Dimensions of Equality: Doctrines of Limitation

America can be justifiably proud of the enormous strides its legal system has made since the end of World War II in identifying and vindicating equality rights under the U.S. Constitution. The 1954 decision in Brown v. Board of Education, striking down the separate-but-equal doctrine in public education, provided the inspiration and the doctrinal basis for racial minorities, women, aliens, children born out of wedlock, the disabled, and the poor to pursue their claims for evenhanded treatment in the courts. We also have seen greater judicial protection of equality in the exercise of rights guaranteed by the first amendment to the Constitution, such as freedom of religion, speech, and the press. For all this progress, however, the Supreme Court has over the last two decades embraced doctrines of limitation that severely constrain the ability of equality claims to get a judicial hearing and to receive vindication. These doctrines raise serious questions as to whether the federal court system can be looked to in the future for meaningful protection of equality rights. It is to a brief discussion of a few of these doctrines-state action, discriminatory intent, and federalism-that I would like to turn

When the President Says No: A Few Thoughts on Executive Power and the Tradition of Solicitor General Independence

The Solicitor General of the United States generally enjoys a position of independence. However, there are times when the President of the United States intervenes. This is usually done under the radar so documentation of presidential influence is rare. This essay examines recent presidential influence over the Solicitor General

Brown Blues: Rethinking the Integrative Ideal

Thirty-eight years have passed since the Supreme Court\u27s Brown v. Board of Education decision declaring unconstitutional stateimposed segregation of public schools. One would have thought that by now American society would have arrived at a consensus with respect to the substance and scope of Brown. The truth is otherwise. Even in the education sector of our national life that Brown specifically addressed, deep differences remain over what changes that decision was designed to effect

Concealing Our Meaning from Ourselves: The Forgotten History of Discrimination

Although I do not quarrel with the essence of Dean Griswold\u27s thesis, I do have substantial problems with what I believe is the deemphasis he gives to the role of the law in addressing the problems of affirmative action. Clearly, his reasons for not treating the legal issues are not associated with his lack of understanding of those principles. Rather, I think that his article, whether intentionally or not, reflects the subtle but unmistakable shift in focus that our society has taken away from how to remedy the present effects of intentional and systematit discrimination against minorities and women to questions of how th.) economic and political pies of America ought to be split up, given tht: various competing claims upon limited resources; away from what is just to what will sell, what will pacify, and what will postpone possible confrontation over the allocation of scarce resources among various groups in our society