As a law student, the Stetson Law Review published my first law review article. As a licensed attorney reviewing that article, I have some responses to the topic of my Comment, Title VII employment discrimination based on sex, especially since oral arguments were recently heard at the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) with three separate but overlapping cases. First, this Response discusses the legal arguments made by the LGB plaintiffs in the cases against the legal arguments I presented in my previous article. Then, the Response reviews the oral argument heard at SCOTUS for the LGB plaintiffs and provides responses to some points made by the Justices. Finally, this Response examines the future, by discussing not only the possible outcomes from the SCOTUS case but also how that decision can impact already viable legal theories LGB plaintiffs use in employment discrimination cases.
The year 2019 marks the 50th anniversary of the historic Warren Court. The breadth of decisions by this Court is both noteworthy and extensive. It was the Warrant Court that decided pivotal cases, such as Brown v. Board of Education and Gideon v. Wainwright, to name a few. In this Symposium, criminal justice scholars, and a Stetson Law student, explore ten opinions from the Warren Court. This Symposium is presented in two issues of the Stetson Law Review, with this Introduction providing an overview to both.
This Article discusses the magnitude of the Warren Court’s doctrinal legacy, specifically focusing on what the Author deems to be the most important doctrine to come from the Warrant Court—incorporation. The Author first explains that incorporation is not the first obvious choice for the most important doctrine from the Warren Court due to the overwhelming amount of different doctrines the Court addressed, as well as the nature in which the Warren Court brought incorporation into being. . . .
Numerous Warren Court decisions have had substantial impacts on criminal procedure. Lambert v. California was one case that had the potential to make such an impact—but never did. This article will explain the case, as well as the differing interpretations associated with it. It will further explain how the narrow application of Lambert by the courts prevented it from having any farreaching effects. Finally, it will describe how it could have limited criminal liability enough to perhaps have mitigated the mass incarceration wave that would follow in its wake.
The Warren Court had a complex relationship with policing. On the one hand, it appeared to act as a regulator of police practice, but on the other hand, the Warren Court supported discretionary police practices in opinions that, now 50 years later, reveal themselves as the starting point for the Supreme Court’s ultimate deregulation of policing. Two opinions in particular, Pierson v. Ray, studied in conjunction with Terry v. Ohio, offer a window into the birth of the “reasonably unreasonable” officer who operates with relative impunity on the streets today.