Race, Reform, and Desegregation in Mississippi Higher Education: Historically Black Institutions after United States v. Fordice

In United States v. Fordice (1992), the Supreme Court recognized the effects of past racial discrimination against historically black institutions (HBIs) in Mississippi. One goal of the 500 million settlement is for HBIs to enroll "other-race" students. Although the impetus to attract white students falls on HBIs, the response of Mississippi's white community is pivotal. In a series of focus groups with white students, we inquired into the factors that might motivate them to attend an HBI. The data demonstrate that most white students strongly resist the notion of attending a predominately black institution. They articulate such reasons as perceived poor academic quality, social discomfort, anticipated discrimination, and parental disapproval. Further, they cannot imagine how HBIs might recruit white students and generally doubt that improved programs and facilities would achieve this goal. The current framework surrounding Fordice does not consider sufficiently the importance of these racial attitudes. We thus conclude with a discussion of the likely difficulties in implementing the Court's decision.     

United States v. Lyons: toward a new conception of legal insanity

In United States v. Lyons (1984), the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court altered its definition of legal insanity to conform with recent recommendations of the American Bar Association and the American Psychiatric Association. This paper briefly reviews the social and legal context of the Court's ruling. The author then discusses the insanity defense's rationale and suggests an interpretation of the Court's new definition that should guide psychiatric testimony.     

The HIV-infected health care provider. Doe v. Attorney General of the United States

Doe demonstrates that once an employer enters into a relationship with an individual and thereafter determines that he or she may be disabled, the employer has the right to ask the individual questions about the possible disability when those questions are relevant to assessing his or her qualifications for continuing on the job. In fact, once a health care provider is on notice that an employee's or physician's disability may render the employee or physician no longer qualified, thereby potentially endangering patients, the provider is required to determine whether the person is qualified for the job. In these sensitive matters, employers must draw a fine line between unreasonably following up on every rumor on the one hand, and on the other hand investigating reliable information when there may indeed be a direct threat to patients.     

The Angry Pamphleteer: True Threats,Political Speech,and Applying Watts v. United States in the Age of Twitter

Since the 1969 case Watts v. United States, courts have consistently held that politically motivated speech about or directed to public figures may be punished if it qualifies as a “true threat” rather than protected political hyperbole. Criticism of public officials lies at the core of First Amendment protection, even when that criticism is caustic or crude. Such caustic speech appears on Twitter with increasing frequency, often pushing the boundaries of the constitutional guarantees of free speech. Through an analysis of the political speech-true threat cases that apply Watts, this study identifies and assesses three distinct modes of analysis that lower courts use to distinguish political speech from true threats. They are: (1) criteria-based analysis; (2) ad hoc balancing; and (3) a form of balancing referred to herein as “line-crossing analysis.” This study concludes that criteria-based analysis is the most prominent mode used by lower courts. As applied to new media and political participation, criteria-based analysis risks unduly restricting valuable political speech.     

美国宪法不自证己罪特权的适用范围考察——施梅伯案及其以后

在美国,不自证己罪特权的适用状况始终与司法权的运作密切相关。通过1966年的施梅伯案,联邦最高法院历史性地将特权的适用范围限定在证述或表达,从而明确认可一系列针对人身的强制取证行为。该标准一直沿用至今,但也在强制提交文件、强制取证过程中的附带陈述、强制精神病鉴定和制定法申报义务等案件中遭遇挑战,再起波澜。实践表明,美国联邦最高法院对不自证己罪特权的司法适用有所保留,更多只是将其作为口供任意性的保障。关注不自证己罪特权在美国刑事司法的适用状况,会对我们理解《刑事诉讼法》关于不得强迫任何人证实自己有罪的规定有所启发。     

Resisting the Long Arm of Criminal Antitrust Laws: Norris v The United States

This note analyses the judgment of the House of Lords in the case Norris v USA , and argues that its ruling on whether mere price-fixing can amount to a common law conspiracy to defraud will have a significant effect on both US and UK criminal anti-cartel enforcement. In particular, the potential negative impact of the judgment on the future viability of the UK Cartel Offence is highlighted.