Alabama Law Scholarly Commons - The University of Alabama
Not a member yet
1539 research outputs found
Sort by
J\u27Accuse: An Essay on Animus
Get PDFPosits that a President or other state actor who acts out of animus toward racial or religious minorities does not deserve constitutional protection under the plenary power doctrine or any other prerogative or immunity Such an actor acts ultra vires and deserves no greater judicial consideration than would an ordinary actor such as a grocer or backroom cler
Gorsuch v. the Administrative State Life after Scalia: Justice Gorsuch and Modern Textualism on the Supreme Court
Get PDFAnatomy of a scandal
No full textEmily Bestler Books. ; An astonishingly incisive and suspenseful novel about a scandal amongst Britain\u27s privileged elite and the women caught up in its wake. Sophie\u27s husband James is a loving father, a handsome man, a charismatic and successful public figure. And yet he stands accused of a terrible crime. Sophie is convinced he is innocent and desperate to protect her precious family from the lies that threaten to rip them apart. Kate is the lawyer hired to prosecute the case: an experienced professional who knows that the law is all about winning the argument. And yet Kate seeks the truth at all times. She is certain James is guilty and is determined he will pay for his crimes. Who is right about James? Sophie or Kate? And is either of them informed by anything more than instinct and personal experience? Despite her privileged upbringing, Sophie is well aware that her beautiful life is not inviolable. She has known it since she and James were first lovers, at Oxford, and she witnessed how easily pleasure could tip into tragedy. Most people would prefer not to try to understand what passes between a man and a woman when they are alone: alone in bed, alone in an embrace, alone in an elevator ... Or alone in the moonlit courtyard of an Oxford college, where a girl once stood before a boy, heart pounding with excitement, then fear. Sophie never understood why her tutorial partner Holly left Oxford so abruptly. What would she think, if she knew the truth? -- Provided by publisherhttps://scholarship.law.ua.edu/harper_lee_prize_books_2019/1023/thumbnail.jp
The trial and execution of the traitor George Washington: a novel
No full textBritish special agent Jeremiah Black, an officer of the King\u27s Guard, lands on a lonely beach in the wee hours of the morning in late November 1780. The revolution is in full swing but has become deadlocked. Black is here to change all that. His mission, aided by Loyalists, is to kidnap George Washington and spirit him back to London aboard the HMS Peregrine, a British sloop of war that is waiting closely offshore. Once he lands, though, the aid by Loyalists proves problematic because some would prefer just to kill the general outright. Black manages--just--to get Washington aboard the Peregrine, which sails away. Upon their arrival in London, Washington is imprisoned in the Tower to await trial on charges of high treason. England\u27s most famous barristers seek to represent him but he insists on using an American. He chooses Abraham Hobhouse, an American-born barrister with an English wife--a man who doesn\u27t really need the work and thinks the career-building case will be easily resolved through a settlement of the revolution and Washington\u27s release. But as greater political and military forces swirl around them and peace seems ever more distant, Hobhouse finds that he is the only thing keeping Washington from the hangman\u27s noose. Drawing inspiration from a rumored kidnapping plot hatched in 1776 by a member of Washington\u27s own Commander-in-Chief Guard, Charles Rosenberg has written a compelling novel that envisions what would take place if the leader of America\u27s fledgling rebellion were taken from the nation at the height of the war, imperiling any chance of victory. --Amazonhttps://scholarship.law.ua.edu/harper_lee_prize_books_2019/1017/thumbnail.jp
Nonmajority Opinions and Biconditional Rules
Get PDFIn Hughes v. United States, the Supreme Court will revisit a thorny question: how to determine the precedential effect of decisions with no majority opinion. For four decades, the clearest instruction from the Court has been the rule from Marks v. United States: the Court\u27s holding is the position taken by those Members who concurred in the judgments on the narrowest grounds. The Marks rule raises particular concerns, however, when it is applied to biconditional rules. Biconditionals are distinctive in that they set a standard that dictates both success and failure for a given issue. More formulaically, they combine an if-then proposition (If A, then B) with its inverse (If Not-A, then Not-B).
Appellate courts on both sides of the circuit split that prompted the grant of certiorari in Hughes have overlooked the special features of biconditional rules. If the Supreme Court makes the same mistake, it could adopt a misguided approach that would unjustifiably create binding law without a sufficient consensus among the Justices involved in the precedent- setting case. This Essay identifies these concerns and proposes ways to apply Marks coherently to non-majority opinions that endorse biconditional rules
Transborder Speech
Get PDFIn an increasingly globalized marketplace of ideas First Amendment theory and practice must recognize that the freedom of speech does not end at the water\u27s edge The foreign or domestic origin of speech and speakers alike cannot serve as a constitutionally permissible basis for government censorship of speech because as Alexander Meiklejohn explained to be afraid of ideas any idea is to be unfit for selfgovernment Thus the locus of expressive activity should not prefigure the government\u27s ability to engage in censorship Nevertheless under current First Amendment law and practice the accident of geography can and does serve as a constitutionally acceptable basis for contentbased censorship of speech Citizens United\u27s robust theory of audience autonomy rests in considerable tension with the Supreme Court\u27s abject deference to the government\u27s contentbased speech ban in Humanitarian Law Project This Article argues that this tension should be resolved by reliably affording transborder speech activity full and robust First Amendment protectionbrbrTransborder Speech constitutes part of a longer booklength project The Disappearing First Amendment which Cambridge University Press will be publishing in 2019 The book will show how in a variety of important contexts free speech rights have contracted rather than expanded under the Rehnquist and Roberts Courts Salient examples include First Amendment protection for transborder speech as well as the speech rights of government employees access to public property for expressive activities the speech rights of students and educators and news gathering and reporting activities The book posits that antipathy toward judicial discretion in free speech cases provides a partial explanation for the contemporary Supreme Court\u27s inconsistent protection of First Amendment rights as does a more general willingness to tether First Amendment rights to the ownership of propert
The shotgun lawyer
No full textPersonal injury attorney Peter Game has a reputation: cynical, untroubled by ethics, and willing to take any case, anytime, in his pursuit of the win. He dreams of a sweetheart score that\u27ll make his name and net him millions. Then comes the lightning rod: a school shooting just outside of Salt Lake City. His client: the devastated mother of one of the victims. What she wants is understandable--just not simple: to sue the manufacturers of the automatic weapon used in the mass killing. Game\u27s opponent, brilliant lawyer Brennen Garvin, is the least of his problems: the entire legal system, influenced by decades of pressure from powerful gun lobbies, is stacked against him. For Game, this is the case of a lifetime. He\u27s just not sure his trademark rules will work in his favor. And he\u27s not sure he wants them to. As Game\u27s lust for victory gives way to a hunger for justice, he could lose everything--or win back his soul. (goodreads.com)https://scholarship.law.ua.edu/harper_lee_prize_books_2019/1012/thumbnail.jp
A gambler\u27s jury
No full textWhat they’re doing to her client is a crime. Attorney Dani Rollins is bullish in the courtroom―pushing judges and prosecutors to their limits in defense of the innocent. So when she meets Teddy Thorne, a mentally challenged teen accused of selling drugs, Dani knows she’s got this in the bag. She can easily settle the case with a couple of court appearances. But when prosecutors move for an adult felony conviction, Dani suspects Teddy’s being used as a pawn in a sinister game. As the case moves forward, Dani is certain the judge and district attorney’s office have motivations beyond the crime―a fair trial isn’t in the cards. And when she takes on guardianship of Teddy, the case becomes personal as she fights her own demons and the government. Dani will stop at nothing to protect this innocent boy―there’s no other option. Because if she loses, both she and Teddy could lose far more than just the case…https://scholarship.law.ua.edu/harper_lee_prize_books_2019/1011/thumbnail.jp