American Equal Protection and Global Convergence

IF 1 3区 社会学 Q2 LAW Fordham Law Review Pub Date : 2017-11-04 DOI:10.2139/SSRN.3065274
H. Lau, Hillary Li
{"title":"American Equal Protection and Global Convergence","authors":"H. Lau, Hillary Li","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3065274","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Commentators have noted that equal protection doctrine is in a state of transformation. The nature of that transformation, however, is poorly understood. This Article offers a clearer view of the change underway. This Article is the first to reveal and synthesize three major trajectories along which the U.S. Supreme Court has begun to move. First, the Court has begun to blur the line that it previously drew between facial discrimination and disparate impact. Second, the Court has begun to collapse its previously established tiered standards for reviewing discrimination. These two trajectories combine to produce a third trajectory of change: by blurring the distinction between facial discrimination and disparate impact, and by collapsing tiered review, the United States’ equal protection doctrine is converging with equality jurisprudence from peer jurisdictions abroad. \nAfter describing these changes, we argue that the collective wisdom of foreign jurisdictions should serve as persuasive authority encouraging the United States to continue along its current trajectories of doctrinal reform. We contend that foreign jurisdictions have served as laboratories of doctrinal innovation from which the United States could learn.","PeriodicalId":47517,"journal":{"name":"Fordham Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-11-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Fordham Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3065274","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Commentators have noted that equal protection doctrine is in a state of transformation. The nature of that transformation, however, is poorly understood. This Article offers a clearer view of the change underway. This Article is the first to reveal and synthesize three major trajectories along which the U.S. Supreme Court has begun to move. First, the Court has begun to blur the line that it previously drew between facial discrimination and disparate impact. Second, the Court has begun to collapse its previously established tiered standards for reviewing discrimination. These two trajectories combine to produce a third trajectory of change: by blurring the distinction between facial discrimination and disparate impact, and by collapsing tiered review, the United States’ equal protection doctrine is converging with equality jurisprudence from peer jurisdictions abroad. After describing these changes, we argue that the collective wisdom of foreign jurisdictions should serve as persuasive authority encouraging the United States to continue along its current trajectories of doctrinal reform. We contend that foreign jurisdictions have served as laboratories of doctrinal innovation from which the United States could learn.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
美国平等保护与全球趋同
评论人士指出,平等保护原则正处于转型阶段。然而,人们对这种转变的本质却知之甚少。本文对正在发生的变化提供了更清晰的看法。本文首次揭示并综合了美国最高法院开始行动的三个主要轨迹。首先,最高法院已经开始模糊之前在面部歧视和差别影响之间划定的界限。第二,法院已经开始瓦解其先前建立的审查歧视的分层标准。这两条轨迹结合在一起,产生了第三条变化轨迹:通过模糊面部歧视和差别影响之间的区别,以及通过瓦解分层审查,美国的平等保护原则正在与国外同行司法管辖区的平等法理学趋同。在描述了这些变化之后,我们认为外国司法管辖区的集体智慧应该作为有说服力的权威,鼓励美国继续沿着目前的教义改革轨迹前进。我们认为,外国司法管辖区已经成为美国可以学习的理论创新实验室。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
12.50%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Fordham Law Review is a scholarly journal serving the legal profession and the public by discussing current legal issues. Approximately 75 articles, written by students or submitted by outside authors, are published each year. Each volume comprises six books, three each semester, totaling over 3,000 pages. Managed by a board of up to eighteen student editors, the Law Review is a working journal, not merely an honor society. Nevertheless, Law Review membership is considered among the highest scholarly achievements at the Law School.
期刊最新文献
Using a Hybrid Securities Test to Tackle the Problem of Pyramid Fraud Resurrecting Free Speech Managing the Misinformation Marketplace: The First Amendment and the Fight Against Fake News Airbnb in New York City: whose privacy rights are threatened by a Government Data grab? Free money, but not tax-free: a proposal for the tax treatment of cryptocurrency hard forks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1