Jurisprudence Commons^™

(Un)Common Law And The Female Body, Lolita Buckner Inniss

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

A dissonance frequently exists between explicit feminist approaches to law and the realities of a common law system that has often ignored and even at times exacerbated women’s legal disabilities. In The Common Law Inside the Female Body, Anita Bernstein mounts a challenge to this story of division. There is, and has long been, she asserts, a substantial interrelation between the common law and feminist jurisprudential approaches to law. But Bernstein’s central argument, far from disrupting broad understandings of the common law, is in keeping with a claim that other legal scholars have long asserted: decisions according to precedent, …

Individual Preferences In Policy Analysis: A Normative Framework, Gabriel Weil

Scholarly Works

Measures of individual preferences are a key input in cost-benefit analysis. However, behavioral science has raised questions about the rationality of these preferences. The Nudge thesis relies on that scientific research to prescribe interventions to influence individual choices. However, the more modest step of limiting reliance on these preferences in evaluating non-paternalistic government policies has not been taken up. We lack a consistent theory of when public policy should defer to these preferences, with legal and policy advocates adopting ad hoc result-oriented approaches. I argue that policymakers should be prepared to override individual preferences in cases where their only plausible …

Coming To Terms With Wartime Collaboration: Post-Conflict Processes & Legal Challenges, Shane Darcy

Brooklyn Journal of International Law

The phenomenon of collaboration during wartime is as old as war itself. During situations of armed conflict, civilians or combatants belonging to one party to the conflict frequently provide assistance to the opposing side in various ways, such as by disclosing valuable information, defecting and fighting for the enemy, engaging in propaganda, or providing administrative support to an occupying power. Such acts of collaboration have been punished harshly, with violent retribution often directed at alleged collaborators during armed conflict, while states and at times non-state actors have prosecuted and punished collaboration as treason or related offenses in times of war. …

The Unreasonableness Of Catholic Integralism, Micah Schwartzman, Jocelyn Wilson

San Diego Law Review

In this symposium contribution, we argue that Catholic integralism is unreasonable. Our conception of reasonableness is defined in terms of substantive moral and epistemic commitments to respecting the freedom and equality of citizens who hold a wide—but not unlimited—range of religious, ethical, and philosophical conceptions of the good. In arguing that Catholic integralism conflicts with this understanding of reasonableness, it might seem that we are begging the question against integralists. But our purpose here is not to engage integralists on their own terms. So far, the debate about integralism has been conducted mostly among Catholics and Christian conservatives. Our critique …

Legal Realism And Legal Doctrine, Dan Priel

All Papers

Legal realism is widely perceived to be hostile to legal doctrine. In the familiar narrative, the realists showed that legal doctrine does not, and cannot, constrain judges from using existing legal materials to reach virtually any outcome they want. As such, doctrine only serves to hides and obfuscate what is better discussed openly. The purpose of this essay is to complicate this familiar story. I focus on one contemporary take on legal realism that argues that an open discussion of values will give the law greater determinacy. I counter this view, first, by showing that it does not, in fact, …

Setting Our Feet: The Foundations Of Religious And Conscience Protections, Hanna Torline

Notre Dame Law Review

This Note does not attempt to claim that religion and conscience are not moral equivalents, that they are not equally important, or that they do not require equal legal treatment. Nor does it attempt to claim the converse. Simply put, it argues that a consideration of the different foundations underlying conscience protections and religious protections should give pause to anyone arguing that the two are equivalent. This Note concludes that the rationales behind protecting religion and conscience are different enough to merit consideration in the debate. For if religion and conscience are treated as equivalents under the law, they will …

Piecing Together Precedent: Fragmented Decisions From The Washington State Supreme Court, Rachael Clark

Washington Law Review

For decades, countless jurisdictions have grappled with the ambiguous precedential weight of court decisions that lack a majority opinion. In American jurisprudence, applying a “majority,” “lead,” “concurrence,” or “dissent” label to an appellate court opinion indicates agreement or disagreement with the judgment of the case. When a decision is fragmented (that is, there is no majority opinion), courts often express the judgment of the court with one opinion labeled as the “plurality” or “lead” opinion. Traditionally, labeling an opinion as a “lead opinion” indicates that the reasoning expressed within the opinion has more support than the other opinions written for …

Policing The Painted And Powdered, Anthony Michael Kreis

Cardozo Law Review

Is homophobia also sexism?

This question was the focus ofpioneering scholarship nearly three decades ago and has been the subject ofreignited controversy because of litigation over marriage rights, employment discrimination, educational opportunities, fair housing, religious exemptions, and military service. Even though some courts, federal agencies, and state employment commissions have recognized that sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination are subsets ofsex discrimination, including the landmark Title VII decisions Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College and Zarda v. Altitude Express, academics, judges, andpublic administrators have been unable to articulate a plain theory ofsexual orientation discrimination as sexism. Without a straightforward theory …

I Pity The Fool: Ori Herstein's Defense Of The Klutz, Anthony J. Sebok

Articles

No abstract provided.

Pepperdine University School Of Law Legal Summaries, Analise Nuxoll

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

No abstract provided.

Two Forms Of Formalism, Dan Priel

All Papers

In this paper I argue that what is called ‘formalism’ is actually two very different views: I call one ‘conceptualism’ and the other ‘doctrinalism’. The former is deductive and ‘philosophical’ whereas the latter is inductive and ‘pragmatic’. While the two views have sometimes been aligned in opposition to certain views they were both in opposition to, they are actually fundamentally at odds with each other. I demonstrate this by identifying eight parameters on which the two are opposed. After presenting the two views, I turn to evaluating the two views. I first argue that conceptualism is indefensible, and that though …

Legislating Morality: Moral Theory And Turpitudinous Crimes In Immigration Jurisprudence, Abel Rodríguez, Jennifer A. Bulcock

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

Congress could have framed the country’s immigration policies in any number of ways. In significant part, it opted to frame them in moral terms. The crime involving moral turpitude is among the most pervasive and pernicious classifications in immigration law. In the Immigration and Nationality Act, it is virtually ubiquitous, appearing everywhere from the deportability and mandatory detention grounds to the inadmissibility and naturalization grounds. In effect, it acts as a gatekeeper for those who wish to enter and remain in the country, obtain lawful permanent residence, travel abroad after admission, or become United States citizens. With limited exceptions, noncitizens …

Standards Of Review In Texas, W. Wendell Hall, Ryan G. Anderson

St. Mary's Law Journal

Abstract forthcoming

American Legion V. American Humanist Association, Seth T. Bonilla

Public Land & Resources Law Review

The separation of church and state is a key element of American democracy, but its interpretation has been challenged as the country grows more diverse. In American Legion v. American Humanist Association, the Supreme Court adopted a new standard to analyze whether a religious symbol on public land maintained by public funding violated the Constitution’s Establishment Clause.

Stranded Behind Bars: The Failure Of Retributive Justice (Research Materials), Holy Cross Libraries

Library Resources for Campus Events

A bibliography of resources available through the Holy Cross Libraries which provide additional information related to "Stranded Behind Bars: The Failure of Retributive Justice," a lecture by Erin Kelly, professor of philosophy at Tufts University and author of “The Limits of Blame: Rethinking Punishment and Responsibility” (Harvard University Press, 2018), who explains how retributive justice exaggerates the moral meaning of criminal guilt, normalizes excessive punishment, and distracts from shared responsibility for social injustice.

The lecture was sponsored by the Rev. Michael C. McFarland, S.J. Center for Religion, Ethics and Culture, and was held at the College of the Holy Cross …

State Constitutional Provisions Allowing Juries To Interpret The Law Are Not As Crazy As They Sound, Marcus Alexander Gadson

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

This Article questions that consensus. Joining a larger debate about the jury’s proper role, it argues that, even today, these provisions are a defensible component of a criminal justice system. First, this Article argues that the jury is the entity in the justice system most incentivized to approach legal questions with an eye to what the best interpretation is and not the most politically palatable result. Second, this Article argues that the jury’s ability to deliberate and consider opinions from individuals hailing from a wider variety of backgrounds than those who typically become judges may provide advantages over a …

The Human Right To A Healthy Environment: Pushing The Boundaries In The Inter-American System, Sarah Dávila-Ruhaak

Biennial Conference: The Social Practice of Human Rights

The connection between the environment and human rights is not a surprising one. The enjoyment of human rights depends on a person’s ability to live free from interference and to have his or her rights protected. The interdependence of human rights and the protection of the environment is manifested in the full and effective enjoyment of the rights to life, highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, adequate standard of living, adequate food, clean water and sanitation, housing, culture, freedom of expression and association, information and education, participation, effective remedies, and the rights of indigenous peoples. Without adequate access …

Alexander Bickel And The Demise Of Legal Process Jurisprudence, David Wolitz

Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy

No abstract provided.

Learning From Feminist Judgments: Lessons In Language And Advocacy, Bridget J. Crawford, Linda L. Berger, Kathryn M. Stanchi

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

This essay offers a perspective-shifting approach to meeting some of our pedagogical goals in law school: the study of re-imagined judicial decisions. Our thesis is that exposing students to “alternative judgments”—opinions that have been rewritten by authors who look at the law and the facts differently—will help students develop a more realistic and nuanced view of judicial decision-making: one that is aspirational and based in the real world, and one that allows them to envision their futures as successful advocates. The “alternative judgments” of the feminist judgments projects can enrich the law-school experience in multiple ways. First, seeing a written …

Statutory Realism: The Jurisprudential Ambivalence Of Interpretive Theory, Abigail R. Moncrieff

Law Faculty Articles and Essays

In the renaissance of statutory interpretation theory, a division has emerged between "new purposivists," who argue that statutes should be interpreted dynamically, and "new textualists," who argue that statutes should be interpreted according to their ordinary semantic meanings. Both camps, however, rest their theories on jurisprudentially ambivalent commitments. Purposivists are jurisprudential realists when they make arguments about statutory meaning, but they are jurisprudential formalists in their views of the judicial power to engage in dynamic interpretation. Textualists are the inverse; they are formalistic in their understandings of statutory meaning but realistic in their arguments about judicial power. The relative triumph …