Explore the vast range of titles available.

Justice Anthony Kennedy is the nation's most influential jurist, but his constitutional opinions often elicit the criticism that he is led more by personal whimsy than by constitutional principle. A few recent defenders have described Kennedy's jurisprudence as uniquely devoted to the principle of liberty-and even to libertarianism. Bartl argues that these defenders have been, in large part, correct but that they have missed half the story. While Kennedy indeed champions liberty where the Constitution demands it, he is no less the champion of equality where the Constitution focuses on that coequal and coordinate principle.

No detailed description available for \"The Rhetoric of Judging Well\".

Counterbalancing the Supreme Court’s gerrymandering ruling is technology’s potential to prevent gerrymanders in the first place, says Wendy K. Tam Cho. Counterbalancing the Supreme Court’s gerrymandering ruling is technology’s potential to prevent gerrymanders in the first place, says Wendy K. Tam Cho.

In this Article, I demonstrate that legal mobilization by activist litigants combined with a comparative methodological jurisprudence has been central to the \"transnational legal process\" of the generation and diffusion of the sodomy decriminalization norm since the 1950s. My analysis of the transnational comparative jurisprudence relies on a comprehensive legal survey of seven decades of decriminalizationjurisprudence (1954-2022), primarily using successful cases. Although the scholarship on the well-known Dudgeon, Toonen, and NCGLE cases often asserts the influence that these cases had on subsequent domestic court constitutional jurisprudence, I suggest that it is the domestic privacy jurisprudence of lobbyists, legislators, claimants, and judges from the United Kingdom and United States in the 1950s through 1970s that shaped the claims-making in Dudgeon and Toonen. Conversely, I argue that the difference between the outcomes in Bowers v. Hardwick and Lawrence v. Texas can be explained in part by developments in transnational equality and human dignity jurisprudence that resulted in a shift from the privacy legal frame to the equality and human dignity legal frame and a shift from a spatial conception of privacy to a decisional (personal choice) conception of privacy. Additionally, I move beyond scholarship centered on European and U.S. case law to include the jurisprudence from the Global South (2005 to present) that, to my knowledge, has yet to be analyzed systematically and comparatively. My Article is among the first to analyze the five landmark decriminalization cases decided in 2022, and one of the few that discusses judicialized sodomy decriminalization in transnational and comparative constitutional perspective. This inquiry is retrospective: how has legal mobilization and comparative methodological jurisprudence contributed to understandings of sexual freedom and the justifications for sexual freedom? But it is prospective as well. Sixty-six countries retain sodomy prohibitions; will the sodomy decriminalization trend continue, and if so, what role(s) will legal mobilizations play? There is also the question of backlash and retrenchment-whether homosexual conduct will be recriminalized in jurisdictions that have decriminalized. In 2022, in Dobbs v. Jackson Women 's Health Organization, Justice Clarence Thomas essentially invited reactionary and regressive forces in society to bring to the U.S. Supreme Court cases that would overturn Griswoldv. Connecticut and its progeny in the LGBTQ rights space-Lawrence and Obergefell v. Hodges. I recommend activists and their allies begin the work of upholding Griswold,Lawrence, and ObergefelLoy exploring not only U.S. domestic jurisprudence but also transnational jurisprudence-in international human rights law and comparative constitutional law-to support the continued legalization of adult, consensual, same-sex sexual conduct and same-sex marriage.

The new conservative majority on the US Supreme Court has ruled 5-4 against a request for a stay of execution from a Missouri death row inmate who argued that his rare medical condition meant that a lethal injection would make his death more painful and frightening.1 Lawyers for Russell Bucklew, 50, argued that his execution by lethal injection with pentobarbital would violate the US Constitution’s eighth amendment, which prohibits the imposition of “cruel and unusual punishments,” because the injection might cause fragile blood vessel tumours in his head and neck to rupture. Many advocates for the death penalty have hailed nitrogen as the solution to an embargo on lethal injection drugs imposed by manufacturers determined not to see their products used to take life.2 Alabama and Mississippi have made this untried method a legal option, and an Oklahoma law has named nitrogen the state’s new default method, but so far no manufacturer has been found willing to provide the equipment. The execution of Clayton Lockett in Oklahoma was aborted in May 2014 after his veins collapsed, only for Lockett to die hours later from a heart attack.3 Missouri also had to call a temporary halt to executions while it fought off legal challenges to its new execution drug pentobarbital, normally used to euthanise pets. 1 Supreme Court of the United States.

In response the medical school wrote to the education department arguing that it complied with a previous Supreme Court ruling laying out the conditions in which race may be considered in admissions. The white conservative activist Edward Blum, who represented Fisher, has since founded and now leads Students for Fair Admissions, a group whose membership is largely Asian American, which is suing Harvard, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and the University of Wisconsin at Madison, alleging major discrimination against Asians in admissions.1 Blum has brought six cases before the Supreme Court, winning four. Harvard, which has called the claims of the government and Students for Fair Admissions “hollow,” has drawn support from its own Harvard Asian-American Alumni Alliance, from the Asian American Legal Defence and Education Fund, and from over 530 scholars in race, education, and Asian American studies. 1 US District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

The editors of the 'Harvard Law Review' respectfully dedicate this issue to Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. This past summer, after three decades on the Supreme Court, and more than four as a federal judge, Anthony M. Kennedy decided to take a well-earned retirement. I will deeply miss his contributions to the Supreme Court's daily work. He brought to the Court a special combination of legal acumen, collegiality, and kindness. He leaves behind an imposing body of judicial opinions to guide our future deliberations. Judges, lawyers, and scholars who study those writings will discern behind the words an individual of integrity, insight, and decency.

Research suggests that discriminatory environments and bans on same-sex marriage are detrimental to health and that legalizing same-sex marriage contributes to better health for LGBT people, as well as improving access to insurance for LGBT people and their children. The past year has proved to be a pivotal one for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) Americans. When 2013 began, same-sex couples were allowed to marry only in 9 states plus Washington, D.C., and even when they were legally married by states, the federal government did not recognize their relationships, in accordance with the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). As of February 2014, same-sex couples can legally wed in 17 states (and enter civil unions or domestic partnerships in 3 others), and their unions are federally recognized, thanks to a set of court decisions and new laws passed by . . .