University of California Hastings College of the Law
UC Hastings Scholarship Repository (University of California, Hastings College of the Law)Not a member yet
18514 research outputs found
Sort by
Black Equal Citizenship and Residential Segregation in the Supreme Court’s Race Jurisprudence
No full textThe Impact of Bruen and Its Expansion of the “Right to Carry” on Terry as a Law Enforcement Tool
No full textIn New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, the Supreme Court expanded the right to carry firearms, specifically handguns, outside the home. Due to the Court’s conservative rulings, combined with lax and open firearm regulatory regimes in several jurisdictions, gun violence continues to create catastrophic consequences in communities across the country. At the same time, law enforcement agencies already struggle to maintain public safety and public trust under current policing systems. With the rise of firearms in the streets, law enforcement will likely resort to, and double down on, their current use of stop and frisk under Terry v. Ohio. But questions linger. When the right to carry is a fundamental right, what can truly be done when an officer deems a civilian with a firearm poses a security risk? Can carrying a firearm truly be considered “probable cause” under the Fourth Amendment? This Note surveys firearm regulations and Second Amendment jurisprudence to paint a clear picture as to what public firearm possession now looks like. This Note then addresses where courts have stood when Fourth Amendment searches have collided with Second Amendment possession principles. Finally, this Note discusses the case law solutions that can be expected, and whether those solutions may ameliorate, or increase, public mistrust in law enforcement
The Ninth Circuit’s RFRA Standard of “Substantial Burden” as Applied to Native American Sacred Sites
No full textThis paper focuses on the Ninth Circuit’s understanding of the “substantial burden” standard under RFRA as it is applied to Native American sacred site cases. This paper looks at the old Ninth Circuit’s standard as set out in Navajo Nation, and its new standard as set out in Apache Stronghold. By understanding how the courts, specifically the Ninth Circuit, have limited their definition of the “substantial burden” under RFRA in sacred site cases, this paper will argue that the standard should be expanded to include “preventing religious exercise.” This expansion of what is a “substantial burden” under RFRA will better align with how Native Americans practice their religions and will be more faithful to the broad reach that Congress intended RFRA to have
