Criminalizing Sexual Identities: Queer, Female, and Wrongfully Convicted

This book examines the representation and misrepresentation of queer people in true crime, addressing their status as both victims and perpetrators in actual crime, as well as how the media portrays them. The chapters apply an intersectional perspective in examining criminal cases involving LGBTQ people, as well as the true crime media content surrounding the cases. The book illuminates how sexual orientation, gender, race, and other social locations impact the treatment of queer people in the criminal legal system and the mass media. Each chapter describes one or more high-profile criminal cases involving queer people (e.g., the murders of Brandon Teena and Kitty Genovese; serial killer Aileen Wuornos; the Pulse nightclub mass shooting). The authors examine how the cases are portrayed in the media via news, films, podcasts, documentaries, books, social media, and more. Each chapter discusses not only what is visible or emphasized by the media but also what is invisible in the accounting or societal focus surrounding the case. Lesser-known (but similar) cases are used in the book to call attention to how race, gender, sexuality, sexual orientation, social class, and/or other features influence the dominant narrative surrounding these cases. Each chapter addresses teachable moments from each case and its coverage, leaving readers with several considerations to take with them into the future. The book also provides media resources and supplemental materials so that curious readers, including scholars, students, content creators, and advocates, can examine the cases and media content further. The book will appeal to scholars and students of criminology, psychology, sociology, law, media studies, sexuality studies, and cultural studies, and people with an interest in true crime. Includes the chapter Criminalizing Sexual Identities: Queer, Female, and Wrongfully Convicted by Maurer Professor Valena Beety.https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/facbooks/1335/thumbnail.jp

Don\u27t Mess with Texans\u27 Rights: Protecting Transgender Youth from the Paternalistic Policies of State Executives

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton issued an opinion in 2022 detailing how gender-affirming care for transgender minors constituted child abuse under the Texas Family Code. As a result of this opinion, multiple families of trans teens engaging in various forms of gender-affirming care were investigated by the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services. This Article applies the constitutional standards imposed by the equal protection clause, substantive due process, and parental authority to Paxton’s recommendation, using both the U.S. and Texas Constitutions. Ultimately, this Article concludes that Paxton’s opinion fails to meet these constitutional standards and recommends action from the Texas Legislature to prevent further misinterpretation of the Texas Family Code. Specifically, this Article implores the legislature amend the Texas Family Code to provide explicit protections for parental authority over voluntary medical procedures with proven scientific benefits

Abortion and Affirmative Action: The Fragility of Supreme Court Political Decision-Making

This Article shows, on the basis of new evidence, that the canonical case of Marbury v. Madison has been grossly misinterpreted and that as a result of the misinterpretation we cannot understand what is wrong with contemporary cases such as Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College. The Article will proceed as follows. Because Marbury cannot be properly understood without understanding the eighteenth-century background against which it was decided, Part I will examine legal practices in colonial and post-Revolutionary America, focusing on cases in which judicial review emerged in the 1760s—cases about the constitutionality of Parliament’s 1765 Stamp Act. It will begin with a portrayal of mid-century practices that were a prerequisite to this emergence of judicial review. Part II will discuss Marbury itself and its companion case, Stuart v. Laird. Part III will compare political decisions in the past that have been overturned with those that have endured in order to formulate a theory about fragility. Part IV will turn to the political nature of the two recent decisions. Part V will inquire, in light of the theory from Part III, into the likelihood that the recent decisions will endure

Doe Not Worry: Expanding Protections for Unaccompanied Children

A recent Fourth Circuit decision created a circuit split regarding the standard applied to constitutional violations in secure holding facilities. The more “liberal” professional judgment standard—as promulgated by Youngberg v. Romeo and applied to unaccompanied immigrant minors in Doe 4 ex rel. Lopez—is necessary but insufficient for the protection of unaccompanied children. This Note first examines the origins of the professional judgment standard in the Youngberg case. Then, cases are surveyed showing that the Supreme Court has recognized children as a vulnerable population, and current regulations, legislation, and court opinions recognize the vulnerabilities of unaccompanied children. With these ideas in the foreground, this Note shows that the standard, as applied to adults and to other children, is not sufficient protection. Based on these insufficiencies, this Note then assesses the system experienced by the petitioner. After an evaluation of the purpose of that system, it is clear there are not adequate structures in place to realize that purpose. The Youngberg standard enables those inadequacies; therefore, a more robust standard is needed for the adequate protection of unaccompanied minors like Doe 4. Future research should be done to develop new standards to apply in these cases and ensure vulnerable populations are protected by the systems designed to care for them

Banned Books & Banned Identities: Maintaining Secularism and the Ability to Read in Public Education for the Well-Being of America\u27s Youth

Books containing LGBTQ+ themes and characters are being removed from public school libraries at a rapid rate across the United States. While a book challenge has made it to the Supreme Court once before, the resulting singular plurality opinion left courts without a clear test to apply, ultimately leaving students’ First Amendment rights in the air. Additionally, the increasingly relaxed view of courts towards religious influence in public schools indicates that if a modern case were to reach the Supreme Court, religious challenges may be accepted, which would leave LGBTQ+ students who seek to see themselves represented in literature without an avenue to do so. In light of this and other legislation harming LGBTQ+ students, in addition to studies indicating mental health concerns for LGBTQ+ youth, the best avenue to resolve this issue is to create a federal regulation separate from the courts. Students having access to literature that represents them or challenges them to learn about people different from themselves is essential to lessening mental challenges and inequalities faced by LGBTQ+ students and, without a standard that includes a formal review process for schools, the risk of detriment to mental health only increases. Others have sought to disregard the current plurality standard of review altogether in favor of a book removal test based on standards outlined in Wisconsin v. Yoder, while some have described that courts are utilizing Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, but reliance on the courts is difficult to ascertain considering the number of book challenges that go unreported and current religious influence. This Article suggests that the most efficient way to rectify this issue is for the U.S. Department of Education to implement a funding-based regulation requiring that schools have a process of review, designating who is involved in that process, and requiring schools to provide a report of which books are removed at the end of each school year; if upon review the removals are found to be content- or viewpoint-based, the challenge must be revisited. Even though the Department cannot have direct oversight over school libraries and their book selection, it can establish regulations that make certain federal funding contingent on requisite programs and requirements that the schools can establish themselves. This Article seeks to add to the current debate over book bans and how they should be handled, especially when considering LGBTQ+ students, and provide a legal alternative for a remedy outside of the judicial system

Corporate Climate Litigation and Environmental Justice: How Green Amendments Can be Used to Advance Accountability and Equity

The term “Green Amendment” was first coined by author Maya van Rossum in her 2017 book The Green Amendment: Securing Our Right to a Healthy Environment, in which she argues that modern environmental protection laws are fundamentally failing the most vulnerable people in society and proposes the creation of new constitutional rights as a solution. The provisions van Rossum argues ought to be added to state constitutions as “Green Amendments” are also sometimes called “Environmental Rights Amendments,” and generally enumerate the right of all citizens to a clean or healthy environment. Green Amendments currently exist in Pennsylvania, Montana, Illinois, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and New York. This Note will explain how those provisions have already changed the landscape of corporate and environmental law in those states while proposing that enacting more Green Amendments will reinforce those changes. Specifically, this Note will focus on the current and potential future impact of Green Amendments on corporate climate liability litigation—particularly litigation involving large corporations that operate in multiple states—and on how Green Amendments advance environmental justice. Today, large corporations bear the bulk of responsibility for human-caused climate change and historically underserved populations bear the bulk of climate change’s harmful consequences. Constitutional provisions that enumerate a fundamental right to a clean environment therefore have potential to provide an opportunity for states to better protect those in vulnerable positions against the environmental damages caused by large corporations. Part I will provide a brief overview of existing Green Amendments, their current role in the intersection of environmental law and corporate litigation, and the shortcomings of enacted Green Amendments in the context of environmental injustice. Part II will discuss the potential impact that more widespread adoption of Green Amendments could have on such litigation, and how such adoption could alter this legal landscape both directly and indirectly. The Conclusion will explain why Green Amendments that hold corporate polluters accountable are a powerful means of addressing environmental injustice

Administrative Law, 4th

This treatise provides a comprehensively updated analysis of administrative law in the United States, placing special emphasis on topics undergoing significant evolution or transformation in the Supreme Court and federal courts of appeals. These include, for example, the latest developments in Congress\u27s authority to delegate legislative authority to agencies, deference to agency legal interpretations, the so-called major questions doctrine, modern due process issues, and the presidential appointments power. The fundamental purposes of this book are to assess and explain the current state of the core doctrines of administrative law, place the most important aspects of those doctrines in a historical context, and identify important trends that can help readers understand how the doctrines may continue to evolve. The book is intended to serve practitioners, scholars, and students of administrative law.https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/facbooks/1318/thumbnail.jp