Professor Ahmed responds to Professors Chemerinsky and Goodwin’s recent article and situates their argument in a set of debates and discussions that undergird many of the logics utilized by the court to justify their choice of standard: medical, psychological, and scientific evidence on abortion.
Category Archives: SA Vol. 95
Professor Litman responds to Profesors Chemerinsky and Goodwin’s recent article and argues that while the threat to abortion rights is real, it is not just from the undue burden standard: it is from politicians who, with the help of lawyers, will continue to try and legislate abortion out of existence and drain the legal standards governing abortion of any meaning.
In this essay, Professor Tobias surveys the history of modern appointments complications and the Texas judicial vacancy crisis. Professor Tobias argues that expanding caseloads, increasing appellate and district court judgeships, and rampant partisanship have clearly undermined selection efforts across the country and Texas, which is ground zero for the “confirmation wars.”
Professor Jain responds to Professor Eagly’s recent article by situating Professor Eagly’s discussion of “immigrant protective policies” in the context of recent federal efforts to regulate “sanctuary” jurisdictions. Professor Jain argues for the need to unpack the motivations that guide law enforcement officials in responding to collateral consequences. The response also considers the implications of Eagly’s analysis in light of a broader blurring of the boundaries of civil and criminal law.
Professors Rimalt and Yefet respond to Dean Chemerinsky and Professor Goodwin’s recent article by arguing for a supplementary equality framing that defines the scope and substance of the right to abortion on the basis of equal treatment standards and measures the female right against other comparable male rights.
In this note, Stamm argues for folding young adults into the juvenile justice system by reviewing the various ways in which many states have already taken the lessons of the juvenile system—lots of treatment and programming, age-limited facilities, shorter sentences, and sealed records—and applied them to the developmentally similar young adult population.
Prof. Levinson responds to Prof. Law’s article on constitutional archetypes, and in so doing, Prof. Levinson proffers four—instead of Law’s three—archetypes for consideration.
Prof. Brown responds to Prof. King and Prof. Wright’s article studying judicial participation in plea negotiations.
In this article, Prof. Blackman discusses three critical errors in the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Washington v. Trump and analyzes the panel’s refusal to narrow the injunction. Please note that this draft version is subject to change.