Gill v. Whitford: The Integrity of our Democratic Process is on the Line

On October 3rd, 2017, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments for the case Gill v. Whitford.[1] This case arose from an appeal from a District Court ruling which found that the Republican controlled Wisconsin legislature’s congressional redistricting plan was drafted and enacted with the intent of systematically disadvantaging the voting strength of Democrats statewide and was thus an unconstitutional gerrymander.[2]

The Battle of the Bathrooms and the Equal Protection Clause

  I. Introduction
            In recent decades the United States has seen a rise in jurisprudence surrounding the gay community but it was not until the last five to ten years that there has been an exponential increase in cases surrounding transgender rights. The issue of transgender “bathroom rights” rose to the forefront of the media in March 2016 when the North Carolina General Assembly passed the “Public Facilities Privacy & Security Act” better known as “House Bill 2” or “HB2.”

LAW, CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: REVISITING THE REASONABLE PERSON WITHIN THE DEMOGRAPHIC, SOCIOCULTURAL AND POLITICAL REALITIES OF THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY

This article examines the tensions that exist between legal constructs (as traditionally conceived and practiced) and present society. More specifically, this article delves into and revisits one of law’s most enduring legal fictions: The legal concept of the Reasonable Person. The central question this article addresses is: Does this enduring legal fiction, utilized since the inception of American society, require a conceptual reassessment due to the fact that it bears little if any resemblance to the world from and for which it was created?

Pages

Subscribe to Journal of Law & Public Policy RSS