronna Greff Schneider

University of Cincinnati Law Review

No abstract provided.

Federal Judge Denies Preliminary Injunction Against Idaho’S Bathroom Law, But Refuses To Dismiss Challenge, Arthur S. Leonard

Articles & Chapters

No abstract provided.