7565 research outputs found
Sort by
WORKERS’ RIGHTS: LEGAL PROTECTIONS AGAINST DISCRIMINATION FOR UNDOCUMENTED EMPLOYEES
No full textAlthough undocumented workers are protected from workplace discrimination through federal and state laws, increasingly common immigration raids on workplaces coupled with widespread racist sentiment has caused some employers to preemptively terminate employees they suspect are undocumented. Even if undocumented workers succeed in keeping their employment, employers often weaponize the threat of immigration enforcement to create an environment of exploitation in which undocumented workers feel they cannot report abusive employer conduct.
This article will outline the legal protections afforded to undocumented people in the workplace, as well as detailing empirical studies that outline the types of discrimination undocumented workers often experience. It will briefly touch on contemporary context to the discussion, such as the immigration raids on workplaces taking place across the country
The Wrongly Read Right: Insurrection and the Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms
No full textSeveral judges and scholars have interpreted the Second Amendment as creating a right to bear arms to facilitate armed resistance against the government whenever it threatens to impose tyranny. These arguments have been made in books, scholarly articles, and court decisions. Many of the proponents of the pro-armed insurrection interpretation of the Second Amendment root this point of view in the history of the right to bear arms in the Anglo-American legal tradition. This Article argues that the Second Amendment does not create a right to bear arms to resist government authority because such a right is inconsistent with several provisions of the Constitution. Interpreting the Amendment to create such a right ignores 18th-century conceptions of natural rights and the relationship between the citizen and the state held by many in the Founding Generation. The Article advocates for a more coherent view of the Second Amendment: that the Amendment represents an attempt to commit the United States to a model of defense with broad citizen participation, not the creation of a constitutional right to armed resistance to federal and state governments
Familial Fairness: Guaranteeing the Right to Counsel for Indigent Parents in Juvenile Dependency Proceedings
No full textFairness principles enumerated in the seminal case Gideon v. Wainwright stand for the proposition that fundamental fairness and due process require appointment of counsel for indigent litigants. However, this principle has been constrained to criminal contexts. Many other types of litigation are just as impactful as a criminal proceeding, including juvenile dependency proceedings. Nevertheless, indigent parents do not enjoy an unqualified representation right.
This Comment traces the history of the representation right and how it has been treated in a juvenile dependency context, beginning with Gideon itself and examining other cases such as Eldridge and Lassiter. It then examines how state judiciaries and legislatures have handled the representation right in the wake of Lassiter and the quality of representation in a select few jurisdictions.
Lastly, this Comment argues that the status quo is untenable as both a practical matter and a matter of principle. Practically, access to adequate representation is geographically disparate, with many indigent parents suffering the legal consequences as a result. Principally, Gideon’s fairness and due process values are diminished by controlling caselaw denying indigent parents an unqualified representation right.
Instead, federal law can be used to both guarantee the representation right and secure federal funding for state initiatives. States can and should create centralized systems of representation to better serve indigent parents and improve outcomes
