Substantive due process after Gonzales v. Carhart

This Article begins in Part I with a doctrinal evaluation of the status of Washington v. Glucksberg ten years after that decision was handed down. Discussion begins with consideration of the Roberts Court's recent decision in Gonzales v. Carhart and then turns to the subject of Justice Kennedy's views in particular on substantive due process. In Part II, the Article goes on to consider whether the Glucksberg test for substantive due process decision making is correct in light of the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.The Article concludes in Parts II and III that Glucksberg is right to confine substantive due process rights recognition to recognition only of those rights that are deeply rooted in history and tradition.     

Motive,Action, and Confusions in the Debate over Hate Crime Legislation

In this article I argue that the objections against hate crimes defined as separate offenses and in terms of group animus are misguided and are based upon a mistaken view of human action that does not see motives as constituent parts of complex actions. If we are going to have hate crimes legislation, there are no good formal reasons keeping us from having distinct offenses for hate crimes or from having ones defined in terms of group animus. My goal is to clear up a number of action-theoretical confusions that have led some theorists and jurists to raise objections that draw attention away from the real crux of the debate over hate crime legislation. Initially, I defend several considerations that weigh against an understanding of hate crimes legislation as being concerned exclusively or even primarily with character, belief, or motive. These considerations in turn help undercut the related concern that hate crime legislation violates free speech protections.     

Between Mendez and Brown: Gonzales v. Sheely (1951) and the Legal Campaign Against Segregation

On March 26, 1951, three years before the historic Brown decision, in Gonzales v. Sheeley ( 1951 ) , Judge Dave Ling of the United States District Court of Arizona ruled that the segregation of Mexican American students in a separate "Mexican School" was unconstitutional. In this article, we trace the legal arguments in Gonzales through two prior cases, Mendez v. Westminster (1946 ) and Delgado v. Bastrop (1948 ). We analyze how racialism, the social science critique of racism and legalism, shaped the arguments in the three cases. Our analysis suggests that Gonzales was a departure from Mendez and Delgado because it was the first case in which a court made an unqualified argument against segregation. The trajectory of the legal arguments across the three cases highlights how new cultural ideas about race were slowly incorporated into civil rights case law, a process that was also shaped by the institutional norms and practices of the legal system.     

The Politics of Palliative Care and the Ethical Boundaries of Medicine: Gonzales v. Oregon as a Cautionary Tale

The U.S. Supreme Court's 6-decision in Gonzales v. Oregon is the latest defeat for the Bush administration in its sustained attack on Oregon's physician-assisted suicide law. Both the majority opinion and the major dissent in Oregon provide an opportunity to assess the dangers inherent in allowing a political agenda that emphasizes the sanctity of life and minimizes professional ethical obligations to overshadow quality patient care at the end of life.     

Nursing home quality-of-care cases after Mikes v. Straus

The quality of care rendered to residents of nursing facilities continues to gain attention from legislators, regulators, and the courts. Advocates for improvements in the quality of care by government-funded healthcare providers have identified the False Claims Act (FCA) as a potent tool. The Second Circuit decision in Mikes v. Straus might be viewed as a barrier to FCA claims against nursing facilities. Any impediment imposed by this decision, however, is limited by the facts of the case; the authors believe that carefully-crafted pleadings can enable litigants to rely upon the FCA in pursuing quality-of-care claims against nursing facilities.     

美国关于域名的立法和司法实践

美国是因特网的发源地和电子商务最为发达的国家 ,它在有关域名的立法方面最为完善 ,司法经验也最为丰富 ,本文试就此进行探讨。当被告使用了原告的著名商标作为域名 ,虽然公众知道被告与原告没有关系 ,但公众会将原告的著名商标与其他新的来源相联系 ,这样会削弱原告的著名商标作为其商品或服务的惟一标识的功能。在这种情况下 ,混淆标准无法适用 ,只有适用淡化标准才能制止被告的行为。 1996年 1月 16日美国总统克林顿签署了《联邦商标淡化法》 ,该法的主要目的是为了遏制域名抢占行为。《联邦商标淡化法》的核心条款规定 ,在遵循法院认可…