The Causes of Pro-Immigration Voting in the United States Supreme Court1

During the pre-confirmation debate over Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, critics accused her of allowing her background to influence her judicial decisions. This article assesses the validity of such a claim for all sitting justices from 1875 to 2007 in one relevant policy area, immigration. In this article, we look at all 185 immigration-related decisions by the Supreme Court from its creation through 2007. Logistic general estimating equation regression analysis of Supreme Court voting on these cases suggests that justices who were nominated by Democratic presidents, who were urbanites, and who had previous judicial experience were more likely to vote in favor of immigration. However, justices who grew up in the Southwest, had Southern European ancestors, or were ideological conservatives were more hostile to immigration. Although public opinion, the unemployment rate, and the percent foreign-born in a given year did not affect justices’ votes, non-asylum cases and appeals from the Eighth Circuit were more likely to receive favorable treatment. The mean level of racial liberalism of the Senators in office during a particular justice’s confirmation hearings likewise had a large impact on his or her subsequent rulings. These findings suggest that Supreme Court voting on immigration is substantially influenced by justices’ background and political preferences as well as by some political and legal structures. These results thus support Legal Realism and New Institutionalism instead of the Traditional Legal Model of Supreme Court behavior.     

An overview of and comments on the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)

The authors overview the key components of the ADA in this article. A discussion is offered on why and how persons with disabilities are discriminated against. Critical United States Supreme Court decisions are presented; these decisions have greatly limited the power of the ADA in protecting the rights of persons with disabilities. Even though the United States Supreme Court has narrowed the impact of the ADA in American life, a number of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) cases are presented suggesting this federal agency is attempting to protect persons with disabilities against discrimination. Finally, the authors deal with the topic of advocacy; advocacy may well be one of the most effective tools to help insure that the rights of people with disabilities are protected.     

An Analysis of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) in the Twenty-First Century

Abstract

In this paper, the author overviews the key components of the ADA. A discussion is offered on why and how persons with disabilities are discriminated against. The standard stereotypes often heard about persons with disabilities are offered. Critical United States Supreme Court decisions are presented; these decisions have greatly limited the power of the ADA in protecting the rights of persons with disabilities. Even though the United States Supreme Court has narrowed the impact of the ADA in American life, a number of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) cases are presented, suggesting this federal agency is attempting to protect persons with disabilities against discrimination. The final part of the paper deals with the topic of advocacy; advocacy may well be one of the most effective tools to help insure that the rights of people with disabilities are protected in the 21st century.     

An Overview of and Comments on the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)

Abstract

The authors overview the key components of the ADA in this article. A discussion is offered on why and how persons with disabilities are discriminated against. Critical United States Supreme Court decisions are presented; these decisions have greatly limited the power of the ADA in protecting the rights of persons with disabilities. Even though the United States Supreme Court has narrowed the impact of the ADA in American life, a number of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) cases are presented suggesting this federal agency is attempting to protect persons with disabilities against discrimination. Finally, the authors deal with the topic of advocacy; advocacy may well be one of the most effective tools to help insure that the rights of people with disabilities are protected.     

"I am witness to": a profile of Sakshi Violence Intervention Centre in New Delhi,India

Sakshi, a group formed in New Delhi, India, in 1992, seeks to create awareness of violence against women and promote justice for its victims. Its creation was spurred by the gang rape by police officers of a girl in custody and the subsequent minimization on the part of the Supreme Court of India of the seriousness of the crime. Program activities have included informational workshops for governmental and nongovernmental organizations, feminist legal research into violations of women's human rights, counseling for victims of violence, and sensitization programs for police and the judiciary. As a result of Sakshi's lobbying, the Supreme Court passed a set of Guidelines on Sexual Harassment at the Workplace in 1997. An ongoing problem has been Sakshi's dependence on donor funding and the related requirement of adopting development agencies' agendas rather than allowing development to be a demand-driven, needs-based process. Sakshi's experience has led to the awareness that violence cannot be countered by intervention measures alone; rather, program activities must be linked with other forms of gender development. The group has adopted use of the term "substantive equality" to form links between different systems in society and to empower women.     

NLRB v. Lechmere: Union quest for access

Union attempts to organize nonemployee places of business have traditionally placed employers and union members at odds. In 1992, the United States Supreme Court ended a longstanding rule that the rights of these parties should be balanced in order to determine whether the union’s right to access or the employer’s property right predominated. As it now stands, the rule is that nonemployee union members have no right of access to an employer’s private property unless extreme special circumstances exist, such as isolated work locations where employees have no access to union information. The Supreme Court’s ruling is one that significantly curtails union solicitation. This paper discusses the development of this rule.     

Sexual Orientation Discrimination and Its Challenges for Nonprofit Managers

In the wake of the recent New Jersey Supreme Court decision, Dale v. Boy Scouts of America and Monmouth Council Boy Scouts (1999), this article examines the issue of sexual orientation discrimination and the challenges it presents nonprofit managers. Because of regional shifts in public opinion, the enactment of nondiscrimination laws at the state and local level, and now a state Supreme Court interpreting state law to include the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) as a “public accommodation,” nonprofit managers may face a more complex legal and moral environment. It is hoped that this article will challenge nonprofit managers to carefully reexamine their membership and personnel policies with respect to lesbians and gay men and begin preparing their organizations for this cultural change.     

Three Recent United States Supreme Court Decisions for Professionals Who Testify in Child Sexual Abuse Cases

This article provides a basic review of the most recent United States Supreme Court decisions that directly relate to child sexual abuse. These cases are Maryland v. Craig, Idaho v. Wright, and White v. Illinois. More specifically, the article illustrates how the legal principles of these cases practically affect professionals who treat and counsel sexual abuse victims when and if they are called to testify in court proceedings. After a brief introduction, a background section succinctly explains the basic legal principles of confrontation and hearsay which underpin the recent Supreme Court decisions. The rest of the article then analyzes each of the three recent cases and focuses on citing examples of testimony that was or was not admissible. This article is not intended to be an exhaustive legal analysis nor a commentary on the appropriateness of the case holdings, but rather a practical review with specific examples of what the United States Supreme Court has held to be acceptable as of this writing.     

An historical view of right to treatment

The patient's right to treatment is a clear mandate from the Supreme Court that the providers of mental health care must provide treatment. Important Supreme Court decisions have influenced the way in which professional nurses determine what constitutes adequate treatment on an individualized basis. Individualized treatment planning is rooted in meeting legal, regulatory, and funding requirements. The professional nurse is in a unique position to assess the patient's needs and to plan with others how those needs can best be met. Paraprofessional staff may implement those parts of the plan that do not require the direct intervention of the professional nurse. The technicians provide the daily care under the supervision and direction of the professional nurse. However, it is the professional psychiatric nurse who plays a critical role in providing active psychiatric treatment, who determines the nursing component of the treatment plan on an individualized basis, and who monitors the patient's environment, thus safe-guarding the legal rights of the mentally ill.     

Leadership succession and the emergence of an organizational identity threat

Leadership succession, and the associated changes that new leaders make, can have profound impacts on nonprofit organizations. Despite its importance, there is limited research that examines succession from the point of view of employees and considers how their interpretations of organizational identity and proposed change shape their responses to leadership transitions. In this article, we examine the dynamics that ensued when the founder of Friends of the Earth, a nonprofit environmental organization, stepped down. The case shows how the succession process can expose latent disagreement about an organization's identity and give rise to internal conflict. These patterns suggest that leaders must be attentive to different and often conflicting interpretations of an organization's identity.     

Same-sex marriage laws and demand for mortgage credit

Marriage for same-sex couples was only permitted in a limited number of states prior to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. We exploit panel variation across states prior to the Supreme Court decision to investigate the effect of marriage laws on demand for mortgage credit. Identification relies on the fact that states permitted same-sex marriage at different points in time, often through court order whereby the outcome and timing of ruling was unknown. We estimate that states permitting same-sex marriage experienced a 6–16% increase in same-sex mortgage applications after the policy was implemented. Federal recognition of marriage is associated with a stronger effect than state same-sex marriage prior to the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, but the effect of state-recognized marriage is also stronger than anti-discrimination policies in housing. Our findings provide important insight not only to the housing choices of same-sex households but the impact of marriage on all households.     

Issue Preferences and Evaluations of the U.S. Supreme Court

While some previous studies have found that public support forthe Supreme Court is related to the ideological direction ofits decisions, these studies were based on data from the WarrenCourt era, a period of high profile judicial liberalism. Sincethen, the Court has grown much more conservative, although itsdecisions have carried a much lower profile. We show that themass media have done little to allow ordinary Americans to followthis change. As a consequence, we find that public evaluationsin the 1990s continued to reflect a 1960s understanding of theCourt, with liberals on racial and gender issues as well asthose least fearful of crime evaluating the Court most favorably.Only those who are both knowledgeable and highly motivated tofollow Court outputs tracked its rightward shift on issues thatare important to them.     

Same-Sex Marriage

Abstract

In this commentary, the legal ramifications and implications of the recent ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Court allowing same-sex marriages to occur in that state are examined. The author then suggests a hypothetical scenario for what the future might look like assuming that the Massachusetts decision is not overturned by adoption of a state constitutional amendment.     

The supreme court,family policy,and alternative family lifestyles: The clash of interests

This article reviews the basis for the judicial system's involvement in the development of national family policy. Major Supreme Court decisions in establishing the rights of the nuclear family, the extended family, foster families, communal families, homosexual couples, and unwed fathers are discussed. The Supreme Court is seen as having established the parameters of a nationally definedfamily, and the implications of the court's actions for the development of national family policy are considered.     

The U. S. Supreme Court and Value Legitimacy: An Experimental Approach With Older Americans

This study was designed to test the designed to test the legitimacy-conferring hypotheses as it relates to the United States Supreme Court. Conventional wisdom has long asscrted that the Court, in its role as interpreter of the Constitution, is a major force influencing the values and attitudes of Americans. However, little empirical research has been conducted on the issue, and that which has been conducted has been ambiguous. Using a split-ballot experimental technique, we found support for the legitimacy-conferring hypothesis among a sample of older Americans from twenty-two different states across the U. S. We found five of nine proposals to be more strongly endorsed when their attributed source was the Supreme Court rather than the U. S. Congress or when the source was unattributed. A factor analysis of the items was used to discover underlying value-orientations described by the nine items. An analysis to three derived factors added to our confidence in the legitimacy-conferring hypothesis.     

Nurse-patient advocacy and the right to die

This article examines the implications of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to uphold Oregon's Death with Dignity Act, as well as three crucial cases, on nursing practice: Terri Schiavo, Karen Quinlan, and Nancy Cruzan. In addition, an individual example is provided to demonstrate how nurses can advocate for patients at the end of life, and specific suggestions are offered.     

ANTITRUST POLICY AND MERGERS: THE WEALTH EFFECT OF SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Many believe that antitrust policy has had a dramatic impact on merger strategies in the United States. For this to be true, enforcement of antitrust laws must affect a wide range of firms, not just those firms whose mergers are contested. This study tests whether or not firms engaged in uncontested mergers are affected by antitrust enforcement, as signalled by Supreme Court decisions. Using event study methodology, we find that antitrust policy against mergers was binding during the 1960s and 1970s as it ulowered the value of targets in ucontested ongoing mergers.     

Who Is Protected?

Many employers have excluded women whose infertility is not medically documented from allegedly hazardous work claiming they feared if the women became pregnant, their fetuses would be harmed. In United Auto Workers v. Johnson Controls, the Supreme Court held in 1991 that so-called "fetal protection policies" are unlawful sex discrimination. After examining four cases challenging exclusionary policies in Britain and the United States, this article unmasks and argues against the assumptions underlying such policies. By returning to well-established sex discrimination doctrine, moving away from a male norm, and reaffirming women's right to both work and have children, the Supreme Court's decision in UAW V. Johnson Controls is an important victory. The decision should help to break down job segregation, prompt the EEOC to act, and clear the way for addressing questions of health and safety rather than equality and difference.     

The Supreme Court and Race

The Supreme Court has attempted to redefine race relations for decades. This unfortunately turned into a quagmire from which it was able to extricate itself only by lowering the intensity of its moral rhetoric. In particular, the Fullilove case represented a welcome retreat from race-conscious social engineering.