This Article advocates differentiating between two distinct categories of equal protection cases. The first-what I have termed indicator cases-are instances where courts consider whether there are sufficient factual indications to demonstrate the existence of a prima facie equal protection violation. The second-violation cases-are instances where courts consider, having already determined the existence of an equal protection violation, whether there is a good enough justification for a prima facie equal protection violation. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has not differentiated between these two different types of cases. This has led to a string of decisions where the Supreme Court has erroneously looked for justifications for non-existent Equal Protection Clause violations, when in f...
The Constitution's Equal Protection Clause provides that no State shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. The Supreme Court's equal protection jurisprudence designates all legislation identifying race-based categories for differential treatment as "suspect" and subject to "strict scrutiny." Similarly, legislative differentiation based on national-origin classification is also subject to this strict scrutiny standard. Although the Court has established that legislative national-origin classification is suspect and subject to strict scrutiny, the Court has yet to articulate a comprehensive method of analysis reflecting national origin-based discrimination in the United States. Equal protection challenges to the categorization of Latinos in affirm...
Born in Bogalusa, Louisiana, [Woodrow Seals] came to Texas for law school after serving in what he would always describe as "the second Great War." He settled in Houston and, like his friend Wayne Justice in Tyler, was appointed to the federal bench by Lyndon Johnson at the recommendation of the late U.S. Sen. Ralph Yarborough, patron saint of a generation of Texas liberals. Like Justice, Seals presided over several landmark school desegregation cases. Unlike Justice, whose ostracism by the local community was almost as legendary as the rulings that prompted it, Seals was a gregarious participant in a wide range of community activities. During the trial of the alien school case, he occasionally baffled attorneys with off-the-cuff remarks prompted by outside reading: for instance, engagi...
§ 26.1 A Summary of Equal Protection Review of Classifications in the Law: Rational Basis, Intermediate Scrutiny, and Strict Scrutiny Review: § 26.1.1 Equal Protection Standards of Review: § 26.1.1.1 The Rational Basis Test. § 26.1.1.2 Heightened Scrutiny Tests. § 26.1.2 Determining Whether Heightened Scrutiny Should Apply: § 26.1.2.1 The Basic Guidelines for Heightened Scrutiny Today. § 26.1.2.2 The Carolene Products Decision and Historical Notes on What Level of Scrutiny to Apply. § 26.1.3 The Burden of Proof and What Governmental Interests Can be Considered Under Different Standards of Review. § 26.1.4 Which Inquiries are Questions of Law versus Questions of Fact. § 26.2 Classifications Involving Strict Scrutiny: § 26.2.1 Racial, Ethnic, or National Origin Discrimination: § 26.2.1.1 ...
Introduction. I. Background of the Equal Protection Clause. A. The Creation of the Current Equal Protection Test. B. The Equal Protection Test Applied to Capital Cases. 1. Race-Based Statistics on Capital Sentences. 2. Unsuccessful Equal Protection Challenges to Capital Sentences. II. Problems With Requiring a Defendant to Prove Purposeful Discrimination in his Particular Case. A. The Problem of Racism Exhibited by Multiple Actors in the Criminal Justice System. B. The Problem of Capital Defendants Proceeding Without Counsel. C. The Problem of Unconscious Racism. III. The Solution: Allowing Statistics Alone to Support a Claim of Purposeful Discrimination. A. Allowing Statistics Alone to Prove Purposeful Discrimination is Compatible with Existing Law. B. Enjoining a Capital Sentence Will...
Judicial federalism occurs when state supreme courts interpret state constitutional provisions as providing more rights than analogous provisions of the U.S. Constitution. In its 2004 decision of Racing Ass’n of Central Iowa v. Fitzgerald, the Iowa Supreme Court engaged in judicial federalism when it struck down a tax law under article I, section 6 of the Iowa Constitution that the U.S. Supreme Court upheld under the U.S. Constitution’s analogous provision, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Although critics attack the decision as a misapplication of the rational-basis test, this Note takes a closer look at article I, section 6 and concludes that the basic result of Racing Ass’n—that article I, section 6 prohibits more economic classificatio...
ver las páginas en versión mobile | web
ver las páginas en versión mobile | web
© Copyright 2012, vLex. All Rights Reserved.
Contents in vLex United States
Explore vLex
For Professionals
For Partners
Company
Other interesting searches:
Gilla Inc | Champi-Jandou | Modern Postcard | nasdaq companies | frank dettori | cultures du monde | automotora continental | impericia significado | Restituzione esportazione
