All content tagged with: 14th Amendment

Filter

  • The Scales of Reproductive Justice: Casey’s Failure to Rebalance Liberty Interests in the Racially Disparate State of Maternal Medicine

    Despite the maternal medicine crisis in the U.S., especially for Black women, legislatures are challenging constitutional abortion doctrine and forcing women to interact with a system that may cost them their lives. This Article proposes that because of abysmal maternal mortality rates and the arbitrary nature of most abortion restrictions, the right to choose an abortion is embedded in our Fourteenth Amendment right to not be arbitrarily deprived of life by the State. This Article is a call to abortion advocates to begin submitting state maternal mortality data when challenging abortion restrictions. The call for attention to life was central to the holding in Roe v. Wade and is central to rebalancing the scales of reproductive justice.

  • Concealed Motives: Rethinking Fourteenth Amendment and Voting Rights Challenges to Felon Disenfranchisement

    Felon disenfranchisement provisions are justified by many Americans under the principle that voting is a privilege to be enjoyed only by upstanding citizens. The provisions are intimately tied, however, to the country’s legacy of racism and systemic disenfranchisement and are at odds with the values of American democracy. In virtually every state, felon disenfranchisement provisions affect the poor and communities of color on a grossly disproportionate scale. Yet to date, most challenges to the provisions under the Equal Protection Clause and Voting Rights Act have been unsuccessful, frustrating proponents of re-enfranchisement and the disenfranchised alike. In light of those failures, is felon disenfranchisement here to stay? This Note contemplates that question, beginning with a comprehensive analysis of the history of felon disenfranchisement provisions in America, tracing their roots to the largescale effort to disenfranchise African Americans during Reconstruction, and identifying ways in which the racism of the past reverberates through practices of disenfranchisement in the present day. Applying this knowledge to understandings of prior case law and recent voting rights litigation, a path forward begins to emerge.

  • “The Prejudice of Caste”: The Misreading of Justice Harlan and the Ascendency of Anticlassificaiton

    This Article reconsiders the familiar reading of Justice Harlan's dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson as standing for the principle of constitutional colorblindness by examining the significance of Harlan's use of the metaphor "caste" in the opinion. By overlooking Harlan's invocation of "caste," it argues that conservative proponents of anticlassification have reclaimed the opinion for "colorblindness," and buried a powerful statement of the antisubordination principle that is at the heart of our equality law. The Article begins by examining the emergence of a reading of the opinion as articulating a view of equality law based in anticlassification. The Article then returns to the nineteenth century to offer an alternative reading of the opinion. It argues that by time Harlan invoked the caste metaphor in Plessy, the caste metaphor was part of a longstanding tradition of reasoning about the moral stakes of status hierarchy and social subordination. It examines the emergence, in the nineteenth century, of the image of caste in abolitionist rhetoric and in debates over the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment during Reconstruction. The Article further challenges the conventional reading of Harlan's dissent, by considering the persistence of the caste metaphor in the context of Brown v. Board of Education and its aftermath.

  • The Unconstitutionality, Ineffectiveness, and Alternatives of Gang Injunctions

    Gang violence across America puts in jeopardy the peace and tranquility of neighborhoods. Cities are challenged to keep their communities safe from gang violence. One common way in which cities attempt to combat violent gang activity is by using gang injunctions. Gang injunctions are court orders that prohibit gang members from conducting already-illegal activities such as vandalism, loitering, and use or possession of illegal drugs or weapons within a defined area. These injunctions, however, also prohibit otherwise legal activity such as associating with others within the restricted area of the injunction, using words or hand gestures, and wearing certain clothing. The increased use of gang injunctions to combat violent gang activity is a controversial tactic. The use of gang injunctions raises many constitutional concerns, including violations of the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 14th amendments. Even if interpreted as constitutional, gang injunctions have been proven ineffective in preventing and deterring gang members from engaging in violent gang activity. Critics believe that gang injunctions create gang cohesiveness, animosity towards the police, and relocate the violent crime created by gang members by pushing gang members into adjacent neighborhoods just outside the injunction's target area. Finally, there are several proven-effective alternatives to gang injunctions. This Note explores the unconstitutionality of gang injunctions, reveals the ineffectiveness of gang injunctions, and investigates more effective and efficient alternatives.

  • Appellate Review of Racist Summations: Redeeming the Promise of Searching Analysis

    This Article addresses the question of the appropriate response of appellate counsel for Black defendants tarred at trial by the indirect deployment of powerful racial stereotypes. The crux of the problem is that even now, the courts only take exception to blatant racist appeals, even though indirectly racist summations can have a determinative impact at trial. In laying out the contours of the problem, we must draw upon the discipline of rhetoric, or persuasion through oration, to describe various techniques of intentional indirectness that prosecutors use to obviate the possibility of appellate review under the stringent standards of the Fourteenth Amendment.

  • Fair and Facially Neutral Higher Educational Admissions Through Disparate Impact Analysis

    Part I of this Note proposes both remedial and instrumental justifications for applying disparate impact scrutiny to admissions policies. This Part argues that disparate impact analysis should be applied to higher education as a remedy for the disadvantage minority applicants face as a result of historic and ongoing intentional discrimination and that schools are culpable for unnecessarily utilizing admissions criteria that have this discriminatory effect. The result of applying disparate impact analysis will be admissions policies that produce diverse student bodies while remaining facially neutral with regard to race. Part II proposes that a necessity standard, unique to the higher education context, be fashioned such that admissions policies are made as equitable as possible while not undermining a school's ability to achieve its legitimate admissions goals. The proper necessity standard would grant schools latitude to define their institutional goals, but at the same time require that their admissions criteria be the least discriminatory methods of achieving these goals. Finally, Part III shows that a court can feasibly and effectively apply disparate impact analysis to admissions processes despite their complexity and variety.

  • A General Theory of Cultural Diversity

    This Article seeks to extend the analysis of these developments in the corporate world to anti-discrimination law under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This Article will show that discrimination based upon cultural insights or experiences is distinct from race discrimination and will articulate a general theory of why and under what circumstances this holds true. The difference between culture-based discrimination and using culture as a proxy for race (Which would then be race discrimination) requires a careful and non-mythological understanding of what race is, and what race is not. Moreover, showing that culture discrimination is not prohibited by anti-discrimination law does not really resolve much, as cultural discrimination carries the risks of many of the evils our anti-discrimination laws are designed to address. Therefore, this Article concludes with proposals for regulating cultural discrimination so that fair discrimination based upon specific cultural facility, ranging from communication skills to cultural insights, is not accompanied by the potential for parasitic cultural discrimination.