Browsing by Subject "U.S. Supreme Court"

Now showing 1 - 7 of 7

A moral psychological primary source analysis of Brown v. Board of Education
(2017-12-06) Hardee, Benjamin Dawson; Jacobsohn, Gary J., 1946-; Powe, Lucas; Perry, HW; Gawronski, Bertram
This work applies the social intuitionist psychological model of moral judgment to explain the U.S. Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board of Education (1954) decision-making process. Based on an examination of the available Brown primary source material–––conference notes, interchamber and private memoranda, missives to private individuals, written brainstorms, and clerk recollections–––this work argues that most of the justices’ decision-making in Brown is captured by the model and associated psychological phenomena. The analysis clarifies Brown’s constitutional holding and the nature of the constitutional violation and harm the justices intended to proscribe. The work concludes that Brown has a consequentialist, not a deontological or colorblind, provenance and purpose.
Civil Rights Cases and the Composition of the U.S. Supreme Court
(2023-04) Gonzalez, Nicolas
“Civil Rights Cases and the Composition of the U.S. Supreme Court” seeks to fill the gap in the existing academic literature regarding the relationship between the appearance of civil rights appeals on the U.S. Supreme Court’s docket each term and its ideological composition. Using a combination of statistical analysis, literature review, and historical investigation, this honors thesis provides reasons as to why an observable increase in civil rights appeals occurs as the Court grows more conservative. Namely, it explores the increased Court activity regarding civil rights during the Civil Rights Era, Women’s Liberation Movement, and the 1980s, analyzing the legacies of Chief Justices Warren, Burger, and Rehnquist. By viewing these different Courts within their relationship to public opinion and the intentions of the U.S. presidents who nominated its members, a clearer image emerges regarding the Supreme Court’s advocate-like tendencies. While options such as the Rule of Four exist—which could suggest that the liberal coalition that has consistently comprised the Court’s minority since 1969 plays some role in adding civil rights-related appeals to the docket—the relationship between this coalition and the median justice suggests otherwise. Ultimately, this paper serves to elucidate the oft-ignored certiorari stage of the U.S. Supreme Court’s behavior as a means of understanding the motivations of ideological factions on the Court.
Distinguishing between the Law and the Legal : a rhetorical analysis of judicial argument and media coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court's deliberations in the University of Michigan affirmative action cases
(2005-12) Mangis, Daniel Edward; Cherwitz, Richard A., 1952-
This dissertation provides a theoretically grounded framework for investigating "legal rhetoric." By making a distinction between the discursive elements of a Legal system and the broader rhetorical notion of Law, rhetorical critics can better understand the interdependent relationship between citizens, their legal structures, and their cultures. The Legal system represents the forum in which legal disputes are addressed. In contrast, the Law signifies the principles of justice and fairness that give rise to legal disputes addressed by the Legal system. This dissertation emphasizes the important role that media play in disseminating information about specific legal disputes and providing citizens an opportunity to reflect on which principles of justice and fairness are to be valued. This study specifically examines the text, reasoning, and media coverage of Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger, two U.S. Supreme Court cases related to the University of Michigan's use of racial classifications in its admissions process. By comparing which arguments and rhetorical elements from the Supreme Court's 2003 decisions were reported in the press, this dissertation both demonstrates the rhetorical concepts of the "Law" and the "Legal System" and suggests how citizens and rhetorical scholars can more fully critique legal texts.
The effect of a supreme court opinion outside the judicial system : an analysis of Brown v. Board of Education and the American South
(2009-05) Allen, Neal Robert; Perry, H. W.
This dissertation seeks to describe and explain the connection between The Supreme Court and politics outside of the judicial system. It is a case study of the reaction to the Brown v. Board of Education integration decision in the American South. I apply a theoretical model of “judicialization,” arguing that when courts affect politics outside of the judicial system, they reshape politics to resemble the adversarial legal system, sparking polarized conflict and causing non-judicial political actors to make arguments in the form of constitutional doctrine. Analyzing editorials and letters to the editor from Southern newspapers, I show that debate after Brown was characterized by appeals to constitutional principles, and that Brown increased the salience of segregation in schools as a subject of political debate. I also supplement my Southern newspaper data with data from African-American newspapers and analyze Southern elections in the periods immediately before and after the education integration decision to assess the impact of the Court’s education decision on both voters and candidates.
Oklahoma Wins SCOTUS Red River Case
(The Center for Global Energy, International Arbitration, and Environmental Law, 2013-06-17) Brown, Jeremy
Red River Compact Arguments Favor Oklahoma
(The Center for Global Energy, International Arbitration, and Environmental Law, 2013-04-25) Brown, Jeremy
“Seduce His Emotions”: Chaplains, Religious Advisors, and Aesthetics in Texas Executions
(2023-05) Fletcher, Megan; Graber, Jennifer
Before 2019, Texas allowed chaplains to be present in its execution chamber, to speak aloud, and to physically touch prisoners to comfort them during their executions. That changed when Patrick Murphy, a Buddhist, requested his Buddhist advisor accompany him, as chaplains in Texas prisons are exclusively Christian or Muslim. Texas refused Murphy’s request. Murphy sued. The Supreme Court ruled in his favor and stayed his execution at the last minute. In response to the opinion written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, which required Texas to include chaplains and advisors from all religious traditions if access was allowed at all, Texas banned them from the chamber. The new policy did not last long, as two later cases involving Christian prisoners forced Texas to loosen this rule over the following years. I argue that these changes in policy are affected by the state’s efforts to tightly control execution practices. In Texas, execution by lethal injection creates a particular aesthetic that legitimizes ritualized state violence. Officials strive to maintain this aesthetic, even if it demands curtailing access to religious counsel and care for those condemned to die. Because outside religious advisors typically know the prisoner, the state of Texas believes they pose a higher risk of error than a chaplain, who does not know the prisoner. An outside religious advisor may act out emotionally, intentionally or not, and disturb the execution. Because both the courts and the public expect a sanitized, bloodless execution, any error in the process could mean Texas loses its authority to execute people. Therefore, the state has dragged its heels in writing a cohesive policy for outside religious advisors to keep a tight hold on its authority to execute.